04/04/2017 Newsnight


With Kirsty Wark. Did Assad use chemical weapons? Plus, Ken Livingstone is in the studio, superheroes and diversity and whether people will become slaves to the machine.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The finger of blame is pointed at Bashir Al Assad for a suspected


chemical weapons attack on the Syrian opposition town


in Idlib killing more than 50 people.


With Russia on his side and The White House stating that


defeating IS, not regime change in Syria, is their aim,


we'll ask Obama's chemical weapons expert - who can stop Assad?


Also tonight, Ken Livingstone is suspended from holding office


in the Labour Party for two years for stating that


What's he got to say about that and his punnishment tonight?


And, are fans of Marvel Comic books resistant to change?


It's 1960s Spiderman versus 2011 Spiderman.


Western governments seem to be in no doubt that President Bashir Al Assad


is responsible for what appears to be a deadly chemical weapons


attack in Idlib province which has killed dozens of people including


at least eleven children and injured hundreds more.


The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said if proved


The UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting tomorrow


If Assad is the culprit, something the Syrian regime denies,


then it is surely evidence that he believes he can act


with impunity not least because Russia is his ally,


and the White House has recently stated its priority is not removing


But today The White House pointed the finger of blame at Barak Obama


saying that "these heinous actions are a consequence of


the last administration's weakness and irresolution.


President Obama said in 2012 he would establish a red line


against the use of chemical weapons and then he did nothing."


Before we discuss the next move, if any against Assad,


here's John Sweeney on the dreadful events in Idlib.


And a word of warning: John's film contains some extremely distressing


To use chemical weapons is to break the rules of war.


Did a war crime happen morning in Syria?


To come to a judgment on that, this is some of


Much of it filmed by local activists.


People reported the sound of warplanes shortly after dawn.


In a village, 30 miles south of Idlib.


The prime suspect is sarin, a nerve agent, 20 times more


They foam at the mouth, their faces go bright red


Surgeon David Knott got in touch with a Syrian


hospital in Idlib today, 30 miles north of where the attack took


The Syrian doctor treated ten patients who were struggling to


We are looking at some photographs that were sent to me


this morning from this town in Idlib, which shows eight dead


children some of them are frothing at the mouth, some of them are in


I can see one boy whose arms are obviously flexed


and extended and that is the position that he died in.


What actually happens is that when the


muscles work, they work in 1 degree and then they do not relax.


When you take a deep breath in, you then


The muscle goes into paralysis, and it stays like


Are there any of these boys here, did they have frothing at the


One of them in the middle, you can see, his nose, he is


obviously cyanose, because he is sort


definite for at the mouth there and you know, it is a sign of


bronchospasm that he has been unable to take a deep breath in.


This is another photograph from today's


attack, showing foaming at the mouth.


One of the things that the nerve agents do is cause massive


So you get this massive production of


surfactant, then people are trying to breathe through it, it is a bit


like trying to breathe through soapy water.


