Kony 2012

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Kony 2012

Postby Laodicean » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:32 am

Invisible Children Responds To The Kony 2012 Viral Video Controversy

After a huge success comes the inevitable backlash. You probably watched the Joseph Kony movie yesterday. Now some critics are saying it’s not as good as it appears to be, but Invisible Children is fighting back.

Nonprofit organization Invisible Children has had the viral media hit of 2012 with their #kony2012 video --a slick half-hour video documentary designed to shine a light on little-known (until yesterday) African war criminal Joseph Kony. Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army has operated in Uganda and nearby countries for years, with a steadily established modus operandi of kidnapping children for use as soldiers, raping village women, and destroying small towns. The video advocates using force to bring Kony to justice and try him before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

Thanks to an incredibly effective viral marketing campaign that recruited an army of impromptu Twitter volunteers to spam celebrities with links to the video, the video has received millions of views over the past two days. But with success comes an inevitable backlash, and yesterday stories began to appear accusing Invisible Children of secret agendas, misuse of funds, and a less-than-stellar operating record. For the nonprofit, who are dealing with a rapid backlash that’s happening almost as quickly as its meteoric explosion onto the public consciousness, it’s a strange experience.

The issue is that rather than advocating a specific mission plan for helping Lord’s Resistance Army victims or raising funds for military action or local reconstruction, the video instead claims to just seek “awareness” of the previously-obscure conflict.

Foreign Policy's Michael Wilkerson noted that the Invisible Children documentary, which tells the story of a child story named Jacob, massively simplifies the conflict--leading to misleading notions for viewers who might believe the Lord’s Resistance Army is expanding into nearby countries when they are, in fact, retreating there after being pushed back by African armies. Jack McDonald, writing at the academic military blog Kings Of War , summed up the video by accusing it of being, well, dangerous:

The idea that popular opinion can be leveraged with viral marketing to induce foreign military intervention is really, really dangerous. It is immoral to try and sell a sanitized vision of foreign intervention that neglects the fact that people will die as a result.

The biggest critic of Invisible Children is a Tumblr blog called Visible Children . The Tumblr accuses Invisible Children of spending too little on on-the-ground aid, of spending too much on advocacy and expenses, and of ties to the Ugandan army and Sudan People’s Liberation Army, neither of which are particularly commendable armed forces. Visible Children specifically calls out the nonprofit for spending the bulk of donated funds on “awareness” and filmmaking.

Reached by email, Grant Oyston, the author of Visible Children, told Co.Exist:

"While I support much of Invisible Children’s work, and agree that the organization has been highly successful in increasing public awareness, I’m very concerned with the rhetoric Invisible Children is employing regarding "stopping at nothing" to dispose of Kony. But after the awareness aspect, the actual means they propose to employ becomes a bit cloudy. They don’t believe that peace talks are likely to work any more, but do not condone violence, although they recognize that the Ugandan military is best-equipped to respond to Kony and his militia. My goal in writing the page was to get people talking about the organization, its goals, and how it’s setting out to achieve them.”

To their credit, Invisible Children has put detailed information about their financials online and responded to critiques . Details about the non-profit, some of them negative, are also available via Charity Navigator .

Getting comment from Invisible Children was a task in and of itself. During multiple phone calls placed on March 7, 2012, the organization’s phone was either ringing off the hook, not ringing at all, or leading callers to an infinite voice mail loop. Co.Exist was able to reach Invisible Children’s Monica Vigo via email. Here’s what she said:

Invisible Children’s mission is to stop LRA violence and support the war-affected communities in Central Africa. These are the three ways we achieve this mission; each is essential:

1: Make the world aware of the LRA. This includes making documentary films and touring these films around the world so that they are seen for free by millions of people.

2: Channel energy from viewers of Invisible Children films into large-scale advocacy campaigns to stop the LRA and protect civilians.

3: Operate programs on the ground in LRA-affected areas, which provide protection, rehabilitation, and development assistance.

As you will see, we spend roughly one-third of our money on each of these three goals. This three-prong approach is what makes Invisible Children unique. Some organizations focus exclusively on documenting human rights abuses, some focus exclusively on international advocacy or awareness, and some focus exclusively on on-the-ground development. We do all three, at the same time. This comprehensive model is intentional and has shown to be very effective.

Our commitment is, and has always been, to be 100% financially transparent and to communicate in plain language the mission of the organization so that everyone can make an informed decision about whether they want to support our strategy.

Ultimately, the impression this reporter received was that Invisible Children themselves did not expect their campaign to become as successful as it did--as quickly as it did. Human nature being what it is, people tend to be jealous of any overnight success, especially when it’s in the nonprofit sector. Invisible Children’s brand of activism and charitable work is certainly nebulous in terms of on-the-ground results, instead embracing a policy of awareness for the sake of awareness, something that has traditionally been the cause of lobbyists, politicians, and journalists, rather than charities who we expect to spend their money actually making a tangible difference. Plus the fact that any solution you propose to an issue as fraught and long-running as the LRA is bound to have critics with viable points--if there was an easy solution, we would have found it already.

Invisible Children isn’t the first organization to see blowback from a viral video’s massive popularity, and they won’t be the last. The issue is whether a complex, international conflict can be made to fit into a 30 minute documentary, and that people know what questions to ask afterwards.

