khad
21st August 2009, 21:18
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_215/6393-Cease-Fire-A-Look-at-Virtual-Jihadi
Cease Fire: A Look at Virtual Jihadi
by Kate McKiernan (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Kate%20McKiernan), 18 Aug 2009 9:01 am
Gamers tend to have a love-hate relationship with that pesky outside world: "reality." We reap benefits like jobs (where we earn money to buy videogames), utilities (where we get electricity to run our videogames), and roads (on which the pizza delivery guy drives, so we don't have to get up from our .... well, you get the picture). But now and then the outside world takes notice of our hobby and its proclivity toward guns, explosions and death as the means of determining victory, and it makes them nervous.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/articles/article/6393/McKiernan_i215-pull1.png
When a particularly violent or risqué game comes out, the public reaction is cliché. People see the word "game" and think "toy," which makes them "think of the children." These aggrieved parents contact the government, calling for regulation, bans and fines against any game they feel is too violent or explicit for their young ones. Gamers respond by going on the internet and shouting about free speech and art, decrying the "tyranny of the majority." In short, both sides overreact. Even when we try to sit down and talk to each other instead of about each other, no progress seems to be made. Perhaps that's because the debate is poorly framed. The real problem is that not all games are toys - though they can be. Nor are all games art - though they can be that, as well. But all games are a medium.
Consider the case of The Night of Bush Capturing: A Virtual Jihadi (http://www.wafaabilal.com/html/virtualJ.html), a game mod created by Iraqi-born American artist Wafaa Bilal to emphasize the plight of Iraqi civilians during the American invasion and occupation. The player's avatar is Bilal himself. In the game, as in real life, Bilal's brother, an Iraqi civilian, becomes "collateral damage" in an American airstrike. Departing from reality, virtual Bilal is so overcome by grief that he joins Al-Qaeda, trains as a suicide bomber and works his way past American forces to kill President Bush.
Virtual Jihadi presents an excellent opportunity for all sides to examine the new distinction of videogames as a medium. In this case, the devil's in the details: Virtual Jihadi is Bilal's hack of an Al-Qaeda skin of the American-made shooter Quest for Saddam. Quest for Saddam gives players the opportunity to shoot up a bunch of Saddam body doubles until reaching the real deal and killing him in the name of truth, justice and apple pie. The Al-Qaeda version, The Night of Bush Capturing, not to be confused with Bilal's own game, gives you the exact same gameplay but replaces Saddam with Bush look-alikes for targets.
If the concept of the game makes you uncomfortable, don't worry - it should. In his statement about the piece, Bilal writes: "Because we inhabit a comfort zone far from the trauma of [the] conflict zone, we Americans have become desensitized to the violence of war." Iraqis have no comfort zone where they can be away from the violence. Virtual Jihadi turns the tables and makes Americans into the vulnerable ones. And since videogames are an interactive medium, the game is even more disquieting than simply watching American soldiers fall; instead, you're the one gunning them down.
Virtual Jihadi recently made headlines when New York officials shut down Bilal's developer display along with the hosting building, purportedly for building code violations. The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Bilal, arguing that this exercise of government authority was really retaliation against Bilal and violated his freedom of speech. Having been arrested multiple times by the Hussein regime for his art displays in Iraq, Bilal is no stranger to being silenced by authority.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/articles/article/6393/McKiernan_i215-pull2.png
The straightforward NYCLU complaint (http://www.nyclu.org/files/Sanctuary_06.09.09.pdf) clearly spells out the details of the First Amendment-based suit. It explains how Bilal's piece was to be hosted by the Sanctuary for Independent Media in Troy, New York. Before the opening of the exhibit, Robert Mirch, a commissioner for the city, posted a press release from his city office saying, "It is completely inappropriate for any organization in Troy to stage an exhibit that features a portrayal of a suicide bomber sent to kill the President. [They] should cancel this exhibit immediately." After comparing the game to 9/11 on a local radio station, Mirch organized and participated in a protest outside the opening of the exhibit. The next day, Mirch closed down the building, citing building code violations.
Complicating matters, the Sanctuary for Independent Media inherited these violations from the church that had previously owned the building, and the Sanctuary had received permission from the city to operate without fixing these violations until other construction had been completed. Lead Counsel for the developer Cornelius Murray said, "This case is a textbook example of an abuse of authority by a public official to suppress speech with which he disagrees."