So you get all of these bubbles formed as they tried to in hell and


exhale and this is why the foam appears at the mouth. So who did


this? The Assad regime has denied responsibility. Its supporters


suggesting that a rebel chemical factory exploded. Is this likely? I


think it is very unlikely. At this stage, much requires answering. We


have no idea where the chemicals came from. Syria has signed a treaty


forbidding the use of chemical weapons. Syria signed this treaty


and it ought to be respecting the law, but the evidence suggests it is


not, so somebody has to be accountable. And after this latest


incident which if you like is a step change up again from the use of


chlorine, this suggests that the regime perhaps is feeling emboldened


in some way that it can use these things with impunity and that should


not be allowed. The regime has previous four using sarin. The


village is in territory held by rebels that oppose Assad but not


Islamic State. Their capital is almost 200 miles away. In 2013, the


regime used her nerve agent south-east of Damascus killing


hundreds. How likely is the prospect of an effective international


action? There has been a recent shift in Syria among activists. Some


countries like Turkey, they are busy with their own domestic issues,


other countries like Saudi Arabia are more involved in other countries


like Yemen. When it comes to international players, there has


been a shift, the latest one was announced by the US recently when


they said that Assad is not a priority and changing the regime is


not a priority. That made Assad more comfortable. Last week the Trump


Administration seemed to suggest that regime change was now off the


table. I think the status and the longer term status of President


Assad will be decided by the Syrian people. Faced with compelling


evidence of a war crime, local people did their best. They poured


water on the nerve agent victims. It won't have done much good, but still


more than the efforts of the international community. John


Swinney reporting there. Well, we did ask the US


Administration for an interview Earlier, I interviewed Gary Samore,


who was President Obama's expert I asked him what he made


of today's pictures. As best as I can tell


from the symptoms of the victims, it looks very much like a sarin gas


attack, so either they have retained some sarin gas,


did not fully declare it and allow it to be destroyed or they have


produced some fresh sarin gas since the disarmament agreement


was implemented in 2014. Now, the White House says that this


attack is a kind of direct infringement of Barack Obama's red


line policy, that he instituted and Well it is certainly true that


President Obama was not prepared to use direct US military force


in order to hasten the overthrow And it is the survival of the Assad


regime which leads to these And now the fighting is in Idlib


province and I think we can expect to see more instances of chemical


weapons use as the Syrian regime begins to retake


territory from rebels that So essentially, Bashar al-Assad


can act with impunity and you have the White House saying


that regime change for them is not on the agenda in Syria,


their main target is IS. So, there is no stopping


Bashar al-Assad, is there? I mean, the Trump Administration


tried to pass a sanctions resolution in February of this year,


to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons,


but Russia and China vetoed it. So I would expect a pretty similar


scenario to play out. There will be probably a UN


investigation of some kind, most likely concluding


that the Syrian government has once again used chemical weapons,


the US and its European allies will try to pass a sanctions


resolution and it will be blocked The Russians are saying


that they knew nothing about this. Do you think that actually


there will come a point where the Kremlin thinks that Assad


is just too much trouble At this point I think the Russians


are committed to a peace settlement that would allow Assad to retain


control for the time being. The Russians might quietly exert


pressure to limit the use of chemical weapons,


because I think it is an embarrassment to Moscow,


but I think it is pretty clear that Assad must feel that he has license


to make limited use of chemical weapons on the battlefield,


without much fear of the Russians abandoning him or the US or other


countries taking military But when these absolutely dreadful


pictures are beamed around the world, is there anyone,


any way that Assad will ever So there may come a day at some


point in the future where Assad and people around him are held


accountable, but at least in the near term, I think


it is quite unlikely. The US under Trump, frankly as under


Obama are focusing on the battle against Islamic State,


to remove them from Raqqa and as I said, the UN is paralysed


because of divisions among the permanent members and nobody


else is prepared to take action. In fact, the trend seems to be


in the direction of not supporting the Syrian rebels,


including Turkey and others, they I think for the time being,


the Assad government Joining me now from Brussels, where


a conference on the reconstruction of Syria has in fact been taking


place today, is Assaad Al Achi, a Syrian civil society activist


and Executive Director of an NGO which tries to promote democratic


change in the country. Good evening to you. Good evening.


Who do you think all is the responsibility for what happened?