With that said, Invisible Children did produce a hell of a video.


http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679471/invi ... ontroversy

RE: THE PHOTO OF THE FOUNDERS WITH THE GUNS (SEE BANNER IMAGE)
A story told by Jason Russell: The photo of Bobby, Laren and I with the guns was taken in an LRA camp in DRC during the 2008 Juba Peace Talks. We were there to see Joseph Kony come to the table to sign the Final Peace Agreement. The Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) was surrounding our camp for protection since Sudan was mediating the peace talks. We wanted to talk to them and film them and get their perspective. And because Bobby, Laren and I are friends and had been doing this for 5 years, we thought it would be funny to bring back to our friends and family a joke photo. You know, “Haha - they have bazookas in their hands but they’re actually fighting for peace.” The ironic thing about this photo is that I HATE guns. I always have. Back in 2008 I wanted this war to end, like we all did, peacefully, through peace talks. But Kony was not interested in that; he kept killing. And we still don’t want war. We don’t want him killed and we don’t want bombs dropped. We want him alive and captured and brought to justice.


More at their site: http://s3.amazonaws.com/www.invisiblech ... iques.html
User avatar
Laodicean
 
Posts: 3522
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (16)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby psynapz » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:43 am

Wombaticus Rex wrote:That photo says it all. Sweet Jesus God what a bunch of tools.

Image


Not having been on Twitter in a while, I seriously thought this image was some kind of joke/promo for an indie comedy.

Image
“blunting the idealism of youth is a national security project” - Hugh Manatee Wins
User avatar
psynapz
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:01 pm
Location: In the Flow, In the Now, Forever
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby Jeff » Thu Mar 08, 2012 12:31 pm

Statement from War Child:

Unless you live under a rock, you will be aware of the Kony 2012 campaign by US activist group, Invisible Children. The video released this week ignited fierce debate on Twitter, Facebook and in the media. Understandably, we have been asked repeatedly to react, comment and otherwise critique the campaign. But I think that is missing the bigger picture.

At the core of the campaign is a very real and brutal war. It is a war that was fought, more often than not, by children, and it was characterized by unimaginable cruelty. War Child has been working to address the problems faced by the communities caught up in the bloodshed – and in particular the continuing sexual violence against girls and women, and the culture of impunity that surrounds it. The continuing presence of the Lord's Resistance Army in at least three of the countries we work in is a significant concern, as it destabilizes the region as a whole.

With this in mind, what is important is not the nature of this or any other campaign but the urgency we see in the country for access to justice and a strengthening of a fragile peace. What we ought to be talking about is the extraordinary courage of communities rebuilding in face of profoundly unfair odds. And what we should be investing in are programs and organizations that work with the people of Uganda to empower them to break out of the cycle of violence and create a prosperous and peaceful future.



http://www.warchild.ca/news/detail/beyond_a_campaign/


I like the sound of this better than a $30 Stop Kony Action Kit.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby compared2what? » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:56 pm

Jeff wrote:Statement from War Child:

Unless you live under a rock, you will be aware of the Kony 2012 campaign by US activist group, Invisible Children. The video released this week ignited fierce debate on Twitter, Facebook and in the media. Understandably, we have been asked repeatedly to react, comment and otherwise critique the campaign. But I think that is missing the bigger picture.

At the core of the campaign is a very real and brutal war. It is a war that was fought, more often than not, by children, and it was characterized by unimaginable cruelty. War Child has been working to address the problems faced by the communities caught up in the bloodshed – and in particular the continuing sexual violence against girls and women, and the culture of impunity that surrounds it. The continuing presence of the Lord's Resistance Army in at least three of the countries we work in is a significant concern, as it destabilizes the region as a whole.

With this in mind, what is important is not the nature of this or any other campaign but the urgency we see in the country for access to justice and a strengthening of a fragile peace. What we ought to be talking about is the extraordinary courage of communities rebuilding in face of profoundly unfair odds. And what we should be investing in are programs and organizations that work with the people of Uganda to empower them to break out of the cycle of violence and create a prosperous and peaceful future.



http://www.warchild.ca/news/detail/beyond_a_campaign/


I like the sound of this better than a $30 Stop Kony Action Kit.


I do too. And assuming that War Child walks the walk it talks, if I had any money to give to charities working with child soldiers in Africa, I'd give it to one like War Child and not one like Invisible Children.

But -- absent any elaboration on what, exactly, the allegation that IC supports the Ugandan military is based on -- I still have a HUGE problem with the critique being made in the OP. In fact, I have more than one. But the top two would be these:

(1) Mr. Tumblr is essentially attacking them for being in the advocacy-and-awareness business, on the grounds that their work doesn't solve the problem, which is more complicated than advocacy-and-awareness campaigns can address.

^^That would be a very serious issue if there were any reason to think that advocacy-and-awareness campaigns prevent, obstruct or replace all other approaches and efforts directed toward the cause for which they're stumping.

BUT THEY DON'T. The point of doing that kind of work is to reach enough people that those who have the interest and/or skills to get involved in some part of the larger and more complicated task of problem-solving will do so. Which they obviously won't/can't do if they don't know that there's a problem to begin with.