Adding insult to injury is the reason that Bilal was displaying his work at the Sanctuary in the first place. The original hosting institution had shut down the same exhibit earlier in the year. He had been invited to be a guest professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute but once Virtual Jihadi went on display, the exhibit was closed, the art building was locked down, and Bilal was asked to leave. In a town-hall style meeting between students and administrators to discuss the piece, students asked for a way they could regain faith in the school's dedication to freedom of expression. The college president, Shirley Ann Jackson, said they should not have lost faith because the school hadn't done anything wrong. She went on to defend her position by stating she wouldn't allow a safe haven for child pornography, either.
Seeking sanctuary for his controversial piece, Bilal installed his exhibit at the Sanctuary for Independent Media, only to be shut down again in less than twenty-four hours. Frustrated at the whole affair, Bilal wondered why so many people were upset by his work if the CIA and FBI were uninterested in him. (The FBI reportedly made inquiries into Bilal's activities when they first learned of this piece, which they seem to have dropped upon learning the details of it.)
During the single night the exhibit was open, Bilal expressed his wish that the sort of censorship that happened in Iraq would not happen in "this beautiful country." It took a while, but Bilal got his wish: in an ending more frequent in storytelling than real life, Virtual Jihadi was allowed to re-open after six weeks, following an outpouring of community support.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/articles/article/6393/McKiernan_i215-pull3.png
Irrespective of any possible connection between videogame and real life violence, Bilal is concerned that videogames teach us something more insidious: hatred. "[V]ideo games are one of the technologies being used to foster and teach hate. I am especially concerned by the ones created by the US military, which are intended to brainwash and influence young minds ... the U.S. Army's own free on-line game is equal to the Night of Bush Capturing in its propaganda motives."
Many people may feel there is a world of difference between America's Army and Night of the Bush Capturing but as a man who has lived on both sides of the border, Bilal sees them as moral equals. Bilal uses his art to prompt us to examine our assumptions and whether or not we eventually end up agreeing with him, the introspection makes our lives richer. Speaking after his RPI exhibit was shut down, he said, "It's an art show that is trying to solicit a conversation among people. And when you shut it down, you say you don't have any right to say your point of view."
Virtual Jihad is a game where it's easy to see the delineations between the medium (a first-person shooter), the content (shooting American soldiers and assassinating Bush) and the speech (racist generalizations are dangerous). The game uses the videogame medium as a chance to explore what would drive someone to become a suicide bomber (the content). By taking the player through the grief of the senseless death of a family member, Bilal asks the player to consider - not approve, but consider - where these bombers are coming from (the speech). It encourages players to consider that if The Night of Bush Capturing is a mindless recruiting tool for racist violence, Quest for Saddam may be as well.
Virtual Jihadi asks many important questions that gamers must inevitably face as the medium is adapted for use in telling a wider range of stories. We have come to terms with stories of sex and violence sharing the same shelf space with games of adventure and racing. Can we deal with games that feature the assassination of a sitting president, however unpopular? Can we deal with games that ask us to question the government, or even other games? Can we deal with games with which we disagree?http://zine.artcal.net/upload/2008/03/virtual-jihadi_.jpg
Interview: http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/03/03/interview-wafaa-bilal-casts-himself-as-terrorist-in-virtual-jihadi/
GAS/NPD: So could you tell me a little bit about the new project you wrote me about?
BILAL: Well, the new project is called “The Night of Bush Capture: Virtual Jihadi.” And what happens – well, a person named Jesse Petrilla wrote a program called “Quest for Saddam.” (He made one before: “Quest for Al-Qaeda”) So, in 2003, he released this game. I’ve seen the game, and I had played through it, and it enforces stereotypes of Iraqis as very much similar terrorists, and you could hunt them, and they only speak one word. So, nobody made any big deal of it, but then, the Islamic Media Group, associated with Al Qaeda, took the game, and reskinned it. They didn’t change any of the code, but they just replaced the skins of the Iraqis, which, by the way, they all look alike, they all say one word, which is absolute nonsense.
