Since the forum is still running, I will write a short comment in hindsight about judging. The biggest shortcoming of this forum is that it did not involve political comments or points of view about terrorism in some way (maybe in a depoliticized form here and there, but mainly abstract if any). It was all about the judging, and indirectly how each participant might be judged through the postings made to the forum. In the end, this forum points to the self-centeredness that is part of all artists -- and all people for that matter. This is perhaps the biggest obstacle everyone needs to overcome in order to make time for rhetorical growth. All participants were so concerned with who to vote for that the main purpose of developing a healthy discussion about politics fell through. Or maybe this was never the purpose, but this is what I considered the basic premise in the beginning based on the introductory curatorial statements. This is truly a shame, and we are all guilty of this short-coming. No exceptions. Unfortunately, maybe "art is garbage after Auschwitz". This forum may be enough proof for that statement to resonate louder now than before. Eduardo Navas http://www.navasse.net/

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2002 at 20:51

"Conspiracy" theories only go so far. In the end these are not constructive and only lead to deceptive one-sided conclusions. If one decides to use terms such as "power structures" in combination with one sided conspiracy theories, then the failure of such positioning falls short through the transparency of its oxymoronic foundation. And those endorsing such concepts end up being judged through the very same structure which they aim to effectively critique. The issues behind 9/11 are more complex than claiming that the real enemy is the theatrical hero. Power structures are much more complex than that. Eduardo Navas

Sunday, October 27th, 2002 at 19:25

Again we slip into name-calling - ah, the shortcomings of this Forum... Calling something a "conspiracy theory" has become a way to discredit the speaker without arguing about his points. If (for example) internal, classified FBI documents, collected by a award-winning investigative journalist, showing they were being stopped "from above" from investigating a terrorist group, means nothing as soon as you call it conspiracy theory, there's something wrong with the notion; and with the discreditor's perception. "One person's terrorist is another's guerilla, and still another's patriot. One person's battle for liberation is another's struggle against occupation, and another's terrorism. And one person's conspiracy theory is another's statement of the facts." - Stephen Gowans "They like to call me a conspiracy theorist, which is fine as long as you call everyone else a coincidence theorist" - John Judge "The information is a hand grenade." - John Pilger

Wednesday, October 30th, 2002 at 03:33

let take your own quote to expose the limitations of the approach: One person's terrorist is another's guerilla, and still another's patriot. One person's battle for liberation is another's struggle against occupation, and another's terrorism. And one person's conspiracy theory is another's statement of the facts." - Stephen Gowans ______________ If we consider the above for a moment, extreme one sided opinions are effectively exposed. It comes down to politics, obviously. The real question lies in how such acts are being justified, that is what kind of platform is being used to present these actions as heroic by one side and terrorist by the other. The fact that governments have worked with guerrillas/terrorists/activists/idealists/etc. in the past, which they later work against does not necessarily mean either is completely corrupt, as such associations are based on power-issues which transcend basic ethics, while claiming ethical ground to work on. Each side is trying to benefit from the situation, and when things do not work out, these often work against each other. If both sides think of each other as good vs. evil automatically, as opposed to power entities which will need to work out their differences, then this immediately gives them permission to do whatever is necesssary in order to let the greater good prevail (which of-course is always the side one is on). One thing I should point out is that the subversive groups working with governments are often seen as incidental, and this presents them as David vs. Goliath. The little guy can be seen as good, while the big guy can be seen as evil. This is the undercurrent myth that needs to be re-evaluated. With this in mind it can be said that imperialism is obviously a major player in the current political game, that is powerful countries are seen as dangerous by smaller countries due to the corporate power which backs them up, and that these are often willing to take advantage of less developed countries as long as possible. This has happened in the past enough times to say that it is a lamentable manifestation of late capital. A better approach than pointing the finger is needed. Think of it this way: if at one point two people where friends and then they become enemies, and start to work against each other, that does not necessarily mean that neither one is right nor wrong -- it simply means that their disagreements has led to conflict. Now, the real problem lies when one of them denies or tries to state that they have never been friends with the other person, then we are dealing with hypocrisy. That is a problem that should be exposed, but not with the idea that the hypocritical person is automatically evil. After-all, She is trying to keep her power, and do good for herself and those she cares or claims to care for, and so is the former ally. It comes to power-shifts, and this is beyond ethics. This is the reason why theories which simply point the finger can be problematic. I am not saying that the reports you proposed are not true, but that the eye with which these are presented have a one sided point of view, which is not really constructive but more interested in presenting "the real evil". It is this finger pointing which leads to terrible events such as 9/11. To state that one is right and the other is wrong is an excuse to essentialize a position and give oneself permission to do as needed in order to prove a subjective point. The best thing to do is try to understand the reasoning behind the power-structure in order to improve the over-all system, not just part of it. I think the real questions lie behind the fluctuations of power-relations, and realize that economics play a bigger role than ethics. And move from there. I will leave you with a quote by Gayatri Spivak, where she is denied leaving England after visiting as a lecturer with an Indian passport and an American Visa coming from Canada. (You decide who is "David and Goliath" here): "... I was supposed to take the airplane from Heathrow on Sunday. Air Canada says to me: 'we can't accept you.' I said: 'why?' and she said: 'You need a visa to go to Canada.' I said: 'look here, I am the same person, the same passport... ' Indian cultural identity right? But you become different. When it is from London, Indians can very well want to jump ship to Canada; I need a visa to travel from London to Canada on the same passport, but not from the United States. To cut a long story short,[...] I had to stay another day, and telephone Canada and tell them that I could not give my seminar. I said to the woman finally before I left, in some bitterness: 'Just let me tell you one small thing: Don't say "we can't accept you" that sounds very bad from one human being to another; next time you should say: "The regulations are against it"; then we are both victims.'" Peace, Eduardo Navas http://www.navasse.net/ Peace,