It actually wouldn't be at all unreasonable to assume that what Invisible Children does results in War Child getting more public support (ie -- donations), not less. By, for example, prompting you to post about them.

(2) I find it objectionable and irresponsible that Mr. Tumblr is out there yacking about IC while using language like "condemned, time and again" without (evidently) having given any aspect of the issues he's addressing more than a few moment's superficial consideration.

Personally, I haven't looked at IC in any detail. But even at a casual glance, it's clear that they do what they say they do, and also that what they do is genuinely philanthropic (enough) for their outfit to qualify as a reputable charity. OBVIOUSLY, if legitimate criticisms of their work as such can be made, they should be made. But there's a pretty significant difference between making legitimate criticisms and exhorting people (effectively) to unite in jihad against a reputable charity by making false/misleading allegations about their finances and activitities that come as close to being defamatory as it's possible to get without actually crossing the line.

I mean, the guy who wrote the OP is basically using innuendo to suggest that IC is engaged in what would be several different kinds of either criminal or illegal conduct if the implications he's making were borne out. FFS. Although, to be fair, I'd be surprised if he knows enough about his subject to know that.
______________

There are really a whole lot of children's charities out there that are simply flat-out cons, due to the naturally broad appeal that children-in-need causes tend to have from a fund-raising perspective. And that's to say nothing of the not-insignificant number of children's charities in places like Uganda that are either fronts for organized child-trafficking or somewhat-less-organized excellent opportunities for the sundry child-abusers who made a point of seeking and insinuating themselves into positions of authority there.

Insofar as Tumblr-guy is using his energy and resources to condemn IC instead, I'd say he's guiltier of directing public attention toward a flashy, emotionally satisfying but ultimately facile objective that's in the same general vicinity as a much more serious but also much more complicated problem than IC is.

_______________

Although, you know....He may be right about the more serious charges, for all I know. I mean, he should have supported the charges he was making when he made them no matter what. So that's still a problem whether he's right or wrong, imo. But (by definition) his failure to do so doesn't really reflect on their validity one way or the other. And I haven't looked into it myself. So. I don't know.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Perelandra » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:10 pm

compared2what? wrote:There are really a whole lot of children's charities out there that are simply flat-out cons, due to the naturally broad appeal that children-in-need causes tend to have from a fund-raising perspective. And that's to say nothing of the not-insignificant number of children's charities in places like Uganda that are either fronts for organized child-trafficking or somewhat-less-organized excellent opportunities for the sundry child-abusers who made a point of seeking and insinuating themselves into positions of authority there.
I've often wondered, when reading the results of your usual thorough research, if there are any such charities, here or abroad, which are reliably effective and transparent? Are there watchdog groups? (Of course there must be, silly question.) Because I've been asked to contribute to thingies before and felt ambivalent about participating in things I know little about.
“The past is never dead. It's not even past.” - William Faulkner
User avatar
Perelandra
 
Posts: 1648
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:12 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:40 pm

Solving War Crimes With Wristbands: The Arrogance of 'Kony 2012'
MAR 8 2012, 11:38 AM ET 81
A viral video by a controversial group claims to fix Central African violence with awareness, but such misguided campaigns can do more harm than good.

Members of Invisible Children pose with soldiers from the Sudan People's Liberation Army near the Congo-Sudan border in 2008 / Courtesy Glenna Gordon

Have you heard? Joseph Kony, brutal warlord and International Criminal Court indictee, is going to be famous like George Clooney. The reason is Kony 2012, a 30 minute film by the advocacy organization Invisible Children, which has gone viral in the 72 hours since its release, garnering over 38.6 million views on Youtube and Vimeo. It has been retweeted by everyone from Justin Bieber to Oprah, and shared on Facebook by seemingly everyone under the age of 25.

The video opens with a perplexing sequence of home movies. A happy couple film their baby's delivery by Caesarean, and he grows into a healthy, smiling toddler. Then the scene cuts to Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony in Central Africa, violently preying upon poor villagers. Now we discover the reason for the five minutes we just spent with this bubbly blond child in Los Angeles. He serves as a contrast for the crying children of northern Uganda, who have been victimized by Kony. (Never mind the fact that the LRA left Uganda years ago.)

MORE ON THE LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY
The Bizarre and Horrifying Story of the LRA
The Soft Bigotry of Kony 2012
A Mission That Requires More Than Guns
Obama's War on the LRA
The movie swirls us through a quickie history of the LRA, a rebel group that terrorized vulnerable civilian populations in northern Uganda for nearly twenty years before moving into the borderlands of South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Central African Republic. It's (justifiably) heavy on the vilification of Kony, but light on any account of the complex political dynamics that sparked the conflict or have contributed to the LRA's longevity. Instead, we are given a facile explanation for Kony's decades-long reign of terror: Not enough Americans care.

Invisible Children has turned the myopic worldview of the adolescent -- "if I don't know about it, then it doesn't exist, but if I care about it, then it is the most important thing in the world" -- into a foreign policy prescription. The "invisible children" of the group's name were the children of northern Uganda forcibly recruited by the LRA. In the group's narrative, these children were "invisible" until American students took notice of them.