So, then after Al Qaeda took the game and switched it around by changing the skins – changing Saddam’s skin to President Bush’s skin, the game was labeled “a terrorist recruiting game.” It was a huge deal two years ago, and so now, I wanted to bring attention to the duology of treatment, to hypocrisy and to games that are used as recruitment tools. That’s one side. The other side – I wanted to show the vulnerability of Iraqis becoming involved in Al Qaeda, because there’s no protection in Iraq, and they switch allegiances according to power switches on the ground.
BILAL: We see this even in our [American] inner cities, in gangs, when police don’t protect the people – the people ally with the gang members in that community. I wanted to show the effect on the Iraqi people through this game. I insert my life story as a teacher at the Art Institute of Chicago, and I’m happy here until I hear the news of the death of my brother and the death of my father, and through the game, Al Qaeda recruits me, and I become a suicide bomber, and attack President Bush.
GAS/NPD: Did your brother actually die, in Iraq?
BILAL: Yes, that’s how the idea of the paintball project came to life, because he was killed in my hometown of Kufa by a drone plane. And I watched the news after a year after his death, and a soldier in Colorado controlling these planes and dropping missiles in Iraq and when they asked her whether she had any remorse over people’s lives, she said “no,” because “these people are bad people, and I have complete trust in my government.”
GAS/NPD: What do you think people would be taking away from “Virtual Jihadi?”
BILAL: Well, I think it casts a light on violence in video games, also bringing attention to the Iraq issues – things we see being slowly pushed aside. And it casts a light on the vulnerability of the Iraqis, suffering on a daily basis.
GAS/NPD: How did you change the game? Did you just change the textures?
BILAL: No. That’s part of it. I didn’t just change the texture, I created a character, animated and scripted, and at the end of the game you could recruit the character of the first shooter, and he would blow himself up next to a Bush character. It’s hacking the game.
GAS/NPD: Why did you use “Quest for Saddam” instead of “Battlefield 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_2)” which also deals with war in Iraq and is better known?
BILAL: That’s a really good question, because this is about a specific game. And it’s been switched a few times. When I learned about [Quest for Saddam] I thought to myself: “That’s a silly game.” Hunting for Saddam, right? But then I want to the Web site of the “United American Committee” [who made the Quest for Saddam game] – and it’s very disturbing. There’s a link called “Jihad chat” – a look at it will show how disturbing these people are. [Ed: No link will be provided to the United American Committee site due to the nature of the content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech).]
GAS/NPD: But speaking of disturbing – a lot of people would say that – that casting essentially yourself, or a likeness of yourself in a game where your objective is to blow up the President – a lot of people would say that crosses a moral line.
BILAL: I don’t know if it crosses a moral line, because it’s still virtual, right? So, if games like “Call of Duty” or other games are fine, why should this be any different? When Jesse [Petrilla] made the game to go after Saddam, that’s also crossing the line, so what’s the difference?
GAS/NPD: Well, I think that’s an important point, but it seems to be like a burning in effigy. And perhaps, if this was crossing the line to make the “Quest for Saddam” game – I have to ask, is this not lowering to their level?
BILAL: No… I think it’s a strategy of engagement. I don’t see it as crossing the line at all – but rather calling attention to something really disturbing, this game and the Web site, and the rhetoric as well.
GAS/NPD: Video games are a newer medium, but this isn’t the first example of political subjects being addressed in video games. Do you think we’ll see more of that as the media matures?
BILAL: Yeah. I absolutely agree with you. We’re going to see more and more of games as a tool to capitalize on political issues, and as people, and the medium, become more sophisticated, we’re going to see more and more of this.
GAS/NPD: I remember before the 2004 election, there was this game called “Bushgame.com” which also had – at the end, you fought your way through Republicans and eventually beat George W. Bush – but that was two dimensional game play, where you’re playing these silly characters like a fat He-Man and John Kerry as Voltron, and basically – your game, doesn’t to me, (and I may be wrong,) sound like parody. Do you think that there is a line there – that there’s something to be said there?
BILAL: I think the way we see it – we’re leaving a comfort zone, when stereotyping “the other” is normal, but when the stereotype goes against our beliefs and our education– What Islamic Media Group did was simply change the skins – and all of a sudden it becomes “a recruiting tool.” But when Quest for Saddam was released, it was “fine.” I’m not trying to push buttons so much as call attention to it. It might look like it’s a parallel to the other games, but whatever strategy that you take overall to it – it’s still a peaceful approach…
GAS/NPD: Because it’s not real.