There is only one side in this conflict that has sarin gas and has


used it previously and that is the Assad regime, so there is no doubt


to us, the chemical attack this morning was the responsibility of


the Assad regime. The US Department of State has issued a statement


tonight, the Secretary of State says, as a self-proclaimed guarantor


to this ceasefire negotiated, Russia and Iran also bear a great moral


responsibility for these deaths. Do you think there is any chance that


the Americans might begin to take a more proactive position? Reading the


different statements that came from the White House and from the


Secretary of State, there were strong words of condemnation, but


that is as far as it got. Even the issue of accountability was not


addressed properly, so we are slightly disappointed that there was


not a strong commitment to holding whomever committed this atrocious


attack this morning accountable and to ending making sure that these


attacks did not happen again and I am not sure that playing on the


morality of Russia or Iran will lead anywhere. You might have heard Gary


St.Moritz they're saying that there is really no one who can stop Bashar


al-Assad. I would believe, as leaders of the free world, I am sure


that there is some way they can find a mechanism to stop someone who is


perpetrating not only war crimes but also crimes against humanity. The UN


Security Council resolution gives them that mechanism and a different


resolution, states that if the Syrian government ever uses chemical


weapons again, chapter seven sanctions can be imposed


automatically, so the only thing we are asking is for the full


implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions. You, as a


member of the moderate opposition in Syria, you find that you are


increasingly being marginalised from the picture, you do not have any


purchase? Well, we are still the voice of the victims and the voice


of the people and that is what we are trying to elevate, protecting


the people of Syria from all sides, all the people of Syria, remains our


priority and we will do whatever it takes to make sure that that


protection will be provided at one point. Thank you for joining us from


Brussels tonight. In what increasingly appears to be


one of the longest sagas of all time, former Mayor


of London Ken Livingstone was suspended from holding office


within the Labour Party tonight for a further year, after claiming


that the Nazi leader supported A meeting of the party's


National Consitutional Committee found that he had breached


the party's rules - he had engaged in conduct


that was detrimental to the party. Many expected him to be


kicked out entirely. Our political editor, Nick Watt,


is here with the details. As she was saying, Labour's national


constitutional committee after long the earnings have made this decision


that Ken Livingstone broke Labour Party rules and recharges and he has


been suspended from standing for public office as a Labour candidate


and standing for office within the party. This is a two year suspension


but because he has already faced administrative suspension for a


year, this will last until the end of April 2018. Ken Livingstone had


expected he would be expelled altogether from the Labour Party,


but he is facing the lesser sanction, a suspension from holding


office, and he suggested this evening that his barrister Michael


Mansfield QC had successfully argued that he had not made anti-Semitic


remarks. What is the background to this? It dates back to a BBC radio


interview to Vanessa Feltz last year, in which he said the Labour MP


Naz Shah had been over the top, but not anti-Semitic, when she shared a


Facebook page suggesting that Israel should be moved to the US, and she


had written, problem solved. Naz Shah shared this post before she


became an MP in 2015. In that interview with Vanessa Feltz, Ken


Livingstone went on to suggest that Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism


because of the home for an agreement of 1933, although he did not say


that in that interview, between the Zionist Federation of Germany and


the Nazi Germany. And this allowed thousands of German Jews to migrate


to the British mandate of Palestine. And it appears that the central


defence of Mr Livingstone today was that he was not saying in that


interview that Hitler was a Zionist, he was saying that Hitler supported


Zionism, and he says those do not amount to anti-Semitic remarks.


Thank you very much. Well, Ken Livingstone


is here with me. Also here is Labour MP


Wes Streeting, who has been critical of both Mr Livingstone


and the Labour Party's Good evening, both. Ken Livingstone,


you thought you were going to be expelled and you have had a lucky


escape. I think that the Labour Party's barrister and lawyer were


probably saying to them, if you expelled Ken Livingstone, he goes to


judicial review and you have no chance of winning. You can have all


sorts of arguments, but I did not say that Hitler was a Zionist.