Awareness of their plight achieved, child soldiers are now visible to the naked American eye. And in fact, several months ago, President Obama sent 100 military advisors to Uganda to assist in the effort to track down Kony. But according to Invisible Children, these troops may be recalled unless the college students of America raise yet more awareness. The new video instructs its audience to put up posters, slap on stickers, and court celebrities' favor until Kony is "as famous as George Clooney." At that moment, sufficient awareness will have been achieved, and Kony will be magically shipped off to the International Criminal Court to await trial.

This awareness-based approach to atrocity strikes many people as worthwhile. As Samantha Power laid out in brutal detail in her book A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, the United States has repeatedly failed to intervene to stop genocide and crimes against humanity because of our leaders' belief that public opinion would not support such a decision. In theory, awareness campaigns should remedy that problem. In reality, they have not -and may have even exacerbated it.

The problem is that these campaigns mobilize generalized concern -- a demand to do something. That isn't enough to counterbalance the costs of interventions, because Americans' heartlessness or apathy was never the biggest problem. Taking tough action against groups, like the LRA, that are willing to commit mass atrocities will inevitably turn messy. Soldiers will be killed, sometimes horribly. (Think Somalia.) Military advice and training to the local forces attempting to suppress atrocities can have terrible unforeseen consequences. Consider the hundreds of victims of the LRA's 2008 "Christmas Massacre," their murderous response to a failed, U.S.-supported attack by Ugandan and Congolese government forces. International Criminal Court investigations often prompt their targets to step up attacks on civilians and aid workers, in an attempt to gain leverage with the court. (Both Kony and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir have tried that method.)

The t-shirts, posters, and wristbands of awareness campaigns like Invisible Children's do not mention that death and failure often lie along the road to permanent solutions, nor that the simplest "solutions" are often the worst. (In fairness, you try fitting that on a bracelet.) Instead, they shift the goal from complicated and messy efforts at political resolution to something more palatable and less controversial: ever more awareness.

By making it an end in and of itself, awareness stands in for, and maybe even displaces, specific solutions to these very complicated problems. Campaigns that focus on bracelets and social media absorb resources that could go toward more effective advocacy, and take up rhetorical space that could be used to develop more effective advocacy. How do we go from raising awareness about LRA violence to actually stopping it? What's the mechanism of transforming YouTube page views into a mediated political settlement? For all the excitement around awareness as an end in itself, one could be forgiven for forming the impression that there might be a "Stop Atrocity" button blanketed in dust in the basement of the White House, awaiting the moment when the tide of awareness reaches the Oval Office.

If only there were. Because Americans are, by and large, pretty aware. In addition to the millions who have now watched Kony 2012, organizations like the Enough Project, Amnesty International, and STAND mobilize countless more. A Google News search of 2011 archives produces thousands of articles about child soldiers in Africa, rape in the Eastern DRC, and ongoing violence in Darfur.

Treating awareness as a goal in and of itself risks compassion fatigue -- most people only have so much time and energy to devote to far-away causes -- and ultimately squanders political momentum that could be used to push for effective solutions. Actually stopping atrocities would require sustained effort, as well as significant dedication of time and resources that the U.S. is, at the moment, ill-prepared and unwilling to allocate. It would also require a decision on whether we are willing to risk American lives in places where we have no obvious political or economic interests, and just how much money it is appropriate to spend on humanitarian crises overseas when 3 out of 10 children in our nation's capital live at or below the poverty line. The genuine difficulty of those questions can't be eased by sharing a YouTube video or putting up posters.

Invisible Children has been the target of intense scrutiny from the international development and NGO community for spending less than one third of the funds they raise on actual programs to help LRA-affected populations. (Mia Farrow was unimpressed.) The $1,859,617 that Invisible Children spent in 2011 on travel and filmmaking last year seems high for an organization whose total expenses were $8,894,630 (which includes the cost to make all those bracelets and posters).

However, we're less concerned with the budgetary issues than with the general philosophical approach of this type of advocacy. Perhaps worst of all are the unexplored assumptions underpinning the awareness argument, which reduce people in conflict situations to two broad categories: mass-murderers like Joseph Kony and passive victims so helpless that they must wait around to be saved by a bunch of American college students with stickers. No Ugandans or other Africans are shown offering policy suggestions in the film, and it is implied that local governments were ineffective in combating the LRA simply because they didn't have enough American assistance.

None of us who actually work with populations affected by mass atrocity believe this to be a truthful or helpful representation. Even under horrific circumstances, people are endlessly resourceful, and local actors understand their needs better than outsiders. It's good that Americans want to help, but ignoring the role and authority of local leaders and activists isn't just insulting and arrogant, it neglects the people who are the most likely to come up with a solution to the conflict.

The LRA is a problem worth solving, but how to do so is a complicated question with no easy answers. Americans are right to care but we need to stop kidding ourselves that spending $30 plus shipping and handling for a Kony 2012 action kit makes us part of the solution to anything.