Wednesday, October 30th, 2002 at 13:25

Eduardo While i agree with your expertise, I don't see where i was pointing fingers or saying "one side" is right and other wrong... nor do i see any "sides" in what i was saying... I don't justify any violent acts, be it from "real" terrorists, or from state-sponsored ones... To me, "the fact that governments have worked with guerrillas/terrorists/activists/idealists/etc. in the past, which they later work against" means they are BOTH corrupt, rather than neither, "as such associations are based on power-issues which transcend basic ethics"; because basic ethics is not something that can be transcended - only betrayed. "Transcendence" of basic ethics is exactly what's keeping humanity in vicious circle of terror, war and slavery. The point of my oversimplified statement about terrorism, and indeed of my work submitted here is just to try to communicate some facts which i deem important for understanding the issue, facts that are lost in the unprecedented storm of mainstream-media propaganda of present day. I don't claim it's the whole truth, but i think it is an important part of it; but a part against disclosure of which many millions of dollars are invested daily - and i'm just doing my best to try to counter that, using my creativity... Karo http://arkzin.com/competitor/

Wednesday, October 30th, 2002 at 16:01

I already explained the shortcomings behind conspiracy theories, due to their one-sideness. You say you agree with my statements, then why state the following in your original response: ____________________ Terrorism? Personally, i believe that "terrorism by terrorists", in the meaning of fight against power, is a thing of the past and may have included a first few plane hijackings in 70ies, and occasional bomb by IRA or Basque groups; but since, and espec. lately, terrorism itself has been hijacked by power structures to create pretext for oppression, control and stomping out dissent. Islamic fundamentalists (including Al Qaeda) and latin-american militias are by and large trained and financed by CIA; Hamas was established and financed by the State of Israel. It is known that Osama bin Laden used to work for CIA. There is no proof that they split and became enemies, besides their own statements. If you want to know when a next terrorist attack will happen, you don't need to have connections in terrorist "cells", but in high power structures - because by now, it happens literary "on-demand" _________________ my response: What exactly is being implied here? That U.S. and Bin Laden are really working together -- even now? To what goal? Why would fundamentalists be willing to work with a government they publicly claim to be evil? What are the foundations of such statements? The fact that a journalist is stopped by a government from investigating can be based on many reasons. Mainly because the government would not want to look corrupt -- maybe because it actually supported actions by terrorists when it was beneficial for the government to do so. Most people would not understand this, and so of course it is best to stop any embarrasment if possible. Sure this means corruption may be at hand, but until the proof is brought out, the worst that can be done is speculate about a conspiracy. Hence, my comment on you original post. You also used the quotes: __________________________ "One person's terrorist is another's guerilla, and still another's patriot. One person's battle for liberation is another's struggle against occupation, and another's terrorism. And one person's conspiracy theory is another's statement of the facts." - Stephen Gowans ___________________________ My response: I previously commented on these quotes because you chose to present them as proof of justified positioning. The roles represented here are based on political necessities, and the oppositions are played out according to what each side wants. The downside of such a situation is that the assigned names are based on a call to social justice of some sort -- which justifies each position to claim to be right and the other to be wrong. If you notice, I ended my post with a quote by Spivak where she addresses another woman who denied her boarding a plane to Canada: "I said to the woman finally before I left, in some bitterness: 'Just let me tell you one small thing: Don't say "we can't accept you" that sounds very bad from one human being to another; next time you should say: "The regulations are against it"; then we are both victims.' " Let's look at it this way: We are all born into some ethnic group. We can not help that. We live our lives with the priviledges and limitations such ethnicity brings about. If one is born white, then a power position is at hand, if one is born black, brown, yellow... then a marginal position is at hand. This is not immediately the case, as social class and type of education plays a role in marginalization as well. But by enlarge a white person has powerplay in western culture. With this in mind, notice that Spivak did not attack the woman that denied her exiting England. Spivak could have said "You are a bigot, nothing but a racist", etc. She could have attacked the woman personally based on any of the quotes you presented ("One person's battle for liberation is another's struggle against occupation, and another's terrorism"). Spivak could have taken the position your quotes propose, but instead she decided to expose the power structure the woman endorsed and had actually internalized to a degree of using the word "we." What this does is bring a questioning of prejuidice in a constructive way. The woman may have realized that she was actually also subjected to the same power structure as Spivak, but her positioning at the moment was to permit or not permit exiting and entering England. The main problem is that the woman took on the role personally, that is stating: "we can not accept you." Who is "we" exactly? The nation of England? The corporation at the airport? who? The woman may not be clear about her usage of "we," as Spivak states later in her interview that the woman did not know what to reply, simply because an Indian woman (Spivak) is not expected to speak to an white woman with such a tone. What I am getting at here with this example is that people play roles within power structures based on personal gain, while not really understanding how that role functions in terms of the bigger structure. The key is to understand the perceptions of ones position according to the naturalized dogma, and how to problematize such doctrine in order to outproduce it in a way similar to Spivak's method above. Perhaps only then can we hope to start understanding the differences within differences, and not simply endorse statements based on "us" vs. "them" narratives. Peace, Eduardo Navas. http://www.navasse.net/