BILAL: Exactly. I mean, that’s the same argument that people use in the games like military games (http://www.americasarmy.com/) that are out – it’s not recruitment games, it’s very harmless, right?
GAS/NPD: Well, I think the big difference is that when you’re playing something like Battlefield 2, you’re playing a nameless soldier versus a nameless enemy. Here you’re playing as a named, real person, against another named, real person – you [Wafaa Bilal] versus the President. Does the [I]humanization make it taboo?
BILAL: It’s very possible. We see that more and more these days. When you go to Second Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life), we play our fantasies, so we cast ourselves as people who live in a virtual world, but there are all indications for real life. So this is very similar. More and more virtual work– it is going to be dynamic and sometimes reflect reality, and sometimes placing itself in real-time.
GAS/NPD: Do you think that a lot of this has to do with the idea that video games immerse you in a way that video and text cant?
BILAL: Oh, totally. Overall, we are engaged by them [video games] because we are enacting fantasies. We can participate in them – whether the game has an ability to change its direction, such as Second Life, where you can be a participant and change the narrative, and sometimes we involve in a mental interaction when we play an [FPS] shooter or other games, so there’s a level of engagement beyond video and writing because video and writing are passive media. Games are more active. You’re a member of the cast of the narrative.
GAS/NPD: Do you think the development of games as political speech – does that really coincide with the advent of ubiquitous broadband?
BILAL: Yeah, I mean I’m very positive that at some point, we’re going to see more [political] games online than we do right now. This is just the beginning of it, but we will see more political and aggressive games in this direction.
GAS/NPD: I do have to ask you this – you’ve mentioned a couple of times the idea of games as wish fulfillment or fantasy fulfillment. And in this game [Virtual Jihadi] – you have a character who looks like you, who has your name, who, for all purposes, is you. And his main goal is to attack the President. Is that your fantasy?
BILAL: No, it’s not. It’s a [communications] strategy – that’s it. You know from my old art project that I’m a very peaceful person, that I advocate all the time for nonviolent resistance, and I see this as nonviolent resistance as well.
Cease Fire: A Look at Virtual Jihadi
by Kate McKiernan (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Kate%20McKiernan), 18 Aug 2009 9:01 am
Gamers tend to have a love-hate relationship with that pesky outside world: "reality." We reap benefits like jobs (where we earn money to buy videogames), utilities (where we get electricity to run our videogames), and roads (on which the pizza delivery guy drives, so we don't have to get up from our .... well, you get the picture). But now and then the outside world takes notice of our hobby and its proclivity toward guns, explosions and death as the means of determining victory, and it makes them nervous.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/articles/article/6393/McKiernan_i215-pull1.png
When a particularly violent or risqué game comes out, the public reaction is cliché. People see the word "game" and think "toy," which makes them "think of the children." These aggrieved parents contact the government, calling for regulation, bans and fines against any game they feel is too violent or explicit for their young ones. Gamers respond by going on the internet and shouting about free speech and art, decrying the "tyranny of the majority." In short, both sides overreact. Even when we try to sit down and talk to each other instead of about each other, no progress seems to be made. Perhaps that's because the debate is poorly framed. The real problem is that not all games are toys - though they can be. Nor are all games art - though they can be that, as well. But all games are a medium.
Consider the case of The Night of Bush Capturing: A Virtual Jihadi (http://www.wafaabilal.com/html/virtualJ.html), a game mod created by Iraqi-born American artist Wafaa Bilal to emphasize the plight of Iraqi civilians during the American invasion and occupation. The player's avatar is Bilal himself. In the game, as in real life, Bilal's brother, an Iraqi civilian, becomes "collateral damage" in an American airstrike. Departing from reality, virtual Bilal is so overcome by grief that he joins Al-Qaeda, trains as a suicide bomber and works his way past American forces to kill President Bush.
Virtual Jihadi presents an excellent opportunity for all sides to examine the new distinction of videogames as a medium. In this case, the devil's in the details: Virtual Jihadi is Bilal's hack of an Al-Qaeda skin of the American-made shooter Quest for Saddam. Quest for Saddam gives players the opportunity to shoot up a bunch of Saddam body doubles until reaching the real deal and killing him in the name of truth, justice and apple pie. The Al-Qaeda version, The Night of Bush Capturing, not to be confused with Bilal's own game, gives you the exact same gameplay but replaces Saddam with Bush look-alikes for targets.