INVISIBLE CHILDREN has made a First Class propaganda film that will help pave the way for U.S. imposition of AFRICOM (the U.S. Africa Military Command
By Milton Allimadi
This is Classic propaganda. Look at the way the exploit U.S. children and then transplant the audience to Uganda, where again they take advantage of Ugandan children, who are the victims of both the LRA and the Ugandan government. Dr. Joseph Goebbels' would have been proud of this piece by Invisible Children; and he would have made something similar himself had he lived in our dot.com era of the 21st Century.



If Invisible Children was serious, the outfit would show that the first person who needs to be arrested is Uganda's and East Africa's biggest nightmare Dictator Yoweri Museveni, the biggest U.S. ally in Africa since Ronald Reagan's days. (And a first class racist African who told Atlantic Monthly Magazine, in September 1994: “I have never blamed the whites for colonizing Africa: I have never blamed these whites for taking slaves. If you are stupid, you should be taken a slave” But ironically, these are the kind of perverted minds that some White folk like. That's why Invisible Children only goes after Kony and leaves Museveni alone when in fact they are two sides of the same coin).



These young folks of Invisible Children are really super dangerous. They don't understand the conflict in Uganda, yet they have made themselves the spokesperson. It's like a bunch of White boys coming to Harlem and saying let me tell you what the solution to you woes are. Who would accept that. They would be run out of Harlem, right? Does anyone really think it would work? And who really believes it's a GOOD thing for the United States to be sending troops to Uganda or anywhere in Africa? Why would they act any differently than in Iraq and Afghanistan? The U.S. government and Invisible Children (which are allies of the U.S. and Uganda governments) are using the brutal Joseph Kony as a bogeyman to justify the U.S. long-term plan to impose AFRICOM on Africa. The U.S. knows all African countries oppose AFRICOM. So what does the U.S. do? Pick a "devil" and in this case Kony and say we are really going to Uganda to help them get rid of a "devil." And since everyone knows about Kony's atrocities, who would object if the U.S. sends 100 U.S. "advisors" to help Uganda (then 200 troops, then 300, then 1,000 troops...Then we suddenly have the AFRICOM command in Africa). IF THE US GOAL WAS TO GET JOSEPH KONY don't you think they could just use one or two PREDATOR DRONES? I don't for a minute believe Invisible Children is an independent do-good outfit. They are paving the way (with Kony, brutal as he is, as the bogeyman) for AFRICOM which would then make it easier for U.S. to control the rich oil fields in the northern part of Uganda, in South Sudan, in Congo's lake Albert region, and in Central Africa). The U.S. only needs ONE PREDATOR DRONE to take out Kony. Invisible Children have either been duped or are being manipulated by clever grown ups. Kony is a nightmare, but Museveni, who is a DISASTER and a friend of Invisible Children and the U.S. government has caused the deaths of millions of people in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo. In 2005 the International Court of Justice found Uganda liable for what amounts to war crimes in Congo (which lost 6 million people after Uganda's occupation of Congo) and awarded Congo $10 billion; not a dime has been paid. Congo then referred the same crimes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague for war crimes charges. On June 8, 2006, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gen. Museveni personally contacted Kofi Anan, then UN Secretary General and asked him to block the criminal investigation. It's clear that the U.S. and ICC Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo have indeed blocked that investigation and shielded Museveni from war crimes indictment.

http://www.friendsforpeaceinafrica.org/ ... Itemid=110

I will make some time to do a rebuttal piece on Not-so-Invisible Children's clever propaganda. A apologia for U.S. military imperialism in Africa and an apologia for the U.S. to side with one of Africa's worst dictators. In the meantime, please also watch the following short documentary. And, as you share Invisible Children's propaganda please also share the following short documentary.

But better, don't take my word for it. Google "Yoweri Museveni and genocide" and "Museveni and Congo genocide" and "U.S. support for dictator Museveni" and become better informed so you'll be able to withstand clever, slick propaganda such as Invisible Children's....
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby compared2what? » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:49 pm

How lovely to see people taking this opportunity to express all the very best in human nature.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:

Postby compared2what? » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:57 pm

Perelandra wrote:
compared2what? wrote:There are really a whole lot of children's charities out there that are simply flat-out cons, due to the naturally broad appeal that children-in-need causes tend to have from a fund-raising perspective. And that's to say nothing of the not-insignificant number of children's charities in places like Uganda that are either fronts for organized child-trafficking or somewhat-less-organized excellent opportunities for the sundry child-abusers who made a point of seeking and insinuating themselves into positions of authority there.
I've often wondered, when reading the results of your usual thorough research, if there are any such charities, here or abroad, which are reliably effective and transparent?


Sure, yes, of course. There are good aid charities. As a matter of fact, based on the very little I've seen of IC's financial, they're scrupulous in their administration of the funds that actually do go to Uganda. (Or, to be more precise, they voluntarily provide an enormous amount of detailed information about the oversight practices they use to ensure the money they wire their is used for the program. And they don't have to provide any, it's not something the IRS asks about.)

Are there watchdog groups? (Of course there must be, silly question.)


There aren't really, except in an ad hoc kind of a way, in some cases. But there should be.

Because I've been asked to contribute to thingies before and felt ambivalent about participating in things I know little about.


You shouldn't participate in things you know little about, if participating means giving strangers money. But it's not that difficult to check out whether a charity does more or less what it says it does. Their own websites usually have enough material on them for a reasonably judicious person to make that call.