Labour MPs like John Mann said I said Hitler was Zionist, you had Wes


Streeting saying I had a problem with anti-Semitism. On the Jewish


Chronicle, it said that I said Jews were like novices, this is


outrageous. I know that fake news is the big thing. What is it feel like


to be in the same party as Ken Livingstone the night, Wes


Streeting? We said the Labour Party will take a zero tolerance approach


to anti-Semitism and today was an opportunity to demonstrate the live


up to that promise and we have blown it, because the Labour Party's


process has conceded that Ken has brought the Labour Party into


disrepute. They're in mind that the Labour MP he was defending, the


remarks he was defending, were accepted by Naz Shah as


anti-Semitic. She is a new model of how to respond when you make remarks


where you do not understand the impact of your words and you


apologise for them come learn from it. She has undertaken to become a


leading campaigner in the fight against anti-Semitism. Ken,


uninvited, decided to wade into the debate and defend the remarks that


she accepted were anti-Semitic, and has brought the Labour Party into


disrepute. And he has since displayed a bizarre fascination with


a tiny part of World War II history. There is a website counting the


number of days since Ken last mentioned Hitler and it comes up on


the Labour Party does not take people like Ken seriously. You are


no stranger to controversy, Ken Livingstone, and it has been in the


past water off a dog's back. You are tainted now and you will not come


back in any meaningful way to the Labour Party in any form of office


Comedy Works act? When I lost a Boris Johnson in 2012, I made clear


that broadly that was the end of my career. I campaign for the Labour


Party, but my wife has become a teacher and I am a househusband. Is


that it's the end of your political career? I did not look for a seat at


the last election and I did not ask for Ed Miliband but in the House of


Lords. You have been supportive of Jeremy Corbyn and apparently you


have been damaging on the doorstep so you are damaging Jeremy Corbyn. I


am not damaging, when I was suspended, I could not walk down the


street 400 saying, virtually the first person said, I am a Jewish


woman, do not -- do they not read the history? The problem is if you


look at the chairman of the board of British Jews giving evidence to the


House of Commons, he said for Ken Livingstone to say Hitler was a


Zionist was deeply offensive. There was a series of lies and smears but


if I said Hitler was a Zionist, it would not just apologise, Edward


basque if this was a sign of dementia. He loathed and feared Jews


but he did a deal with the Zionists. If they had not moved to Palestine,


they would have died in the gas chambers with us. Would this appear


to be the end of the matter or not? We are meant to be launching


Labour's campaign for local elections today and instead of


talking about the big issues, we are talking about Ken's bizarre


fascination with the 1930s and it is damaging the Labour Party and its


reputation. Ken has form going back to his second term as Mayor of


London, whether it was the offensive remarks made to a Jewish reporter at


the Evening Standard or suggesting Jews were not voting Labour any more


because they had voted -- because they had become wealthy. He has for


making remarks that offend the Jewish community and ten years


later, his name comes up on the doorstep of my constituency because


he brings the Labour Party into disrepute. If you believe the post


on your website, why did you as great a campaign for you in the


general election? We were walking round your constituency together.


You did not come anywhere near my constituency during the general


election and you would never be welcome in my constituency. When I


stood as a council candidate in 2010, you campaigned for me then,


but you are not welcome in my constituency. He would not be


welcomed by Jewish voters in my constituency and I will not be drawn


into this vendetta you have against me. The point I am making is that


your poor judgment, your crass remarks and a lack of apology brings


the Labour Party into disrepute. It is losing is votes hand over fist,


it is morally wrong. You continue to go ahead unrepentant. 39 Labour MPs


that date were tweeting I was anti-Semitic and I should be


suspended, I said Hitler was a map -- a Zionist. You created a storm.