If the concept of the game makes you uncomfortable, don't worry - it should. In his statement about the piece, Bilal writes: "Because we inhabit a comfort zone far from the trauma of [the] conflict zone, we Americans have become desensitized to the violence of war." Iraqis have no comfort zone where they can be away from the violence. Virtual Jihadi turns the tables and makes Americans into the vulnerable ones. And since videogames are an interactive medium, the game is even more disquieting than simply watching American soldiers fall; instead, you're the one gunning them down.
Virtual Jihadi recently made headlines when New York officials shut down Bilal's developer display along with the hosting building, purportedly for building code violations. The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Bilal, arguing that this exercise of government authority was really retaliation against Bilal and violated his freedom of speech. Having been arrested multiple times by the Hussein regime for his art displays in Iraq, Bilal is no stranger to being silenced by authority.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/articles/article/6393/McKiernan_i215-pull2.png
The straightforward NYCLU complaint (http://www.nyclu.org/files/Sanctuary_06.09.09.pdf) clearly spells out the details of the First Amendment-based suit. It explains how Bilal's piece was to be hosted by the Sanctuary for Independent Media in Troy, New York. Before the opening of the exhibit, Robert Mirch, a commissioner for the city, posted a press release from his city office saying, "It is completely inappropriate for any organization in Troy to stage an exhibit that features a portrayal of a suicide bomber sent to kill the President. [They] should cancel this exhibit immediately." After comparing the game to 9/11 on a local radio station, Mirch organized and participated in a protest outside the opening of the exhibit. The next day, Mirch closed down the building, citing building code violations.
Complicating matters, the Sanctuary for Independent Media inherited these violations from the church that had previously owned the building, and the Sanctuary had received permission from the city to operate without fixing these violations until other construction had been completed. Lead Counsel for the developer Cornelius Murray said, "This case is a textbook example of an abuse of authority by a public official to suppress speech with which he disagrees."
Adding insult to injury is the reason that Bilal was displaying his work at the Sanctuary in the first place. The original hosting institution had shut down the same exhibit earlier in the year. He had been invited to be a guest professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute but once Virtual Jihadi went on display, the exhibit was closed, the art building was locked down, and Bilal was asked to leave. In a town-hall style meeting between students and administrators to discuss the piece, students asked for a way they could regain faith in the school's dedication to freedom of expression. The college president, Shirley Ann Jackson, said they should not have lost faith because the school hadn't done anything wrong. She went on to defend her position by stating she wouldn't allow a safe haven for child pornography, either.
Seeking sanctuary for his controversial piece, Bilal installed his exhibit at the Sanctuary for Independent Media, only to be shut down again in less than twenty-four hours. Frustrated at the whole affair, Bilal wondered why so many people were upset by his work if the CIA and FBI were uninterested in him. (The FBI reportedly made inquiries into Bilal's activities when they first learned of this piece, which they seem to have dropped upon learning the details of it.)
During the single night the exhibit was open, Bilal expressed his wish that the sort of censorship that happened in Iraq would not happen in "this beautiful country." It took a while, but Bilal got his wish: in an ending more frequent in storytelling than real life, Virtual Jihadi was allowed to re-open after six weeks, following an outpouring of community support.
http://cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/articles/article/6393/McKiernan_i215-pull3.png
Irrespective of any possible connection between videogame and real life violence, Bilal is concerned that videogames teach us something more insidious: hatred. "[V]ideo games are one of the technologies being used to foster and teach hate. I am especially concerned by the ones created by the US military, which are intended to brainwash and influence young minds ... the U.S. Army's own free on-line game is equal to the Night of Bush Capturing in its propaganda motives."
Many people may feel there is a world of difference between America's Army and Night of the Bush Capturing but as a man who has lived on both sides of the border, Bilal sees them as moral equals. Bilal uses his art to prompt us to examine our assumptions and whether or not we eventually end up agreeing with him, the introspection makes our lives richer. Speaking after his RPI exhibit was shut down, he said, "It's an art show that is trying to solicit a conversation among people. And when you shut it down, you say you don't have any right to say your point of view."