It's the system I get outraged by, really. (Lack of watchdogs, etc.)
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:58 pm

May 18, 07 ABC broke hidden story about horrors in Uganda & then censored & deleted reader comments


Image
NORTHERN UGANDA:

HIDDEN WAR, MASSIVE SUFFERING
ANOTHER WHITE PEOPLE’S WAR FOR OIL

keith harmon snow
http://www.allthingspass.com



On May 18, 2007, ABC news broke a hidden story about horrors in Uganda, and then they censored and deleted reader’s comments. ABC has deleted an unknown number of comments by people horrified by the atrocities who only want to bring the truth to light and help stop the horrible suffering. Some forty comments were deleted on the night of May 20 alone. What are ABC’s real motives? From Darfur to Congo to Ethiopia to Somalia to Kenya—who or what is ripping apart this region of Africa?



On May 18, 2007, ABC News “The Blotter” posted a story titled “Secret Photos Reveal New African Horrors.” The short ABC web clip describes in unusual candor—for ABC—the hidden war and horrors in Northern Uganda. The title suggests that it is a “new” conflict, and yet another “African” conflict. Is ABC sincere in their reporting? Or is this just another propaganda campaign narrowly controlled to serve private profits?

“Documentary filmmakers in Uganda were subjected to intimidation and coercion and were the victims of break-ins while attempting to film what a former U.N. official calls “Uganda’s secret genocide” in the northern part of that country,” the ABC Blotter report begins. “The filmmakers say these threats came from Ugandan officials and secret intelligence organizations there.”

The story goes on to describe how an American film crew was reportedly robbed of footage and equipment as the photographers documented the suffering of millions of people, and the role of the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) and Ugandan government officials in perpetrating massive atrocities, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The ABC report calls it “Uganda’s Secret Genocide,” a remarkable revelation in a world attuned only to the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, a place not so far away from Northern Uganda, and one involving some of the same combatants.

“The Ugandan government says it created refugee camps,” ABC reported, “for displaced people who were victims of a violent, ongoing civil conflict with a rebel group from the north called the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).”

Like Somalia and eastern Congo, the wars in Darfur and Northern Uganda are prosecuted for the same reasons: petroleum, gold, land—and other natural resources. There is money to be made, indeed, and the Uganda government is depopulating the land to make it easier. But this has been going on for years. Out of sight, out of mind. But absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Spotlight War, Hidden War

While the war in Darfur is always described as a genocide by Arabs against black Africans—and never a “war” by competing factions—the war in Northern Uganda is almost never described at all. This is also true of the multiple fangs of conflict in Ethiopia, where the U.S. backed government of Meles Zenawi is committing genocide against indigenous people, the Anuak minority and others—but it’s completely out of the Western news. The AID for ARMS scandal in Ethiopia has seen hundreds of millions of dollars of weaponry purchased—and used—by AID dollars. This is a country of starvation, drought, and famine—and now the largest standing military in Africa, serving the interests of the Pentagon. The United Nations, UNICEF, everyone is silent.

The Darfur story receives massive press, but the Northern Uganda story has been in complete media whiteout. Like the millions of people at risk today in Somalia, where hundreds of thousands of refugees are on the move today due to a U.S. backed insurgency there, the war in Northern Uganda is off the agenda. The Darfur story has been running for about five years—an outrage where nothing happens to stop it—while the Uganda conflict has been running for more than fifteen years.

What’s the hidden agenda? Whose hidden agenda is it?

In the mid-1980’s today’s President of Uganda Yoweri Museveni seized power in a bloody conflict. Fighting alongside Museveni were Tutsi soldiers who would later go on to overthrow the government of Rwanda, in a low-intensity conflict that began in October 1990, and culminated in the spectacle of the Rwanda genocide of 1994. Powerful corporate, intelligence and defense interests from the United States backed both insurgencies.

Museveni also sent his bloodthirsty troops into Congo. Millions of innocent people died under Ugandan occupation, while Museveni and his gang plundered Congo’s natural resources, raped women and whipped up killing fields scattered with skeletons.

But Museveni is someone’s “Golden Boy,” just like Uganda was always Britain’s “Pearl of Africa.”

President Yoweri Museveni has controlled Uganda for more than 20 years in a one-party dictatorship friendly to powerful corporate interests predominantly from the United States, Britain and Israel.

But years ago, up in the north of Uganda, the Museveni government herded the minority Acholi people into forced settlements—they called then “refugee” camps—under the claim that the government was providing protection from rebel forces supposedly hostile to the Museveni government. They became death camps, and they are death camps still.

For years Museveni’s low-intensity war against the Acholi people has waged on, completely out of sight, while the army of Joseph Kony—the evil Christian forces of the Lord’s resistance Army—was the only party ever accused of anything. The LRA is purported to be a rebel army opposed to the Museveni regime, but this is a convenient ruse that serves the dictates of a permanent warfare economy.