Thursday, October 31st, 2002 at 00:15

unfortunaltely i am writing these things quickly in the only time i have for this, which is by the morning coffee, before i rush off to work > What exactly is being implied here? That U.S. and Bin Laden are really > working together -- even now? To what goal? Why would fundamentalists be > willing to work with a government they publicly claim to be evil? Take Hamas for example. I'm not implying that sucide bombers are working for Israeli government - they are genuinely believing they are doing that as a desperate fight for the freedom of Palestinian people - otherwise they wouldn't give their lives in doing so. But they don't sit home untill they decide to take a bomb and wonder off in the crowd - they are trained by an organization (Hamas), encouraged and guided by it, sent to places decided by the organization, in times decided by it. And if a few key figures in Hamas ARE working for government (pardon, secret services), that's be enough for the goverment (pardon, secret services) to be able to control the bombings and have them performed where and WHEN needed. And the fact is that "terrorist attacks" suit Ariel Sharon very much, because it gives him the excuse for prolonged and increased occupation and destruction, which is obviously his favurite activity. He has a motive (occupation); he has a means (see the mentioned article about origins of Hamas); and he certainly has a personality twisted enough to do it* - to me that's enough to reasonably believe he's really doing it. > The fact that a journalist is stopped by a government from investigating < again, you got it wrong - it wasn't the journalist who was stopped - it was FBI agents who were stopped from investigating a terrorist organization; journalist only found about it. If you took time to read the article, you wouldn't mix up the main point. One more thing, since you're mentioning "conspiracy theories" again - tell me in what way is the Osama-did-it theory NOT a conspiracy theory? It is only an OFFICIAL conspiracy theory. People keep saying "CIA is not able to pull it off" (9/11) - no, highly trained secret-service organization with unimaginable resources is not able, but a group of fanatics in caves across the globe are?? Maybe even they are, but even then only because the caves and everything in them WAS built by CIA.... Karo * if you don't see that (Sharon's personality) we might as well end the discussion here... "Today's people are usually excelent judges of produsts and services, but not of human character" - Zeljko Malnar

