FZ: Ií­m not so sure. Errorism breaks down barriers because it has humor and facilitates debate that would be very difficult to engender otherwise.

LG: Errorism emerged, in large part, with this idea of error, which appeared as a totally random objective. It was the time when the English police killed a Brazilian in the subway and said that it was in error, when the CIA had taken a German citizen to a concentration camp and said that it was in error, etc. Then the word "error" began to be used within the discourse on terror. When we began to write the Errorist Manifesto, we saw that, on one hand, it opened up the possibility of discussing something that is very difficult to discuss because it is found to be completely blocked, but on the other hand, it relativises it to such a level that the debate becomes very complex. Some European friends, for example, liked the idea of Errorism, but not the image of the struggles for national liberation or liberation of the oppressed Muslim woman.

FZ: The argument for the discussion is that upon reproducing that image you would be collaborating with the system that oppresses the women, and to include the weapons would be endorsing their use. The symbol for the weapon is so strong that the people see it as a real weapon. Thatí­s why we use the "bang", which is an essential comical element. We integrate the theatrical action with a comedy esthetic, by the type of actoral positions, by the characters, by the makeup, etc. Onomatopoeia served for that purpose. The first declaration we made was: "We are all errorists", a play on words with "we are all terrorists".

LG: Terrorism has become a form of control of such magnitude that now it isní­t even aimed at those who form part of a given ideology, social class or culture. And the most complex part is that it begins to generate an everyday logic.

SGN: And which type of social configuration believes that it is being defended from a terrorist attack?

FG: At the time of the '76 coup in Argentina, what they installed was State terrorism, which created a situation of permanent paranoia, such that you could denounce your neighbor with the excuse that there were guerrillas who wanted to introduce Communism. Then the concept of "State terrorism" was accepted. However, when the dictatorship made its defense, it said that it had committed errors and excesses, the same speech given by the United States. Now, the next target is Iran, and, perhaps the next after that will be Venezuela or wherever. But I believe that this is approaching Latin America.

SGN: I get the impression that within the IE, the crux isní­t really centered in the discussion of global terrorism, but in something much wider, in market terrorism. From the perspective of Argentina and for yourself, what would be the power structures that organize society?

FZ: I feel that the local situation and imaginario is a very fragile area. The integration of certain picket sectors brought about by the Kirchner administration, tends to consolidate an idea of governability and stability. But, at the same time, the specter of insecurity looms, and then the enemy becomes juvenile delinquency, drug-addicts, those living below the poverty line, those lacking cultural or economic tools to facilitate their entry into the social status quo and who must live from state subsidies, etc. With this governability, a liquification of social tensions is produced.

LG: But now there also exists a "positive" stereotype, which emerges from the reconstruction of something that, in the 90s, was very present, which is the image of triumph, consumption and wealth, stimulated by neo-liberalism. The economic system and the present political structure administer a degree of media censorship, at such a level that they doní­t only create a stereotype, but also foment the absolute ignorance of the society that it supposedly covers.

SGN: In Mar del Plata, I perceived that the people were afraid, above all, of the enormous security apparatus, much more than of the hypothetical threat of a terrorist attack. The fear was that, at any given moment, the security apparatus would become the object of discussion, that it would produce chaos right there, which to a certain extent produced the afternoon demonstrations. The strongest image is that of dozens and dozens of federal police positioned in ranks, in the first of the three cordons that defended the hotel where Bush was staying, and in front of them, the spectacle of a completely deserted avenue, without one person being visible, without one parked car. And so you ask yourself: "Which one is the enemy?" It became very clear to me that the enemy was, to a great extent, a fiction created in order to facilitate control and to keep common people away from the "affairs of state".