The Lord’s Resistance Army

A perfect example of the skewed Western racist reportage is the Vanity Fair feature article of January 2006. Here we have popular writer Christopher Hitchens—the once left wing (sic) Nation magazine writer who went right wing after September 11—telling us a tall tale as if the only culprits—and even the only combatants—were the fanatical Lord’s Resistance Army. The Hitchen’s story, “Childhood’s End,” appeared in the posh Conde Nast publication Vanity Fair, which almost never runs anything on Africa by anyone other than Hitchens. (The Vanity Fair editors once returned a query letter to this author stating that Hitchens was their expert on Africa.)

“For 19 years, Joseph Kony has been enslaving, torturing, raping, and murdering Ugandan children,” Hitchens began, “many of whom have become soldiers for his ‘Lord’s Resistance Army,’ going on to torture, rape, and kill other children. The author exposes the vicious insanity—and cynical politics—behind one of Africa’s greatest nightmares.”

But the very same enslaving, torturing, raping, and murdering have been policy—from the highest officials—by UPDF soldiers against innocent people in Congo, Sudan and Uganda.

“These children are not running toward Jordan and the Lord,” Hitchens also wrote, putting an African tribal face on the conflict, “they are running for their lives from the “Lord’s Resistance Army” (L.R.A.). This grotesque, zombie-like militia, which has abducted, enslaved, and brainwashed more than 20,000 children, is a kind of Christian Khmer Rouge and has for the past 19 years set a standard of cruelty and ruthlessness that—even in a region with a living memory of Idi Amin—has the power to strike the most vivid terror right into the heart and the other viscera.”

“My Acholi friends look to the days of Idi Amin as ‘the good old days,’ wrote human rights activist Lucy Larom of the Campaign to End Genocide in Uganda (CEGUN). Several of Larom’s posts to the ABC Blotter site were also removed or sanitized. “Things were better then. At least in my understanding individuals were targeted, not a whole population. Or maybe because death was quick, relatively speaking. Not the prolonged year by year kind of suffering that has caused a whole new concept and reality to creep into the Acholi consciousness: suicide, one of the leading causes of death in the camps among women.”

Why does Joseph Kony get so much attention? Because he’s a terrorist? Because he’s a fanatical Christian? Maybe. Mostly because he is reported to be an ally of the Islamic government—read Islamic fundamentalist terrorists—running the genocide show in Sudan.

Currents of Holy War

“Joseph Kony and four other leaders of the L.R.A. were named in the first arrest warrants ever issued by the new International Criminal Court (I.C.C.),” wrote Christopher Hitchens, in the one paragraph in the entire Vanity Fair feature that has any ring of truth about it. “If that sounds like progress to you, then consider this. The whereabouts of Kony are already known: he openly uses a satellite phone from a base across the Ugandan border in southern Sudan.”

Kony also has direct ties to people in Washington. In 2006, while working in northeastern Congo in 2006, I spoke with a special intelligence investigator sent in by the United Nations Secretary General and tasked with finding and negotiating with Joseph Kony. When Washington got wind of it, they intervened, and blocked the negotiations, and the investigator was called off.

“Like the United States, Sudan is not a signatory to the treaty that set up the I.C.C.,” Christopher Hitchens went on to explain. “And it has sponsored the L.R.A. because the Ugandan government—which is an I.C.C. signatory—has helped the people of southern Sudan fight against the theocracy in Khartoum, the same theocracy that has been sponsoring the genocide against Muslim black Africans in Darfur.”

And so this is a remarkable admission by Christopher Hitchens: the Ugandan government has helped the people of southern Sudan fight against Khartoum. Of course, the Hitchen’s comment is a gross understatement. Uganda’s clandestine support for the people of South Sudan—the Sudan People’s Liberation Army—and the UPDF/SPLA alliance with the Pentagon and private military companies is something that is equally unreported and hidden, especially by the purveyors of the genocide line on Darfur. The UPDF and SPLA, with their foreign backers, have perpetrated massacres and war crimes using the human population as shields.

(See: keith harmon snow, Oil in Darfur? Covert Ops in Somalia? The New, Old, Humanitarian Warfare in Africa, <www.allthingspass.com/journalism.php?catid=24>.

Christopher Hitchens never gets into the reasons for the conflict, and instead of telling the truth about the natural resources that might be up for grab, or the depth of foreign intervention, or the involvement of companies like Bechtel, for example—whose subsidiary Nexant is part of the consortium of corporations building a massive oil pipeline across Uganda and Kenya—instead we find Hitchens spewing the standard litany of racist excuses for Africa’s hopeless plight. This could not possibly have anything to do with white people, according to Hitchens, and the posh luxury wasteland of Vanity Fair, instead it must be that the problems in Uganda are the “decades of war and famine and tyranny and Ebola and West Nile fever and AIDS.”

Christopher Hitchens is a peripheral player in the propaganda campaign to shield the Museveni regime however. In fact, as Hitchens notes in the Vanity Fair text, he traveled in Northern Uganda to do his Lord’s Resistance Army story with the assistance of John Prendergast of the International Crises Group. It’s likely that the Ugandan government provided security for the Hitchens/Prendergast mission. The International Crises group is a flak organization pursuing an aggressive U.S. foreign policy, premised on predatory capitalism and neoliberal economics, behind a face of “humanitarian” concern. On the ICG board, for example, are some of the world’s leading military strategists. ICG directors include former Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark; former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski; and Thomas Pickering, formerly special assistant to Henry Kissinger, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the Clinton White House, and now a Boeing Corporation executive.