Thursday, October 31st, 2002 at 03:47

You corrected me: >> The fact that a journalist is stopped by a government from investigating >again, you got it wrong - it wasn't the journalist who was stopped - it was FBI agents who were stopped from investigating a terrorist organization; journalist only found about it. If you took time to read the article, you wouldn't mix up the main point. > I actually misunderstood your contextualization in the reply. Sorry about that, though I did notice the video mentioning the FBI agents. As to Sharon, or any other propositions of power manipulations, I am only claiming to be skeptical. A large part of believeabiltity often lies in how the information is presented; and while your arguments are consise, some of the articles you cite are extremely biased. This is what I was pointing to in my arguments, your sources. Unfortunately, such sources if too one sided can only work against your position. That is what I was getting at. And we do not need to end the conversation, as I admit it has been interesting up to this point. Though I think we have come to some conclusion on each side implicitly. Best, Eduardo Navas

Thursday, October 31st, 2002 at 04:10

> I am only claiming to be skeptical Exactly. And i'm not claiming - i AM skeptical (joke - i know what you wanted to say) Let me try to explain why i am skeptical, and of what. I don't have a life-long history of being interested in any of this. Lifelong-wise, creativity and exploration of my talents is the only thing that is there form the begining. Interest in "spiritual" and ethical side of life that came after my adolescence was the only major thing that came to me which wasn't connected to drawing, music, poetry and creativity in general. From that, for example, comes my statement about basic ethics. Politics or anything connected to it was never of any interest to me; no more than e.g. sports or cars, a complete disintrest in which always separated me from most of my peers. But living in Balkans, in the last decade of 20th century life presented me with a war - the country in which i was born (Tito's Yugoslavia) fell apart, and of the remains, the country in which i studied at the moment (present-day Yugoslavia) attacked the country in which i went to live after the studies, Croatia (to put it over-simply). Now, war is not something you can choose to ignore or "not be interested in" - it's all around you, it disrupts your life heavily, it kills your friends and family, and can kill you if you're uncareful or unlucky. Almost two decades of watching a happy country turn to bloodshed bath tought me a few things. It was a good position to watch and learn about power, new people coming to power, old power-people changing masks, about vested interests, suffering, causing of suffering, ignorance of suffering, war-mongering, terror manipulation, about media manipulation and power of media, about gullibility of general public, manipulation of patriotic sentiments, big money, big mouths, big words, about "enemy" and "other side", and who needs them and why... to name just a few aspects of the whole process. I'm talking about experience, not theory; about learning that comes not from literature but from a living life, thru your skin, a study forced upon you which you can't skip or postpone, and it goes thru your whole being - if you're detached enough from the whole uproar of hatred and fear around you. In war, you either kill, get killed, or learn about where killing comes from. I had the fortune of not being killed nor having to kill, but the learning part i couldn't escape. And one of main lessons was the power of mainstream media and dangers of it's misuse by war-mongers; i've learned to be highly skeptical of what you can see and read in them (media) and hear from them (war-prone cliques in power). I've seen it at work and it didn't end good. That's why i'm searching thru and promoting alternative media and views. I admit that i might occasionally be misguided about a detail, or not notice occasional bias - but believe me, there's MUCH MUCH more bias in let's say CNN or Washington PR office; indeed, there's ONLY bias in those, unless the topic is gardening or weather or something similar. But as you say, believeabiltity often lies in how the information is presented - and big media houses and PR offices have an ocean of professionals and resources to present whatever they want to present, in a "convincing" way; not like enthousisasts struggling to get heard. That's my skepticism - what's yours? Skeptical of those views trying to counter the official ones backed with millions of dollars, century-old propaganda machine and military might? Skepticism is what i feel when i see a SuperPower Administration full of rich people who make money on weapons, starting a "war without end"; a war to "root out terrorism" when it is clear that it will produce only more "terrorism"; when i see an Administration full of rich people who make money on oil, carpet-bombing a poor country important in oil strategy; when i hear them claiming that's because of 9/11 altho not one of the hijackers is from Afghanistan - they're mostly from Saudi Arabia, which is at the same time called a friend in the anti-terror campaign; when i hear them claiming that's because of 9/11 and then i find out they were long planing to attack it in October anyway. It boils down to this: i've seen the combination of big money, big power, and big media, and it's a lethal one. I saw it on local scale, and now i'm watching it on global scale. Then, the victims counted in dozens of thousands; this time they might be in dozens of millions. This time i can't sit silent and watch, and not feel complicit at the same time. I've done my bit of sitting and watching - and it wasn't in vain. But now it's my turn to speak and act, and i take the responsibility. I'm trying to be reasonable and i accept that i might be wrong in details - i'm not actually a political analyst nor political activist, nor a psichologist or a sociologist or a philosopher - just another creative guy who likes to make nice things (therefore not a "serious" artist either, i admit . If you're afraid that i might be misguiding some people, you either offer them your opinion to judge, or pray for them to not fall for mine; but i sincerely suggest that you pray even more for those millions that will get to hear or believe only the official versions of events that will sooner or later affect their lives too. And while i'm in end-with-a-quote mode , here's my favourite: "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied" - Claud Cockburn Best regards and good luck Karo PS. sorry about repeating the "i've seen it" phrase - it must be annoying and might sound as if i consider myself extra wise - but it just means that the basis of how i see these things today is experience; and that experience is the reason why i'm watching them today in the first place. I've seen it happen, and i wish i didn't have to. Now i see it happening again, and i like it even much much less.