Virtual Jihad is a game where it's easy to see the delineations between the medium (a first-person shooter), the content (shooting American soldiers and assassinating Bush) and the speech (racist generalizations are dangerous). The game uses the videogame medium as a chance to explore what would drive someone to become a suicide bomber (the content). By taking the player through the grief of the senseless death of a family member, Bilal asks the player to consider - not approve, but consider - where these bombers are coming from (the speech). It encourages players to consider that if The Night of Bush Capturing is a mindless recruiting tool for racist violence, Quest for Saddam may be as well.
Virtual Jihadi asks many important questions that gamers must inevitably face as the medium is adapted for use in telling a wider range of stories. We have come to terms with stories of sex and violence sharing the same shelf space with games of adventure and racing. Can we deal with games that feature the assassination of a sitting president, however unpopular? Can we deal with games that ask us to question the government, or even other games? Can we deal with games with which we disagree?http://zine.artcal.net/upload/2008/03/virtual-jihadi_.jpg
Interview: http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2008/03/03/interview-wafaa-bilal-casts-himself-as-terrorist-in-virtual-jihadi/
GAS/NPD: So could you tell me a little bit about the new project you wrote me about?
BILAL: Well, the new project is called “The Night of Bush Capture: Virtual Jihadi.” And what happens – well, a person named Jesse Petrilla wrote a program called “Quest for Saddam.” (He made one before: “Quest for Al-Qaeda”) So, in 2003, he released this game. I’ve seen the game, and I had played through it, and it enforces stereotypes of Iraqis as very much similar terrorists, and you could hunt them, and they only speak one word. So, nobody made any big deal of it, but then, the Islamic Media Group, associated with Al Qaeda, took the game, and reskinned it. They didn’t change any of the code, but they just replaced the skins of the Iraqis, which, by the way, they all look alike, they all say one word, which is absolute nonsense.
So, then after Al Qaeda took the game and switched it around by changing the skins – changing Saddam’s skin to President Bush’s skin, the game was labeled “a terrorist recruiting game.” It was a huge deal two years ago, and so now, I wanted to bring attention to the duology of treatment, to hypocrisy and to games that are used as recruitment tools. That’s one side. The other side – I wanted to show the vulnerability of Iraqis becoming involved in Al Qaeda, because there’s no protection in Iraq, and they switch allegiances according to power switches on the ground.
BILAL: We see this even in our [American] inner cities, in gangs, when police don’t protect the people – the people ally with the gang members in that community. I wanted to show the effect on the Iraqi people through this game. I insert my life story as a teacher at the Art Institute of Chicago, and I’m happy here until I hear the news of the death of my brother and the death of my father, and through the game, Al Qaeda recruits me, and I become a suicide bomber, and attack President Bush.
GAS/NPD: Did your brother actually die, in Iraq?
BILAL: Yes, that’s how the idea of the paintball project came to life, because he was killed in my hometown of Kufa by a drone plane. And I watched the news after a year after his death, and a soldier in Colorado controlling these planes and dropping missiles in Iraq and when they asked her whether she had any remorse over people’s lives, she said “no,” because “these people are bad people, and I have complete trust in my government.”
GAS/NPD: What do you think people would be taking away from “Virtual Jihadi?”
BILAL: Well, I think it casts a light on violence in video games, also bringing attention to the Iraq issues – things we see being slowly pushed aside. And it casts a light on the vulnerability of the Iraqis, suffering on a daily basis.
GAS/NPD: How did you change the game? Did you just change the textures?
BILAL: No. That’s part of it. I didn’t just change the texture, I created a character, animated and scripted, and at the end of the game you could recruit the character of the first shooter, and he would blow himself up next to a Bush character. It’s hacking the game.
GAS/NPD: Why did you use “Quest for Saddam” instead of “Battlefield 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_2)” which also deals with war in Iraq and is better known?
BILAL: That’s a really good question, because this is about a specific game. And it’s been switched a few times. When I learned about [Quest for Saddam] I thought to myself: “That’s a silly game.” Hunting for Saddam, right? But then I want to the Web site of the “United American Committee” [who made the Quest for Saddam game] – and it’s very disturbing. There’s a link called “Jihad chat” – a look at it will show how disturbing these people are. [Ed: No link will be provided to the United American Committee site due to the nature of the content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech).]