Can I dost ask, do you accept that you had poor judgment over the way


you dealt with this, in the sense you may talk about the fact Jewish


people support you, but you have offended a lot of people? Do you


accept that and apologise question but if anybody is upset, of course I


am sorry. I am not going to apologise for something I did not


say, I did not say Hitler was a Zionist. He said he supported


Zionism in the 1930s, do you apologise for saying that? I have a


Jewish newspaper with an article confirming what I said was true. You


have offended certain members of the Jewish community, do you apologise


for the offence you have caused? If anybody is upset, I am sorry, but


check what I said because I cannot tell you the number of Jewish people


who said, we know what you said was true. People are not stupid, we


heard what you said and you are damaging the Labour Party. Thank you


very much. No-one is ever alone


on the internet. You may be familiar with the idea


that tech companies are watching your every click,


or that criminal hackers are probing every chance


to empty your bank account. Let us add another nefarious cyber


sprite to your nightmares - the bot. At the moment, this is a harmless


little slave that helps us do drudge work, but perhaps it could be


the early precursor of a terrifying new world, where the relationship


is reversed and humans become A study of how bots interact


with each other has thrown up some Here's our technology


editor, David Grossman. And off goes the aluminium tail,


and that is absolutely crucial! Robots battling for supremacy


makes a great spectacle. But on the internet,


other less dramatic battles are taking place between not


robots, but bots. These bots don't have a physical


form, just a few hundreds These bots don't have a physical


form, just a few hundred They are digital minions,


set to work to do a specific task. They're used extensively


on Wikipedia to do There is a lot of deadly boring work


that we don't want to do. You don't want to check


the spelling of every word, the URL or the links of every page,


say, in Wikipedia. You don't want to make sure that


everything is properly formatted, that the copyright of that


picture is correct. That someone has updated one


page for another page That is really the work


of an enslaved individual, if it had to be done by you or me,


so I'm very happy to delegate that to little things called


bots that do it for me, But all is not peace


and harmony in bot-land. At the Oxford Internet Institute,


they've studied how these bots interact and found they often come


into conflict, escalating petty disputes into all-out wars


that can last years. Particularly on Wikipedia,


we did not expect to see lots of conflicts and fights


between bots because bots are designed based on the same


technology, and are designed based And they have the same goal,


and that's to improve So all the ingredients


are there to have a very peaceful However, what we observed -


and it was the most striking and the most surprising result


for us - that we see Bots go to war over trivial pedantry


like, what is the correct name A pair of Wikipedia bots -


one called Darkness Bot, the other called XQ Bot -


went to war over whether this is called Aston Villa


or Aston Villa Football Club. Now, outside some high-stakes


pub-quiz hell, most humans probably would agree to differ,


but a bot can't back down. And the pair did and re-did


and undid each other's edits thousands of times over


a period of years. Personally, the most surprising


thing was to realise that one of the American founding fathers,


James Madison, was wrong. He thought that we need law


because humans are not all angels. Even when bots are friendly


and want to build together, they still need rules,


to be able to cooperate. So we realised - or,


at least, I realised - that without that kind


of infrastructure, there's sort of an infra-ethical perspective, er,


even the best of all good wills At the moment, this is just simple


bots going to war over petty Wikipedia edits,


but do they hint at One academic believes it may


already be too late. In AI, we've unleashed


a Darwinian replicator, like a digital DNA, that can be


copied, can be varied and selections made from those variations,


all independently of us. Lots of us tend to think


of ourselves as, you know, we humans made all this machinery,


therefore we're in control of it. But that's simply not true,


once you've let loose this It's all getting on


for its own purposes. You know, we're not any longer


the creators, controllers, Just as a few fluffy rabbits


released on a paradise island may seem harmless enough at first,


could this new replicator rapidly overtake our ability


to control it, ending up We might end up like


the mitochondria in our bodies. You know, they were free-living


bacteria that got absorbed into other bacteria and became sort


of energy-producing slaves, and they gave up most


of their own activities and just live inside other cells


and produce energy for them. It's a scary analogy but,


potentially, if we don't come to understand things better,


the whole thing will explode so much that we will


literally be doing that - just producing machinery and energy


for the cyber world, which will be evolving way out


of our knowledge. For humans, the idea


of bots arguing is amusing. These chat bots, designed to talk


intelligently to humans, were set up to talk to each other


by researchers at They rapidly began


squabbling about religion Not everything could


also be something. For example, not everything


could be half of something, which is still something,


and therefore not nothing. So laugh, by all means,


but remember, they are getting smarter and more powerful,


as we get more dependent How do you like your


comic book superhero? Are you stuck in the 1960s


with Peter Parker, the amazing - and white - Spiderman,


or are you in the 2010s with black, hispanic Miles Morales,


the Ultimate Spider Man? At the weekend, Marvel Comics' sales


boss seemed to admit that when it came to the company's push


to reimagine their A List of comic characters with a modern ethnic


and gender diversity, the buying public were


turning up their noses. And this is a problem that punches


far above its weight, because today's hit Marvel comic


is next decade's blockbuster movie. Superheroes have enjoyed


their greatest popularity Escapism sells, so Marvel owned


by Disney has worked hard at changing the men behind the mask


to appeal to millennial fans In 2011, the mixed-race teenager


Miles Morales became Spiderman and in 2014,


Jane Foster became the latest Thor, and Kamala Khan,


a Pakistani American In 2016, 16-year-old Riri Williams,


took over the Iron Man But are these reboots driving away


the core comic book fans? This weekend, a senior Marvel


executive David Gabriel appeared We saw the sales of any


character that was diverse, any character that was new,


our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel


character, people were turning


their nose up against. He rode back after the furore,


but the damage was done. In 2014, nine out of ten bestsellers


were Marvel superhero comics, but last year, after the major


character revamp, Marvel had just three in the top ten,


so clearly something is going on. Perhaps this is just


about sheer comic numbers, between October 2015 and February