Thursday, October 31st, 2002 at 11:49

You wrote: PS. sorry about repeating the "i've seen it" phrase - it must be annoying and might sound as if i consider myself extra wise - but it just means that the basis of how i see these things today is experience; and that experience is the reason why i'm watching them today in the first place. I've seen it happen, and i wish i didn't have to. Now i see it happening again, and i like it even much much less. ____________________ my response: What each person sees through-out her life is quite overwhelming. I have my share of first hand experiences similar to yours -- having been born in El Salvador. However, if you notice in all the writing I have posted up to this point, I do not get personal about things. And that is because I aim at understanding the problem as a whole not just in relation to a personal position. As to the conspiracy theories, I am not stating that the claims of the U.S. vs. Bin Laden or even Iraq are not mixed up with economical interest -- or that parts of the justifications may be made up. All I am saying is that the situation needs to be analyzed very carefully in order to understand how and why such power-shifts develop. This is hard to do when one sees a country bounce from one power group to another, while lives are wrecked along the process. But the worst result of such a situation is to simply start assuming and pointing the finger, just because one has painfully seen it before, as this is what corrupt entities want people to do. This is the reason behind my original post -- because in the end, one-sided presumptive statements look trivial. Those interested in pushing the system in a constructive way must problematize it with the very same language games used by those running the show. In a physical war, this would be similar to having competitive weapons to attack and defend. Over-emphasizing personal positioning, in the end, will only limit the individual in the same way as the woman who refused to let Spivak board the plane to Canada: "We can not accept you." This woman could only see her immediate experiences, and that is exactly the way anyone brought up in Western ideology most likely functions. This is what the media pushes on people. As painful as it is, skeptics and sceptics must consider the bigger picture at all times, while not forgeting the personal experiences that have pushed them to take a critical position. In order to be critical, one can not get personal. It is hard to do, but this is the key to using personal experiences in a way that is not therapeutic, but cathartic not just for one person but for a whole community. Peace, Eduardo Navas

Saturday, November 2nd, 2002 at 13:35

In the end, i agree... With time i realized what you meant by (my) pointing fingers; and re-reading our discussion, i recognized the bitterness often "heard" in my posts. Just yesterday, i was listening to an acquaintance of mine talking about situation in Balkan in a too simplified way, accusing and "pointing finger" (at one of the sides in the recent war), while he clearly had a very limited knowledge, experience, and view of the whole story. As i was trying to make him understand the complexity behind it, i recognized the similarity with our discussion here, with the views and approaches... Altho i still think that for example CNN isn't worth a penny as a source of news on which one should base any opinions (during Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia, 1200 US Military Psyichological Operations officers were working in it, to "help in the production of the news" and to "broaden their horizons"), i see that concentrating too much/only on details of corruption of "power structures" might with time erode one's overall picture and context, and make me, like my friend, forget about the intricacy of the forces and constituents in complex historical processes (and in human nature of persons involved in them). Thanx. Just be aware that the opposite approach can too lead to (it's own) errors - for example, overstrained refusal to "take sides" EVER, can make you equate the victim and oppressor in a situation... Altho victims can in time become oppressors and vice-versa, doesn't mean that in any given moment there isn't a victim, and an oppressor; and an injustice that might have been helped, had the witnesses not been too busy intellectualizing the historical relativeness and complexity of the situation. Just as a rebel can over-react and by acting prematurely bring about new problems instead of solving them, an intellectual can ponder herself into slavery...

Monday, November 4th, 2002 at 16:36

I agree with your skeptical statement. I think not one news source is worth a dime when considered a major media authority. That is why any responsible person should research various sources and question them and test them incessantly. As to the rebel over-reacting, I think it is one of the toughest tasks that any critical person can face. That is why people need to change constantly and reninvestigate their opinions. It is tiring but it is all we got. Your last post meant a lot to me, and does give me hope for a more diversified power-shifting in the future. Best, Eduardo Navas

Wednesday, November 6th, 2002 at 03:16