GAS/NPD: But speaking of disturbing – a lot of people would say that – that casting essentially yourself, or a likeness of yourself in a game where your objective is to blow up the President – a lot of people would say that crosses a moral line.
BILAL: I don’t know if it crosses a moral line, because it’s still virtual, right? So, if games like “Call of Duty” or other games are fine, why should this be any different? When Jesse [Petrilla] made the game to go after Saddam, that’s also crossing the line, so what’s the difference?
GAS/NPD: Well, I think that’s an important point, but it seems to be like a burning in effigy. And perhaps, if this was crossing the line to make the “Quest for Saddam” game – I have to ask, is this not lowering to their level?
BILAL: No… I think it’s a strategy of engagement. I don’t see it as crossing the line at all – but rather calling attention to something really disturbing, this game and the Web site, and the rhetoric as well.
GAS/NPD: Video games are a newer medium, but this isn’t the first example of political subjects being addressed in video games. Do you think we’ll see more of that as the media matures?
BILAL: Yeah. I absolutely agree with you. We’re going to see more and more of games as a tool to capitalize on political issues, and as people, and the medium, become more sophisticated, we’re going to see more and more of this.
GAS/NPD: I remember before the 2004 election, there was this game called “Bushgame.com” which also had – at the end, you fought your way through Republicans and eventually beat George W. Bush – but that was two dimensional game play, where you’re playing these silly characters like a fat He-Man and John Kerry as Voltron, and basically – your game, doesn’t to me, (and I may be wrong,) sound like parody. Do you think that there is a line there – that there’s something to be said there?
BILAL: I think the way we see it – we’re leaving a comfort zone, when stereotyping “the other” is normal, but when the stereotype goes against our beliefs and our education– What Islamic Media Group did was simply change the skins – and all of a sudden it becomes “a recruiting tool.” But when Quest for Saddam was released, it was “fine.” I’m not trying to push buttons so much as call attention to it. It might look like it’s a parallel to the other games, but whatever strategy that you take overall to it – it’s still a peaceful approach…
GAS/NPD: Because it’s not real.
BILAL: Exactly. I mean, that’s the same argument that people use in the games like military games (http://www.americasarmy.com/) that are out – it’s not recruitment games, it’s very harmless, right?
GAS/NPD: Well, I think the big difference is that when you’re playing something like Battlefield 2, you’re playing a nameless soldier versus a nameless enemy. Here you’re playing as a named, real person, against another named, real person – you [Wafaa Bilal] versus the President. Does the [I]humanization make it taboo?
BILAL: It’s very possible. We see that more and more these days. When you go to Second Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life), we play our fantasies, so we cast ourselves as people who live in a virtual world, but there are all indications for real life. So this is very similar. More and more virtual work– it is going to be dynamic and sometimes reflect reality, and sometimes placing itself in real-time.
GAS/NPD: Do you think that a lot of this has to do with the idea that video games immerse you in a way that video and text cant?
BILAL: Oh, totally. Overall, we are engaged by them [video games] because we are enacting fantasies. We can participate in them – whether the game has an ability to change its direction, such as Second Life, where you can be a participant and change the narrative, and sometimes we involve in a mental interaction when we play an [FPS] shooter or other games, so there’s a level of engagement beyond video and writing because video and writing are passive media. Games are more active. You’re a member of the cast of the narrative.
GAS/NPD: Do you think the development of games as political speech – does that really coincide with the advent of ubiquitous broadband?
BILAL: Yeah, I mean I’m very positive that at some point, we’re going to see more [political] games online than we do right now. This is just the beginning of it, but we will see more political and aggressive games in this direction.
GAS/NPD: I do have to ask you this – you’ve mentioned a couple of times the idea of games as wish fulfillment or fantasy fulfillment. And in this game [Virtual Jihadi] – you have a character who looks like you, who has your name, who, for all purposes, is you. And his main goal is to attack the President. Is that your fantasy?
BILAL: No, it’s not. It’s a [communications] strategy – that’s it. You know from my old art project that I’m a very peaceful person, that I advocate all the time for nonviolent resistance, and I see this as nonviolent resistance as well.