this year, Marvel launched an astonishing 104 new titles,


so perhaps it is not surprising that But for Marvel, the real money


is not in comics any more, Their Luke Cage series on Netflix


is pretty much the only example of diversity


in the Marvel live-action stable. The question is, will the movies


catch up with the comics We asked Marvel for a statement


and while they stated that Mr Gabriel had been taken out


of context, they did not give Joining me from New York


is comic book critic and freelance writer,


J A Micheline. Benny Potter, who hosts a popular


YouTube channel on comic books, Good evening. Do you think that


Marvel does have a problem with diversity? Marvel does have a


problem with diversity but not the problem they think they have. The


problem they have is literally that they cannot commit to the audience


they are trying to build, even in the rhetoric that you seek Mr


Gabriel is using in terms of defining them as the core audience


or group, that suggest that the people they are marketing to are


actually pretty much straight white men but if you are trying to


actually expand your audience and bring them different heroes,


different people with people of different genders and ethnic groups


but you're still marketing to the same people, then you're not really


trying. Benny Potter would you accept that Marvel is not really


trying to do diversity in a wave that is meaningful and actually


comes into the core of the comics? Benny. I actually agree with that. A


lot of the new diverse stories in my opinion are really incredible but


they just kind of rushed out trying to catch on to the diversity think


instead of easing the characters into the old core fan base and I


feel they are just backing out too early. Now that they have done it,


they are not letting it go all the way through. What about the first


Muslim superhero to have her own name? Do you think that she will be


a big seller? It does not appear to be so. She is one of the more


popular characters, Kamala Khan. Some of her stories are some of the


best ones that have been put out in recent years. In that case, what do


you think the right strategy should be, given that, by and large, it is


not about the comics, it is about the movies to come. They have to bed


these things down and what is the best way to go about it? The best


way to go about it is to actually commit to building a broader


audience and that would be breaking things down to the very basic level.


For example, the way the comics are distributed to something called the


direct market and the way that works is basically that the only things


that count towards sales are the things that matter are the comics


that are pre-ordered three months in advance. To you or to a random


person who does not know anything about comics, they will say to


themselves, I saw the Black Panther movie, how do I get that book? If


they went to Waterstones they could buy it trade but would not matter,


the only way for it to matter is for them to go to a comic book shop and


pre-order the book three months in advance and then their purchase


counts. All of these complications pretty much mean that new readers


are alienated from the process in terms of having their voices heard


and it requires them to go through a kind of system that is traditionally


alienating traditional white males to begin with. Talking about a more


traditional view, does it matter if people prefer Captain America, does


that matter if they are buying comics in sufficient numbers? I am


sorry, I miss the question. On the question of what you might say is


the traditional old-fashioned white male audience, does it matter if


what they want is captain America if Captain America creates big sales?


It does not really matter if they want Captain America, I don't think


I understand that as a question. Are you saying the people want to go out


and buy it? If you have a white Captain America and people buy that,


that does not matter, it is not just about diversity, it is about what


sells Marvel Comics? Yes, and that is part of the issue, the books need


to sell and in my opinion, they did not ease the audience into a lot of


these characters, instead of going through a period with the legacy


characters train these new individuals, they just tried to be


like, the comic book is coming out in three months. The thing is that


Marvel Comics launched 104 comics last year and one quarter failed, it


is all about the sale models and of the cell model does not work, then


you're not going to have this variety of characters, are you? It


is a question of what you mean by if the sales are not working. Charles


Paul Hoffman did some great journalism in terms of looking at


the actual numbers and he basically found that even out of the top ten


selling Marvel Comics, only three of them are what you would actually


consider diversity which is really just characters that are


marginalised people. The rest of them are your standard white male


characters and those are the ones that have seen the lowest sales in


terms of the biggest drops. I did both very much indeed.


Now, Viewsnight - our regular chance to voice


often difficult and - to some - unpalatable thoughts.


Tonight, the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari argues that


Fearmongers are more dangerous than terrorists.


Since 2000, terrorists have killed fewer than


During the same period, obesity-related diseases killed


So why do we fear terrorists more than we fear fried bacon?


Terrorists stage a frightening spectacle of violence that


captures our imagination and turns it against us.


Terrorists kill a handful of people and cause millions


In order to calm these fears, governments react with a show


of security, orchestrating immense displays of force, such


as the persecution of entire populations or the invasion


Usually it is this overreaction to terrorism that threatens


the peace of the world, more than the terrorists themselves.


Terrorists are like a fly that tries to destroy a china shop.


The fly is so weak, it cannot move even a single teacup.


So the fly finds a bull, gets inside its ear and starts buzzing.


The bull goes wild, with anger and fear and destroys


This is what happened in the Middle East after 9/11.


Islamic fundamentalists incited the United States to destroy


Now, they flourish in the wreckage and there is no lack of short


The success or failure of terrorism really depends on us.


If we allow the terrorists to capture our imagination and then


react to our own fears, terrorism will succeed.


If we free our imagination from the terrorists and react


in a balanced and cool way, terrorism will fail.


A lot of flashing images follow now, as we leave you at the University


of Tokyo, where they know a thing or two about cameras and projectors.


A group there have built an image projector that can do


a thousand frames per second, with ultra high speed tracking


What on earth does that matter or even mean?


Well perhaps a demonstration from Japan's Ayabambi dancers will help.


Remember, this system is tracking the dancers' faces and projecting


images onto them live and in real life - it's not a special effect.


Hello there. It looks like it will be a chilly start for southernmost


counties but at least we will see some sunshine. Make the most of it,


it will cloud over from the north. There will be very little


Download Subtitles