Prendergast has achieved some recent notoriety by authoring a book about the Darfur crises with Don Cheadle, the Hollywood actor who starred in Hotel Rwanda. But John Prendergast’s role in manipulating world consciousness around war and genocide must be situated not in the “humanitarian” front that the ICG gives him, but in his role as National Security Council during the Clinton Administration. In 1997 he met frequently with other intelligence officials to organize the fall of the rogue Islamic state of Sudan. One event came under the euphemistic title: “Religion, Nationalism and Peace in Sudan” (http://www.usip.org/religionpeace/rehr/ ... anel6.html). Speakers included John Prendergast and Roger Winter. Prendergast's discussions—published in unclassified documents—make it clear that economic and military pressure was being applied from all directions. This is what we are seeing now: the culmination of a multi-pronged strategy to dismember Sudan. Prendergast’s ties to the classified arena are unknown to us. And who is Roger Winter? He helped the Rwanda Patriotic Front overthrow the government of Rwanda, beginning as early as 1988, backed by the U.S. and U.K., using bases and logistical support, and with military advisers and troops, from Museveni and the Uganda People’s Defense Forces. Roger Winter is today running USAID programs in Sudan. Pentagon documents that discuss the U.S. military’s Africa Command, AFRICOM, indicate that USAID likely has some role as intelligence offshoot of the Pentagon.

According to the investigations of the United Nations and the humanitarian law work of lawyer Karen Parker, the war in Uganda involves massive rapes, killing, tortures, and extrajudicial executions as a policy by the Ugandan military. Some 1.3 million people have been displaced in the Gulu, Kitgum and Pader districts of northern Uganda. There are over 73 camps with from 1000 to 50,000 people in them, all forcibly displaced by UPDF soldiers, with over 350,000 people out of some 400,000 people displaced from the Gulu district alone. Forced displacements occurred after UPDF bombed, and burned Acholiland villages, and beat, killed, raped and threatened people into moving. Some of the displacements occurred prior to 1993, but the most recent round of forced displacements began in 1996 and peaked in the 2002-2005 time frame. The United Nations and World Food Program in 2006 classified Northern Uganda as a severe humanitarian emergency due to the disease and death occurring in the camps. The Ugandan government claims to provide security for the camps but the camps are raided at will by the Lord’s Resistance Army and, instead of security in any case, UPDF forces pursue terrorism against the people of the camps. (Karen Parker, Forced Displacement in Northern Uganda, United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, <http://www.webcom.com/hrin/parker/sub01wsu.html>).


See the map of petroleum concessions controlled by Tullow Oil, whose subsidiaries include Hardman Resources and whose partners include Heritage Oil and Gas. The map from a Tullow Oil company document can be seen in the PDF or in the separate listing in the Sudan Uganda section of this web site. Please see additional maps of regional oil concessions provided through links below.


The ABC’s of War in Uganda

And so we have this new ABC expose, which takes quite a different line. Now we find ABC revealing the true story, with a little obvious hesitation, and a lot of deception of its own, but reporting, nonetheless, that more than 1500 indigenous Acholi people are dying every week. ABC even cites a recent report about Northern Uganda by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), claiming that “approximately 1.2 million internally displaced persons—IDPs—reside in overcrowded camps where mortality rates remain above emergency levels, largely as a result of inadequate water availability, poor sanitary conditions, and the spread of diseases.”

“It’s a huge conspiracy of silence about the genocide which has been committed in northern Uganda,” ABC quotes Olara A. Otunnu, the former U.N. undersecretary-general and special representative for children and armed conflict, to say.

But if ABC is interested in exposing the truth, why have they censored so many of the comments from readers of the story? Hundreds of comments were deleted on the night of May 20, and hundreds more were deleted or blocked before and since.

Perhaps the answer can be found in the comments made by those whose posts were deleted. Here are some, the comments of this writer, which were copied by another ABC reader (before ABC found and deleted them) and sent back to their source.

The posts were made with a sense of hope, and trust, that ABC was concerned about the people of Uganda, and interested in doing the right thing.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:08 am

This is a spook-generated event set up so they can 'debunk' it and thus reinforce the cover story of a 'liberal watch dog press' and
hide the fact that spooks run media and exploit viral marketing strategies all the time.

NPR (domestic Voice of America) covered this today and played the role of Protector of Public Information by deconstructing 'inaccurate emotional propaganda' for its listeners.

Keywords: "portrayed as a Hitler"..."army of children"...
Hijacking of Disney's infamous WWII psyops 'Hitler's Children.'
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3104128/h ... y_cartoon/

Since today Disney is run by the CIA to recruit children into the army. What a coincidence.
There's a reason for this timing. Psyops is going to be exposed big time. Watch.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby Jeff » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:08 am

Invisible Children's Kony campaign goes viral just as Lord's Resistance Army is dying

Geoffrey York
JOHANNESBURG— From Friday's Globe and Mail

While a viral video has helped millions of people discover the Lord’s Resistance Army, the video conceals a key reality on the ground: the LRA is a rapidly weakening force, and probably a dying organization, reduced to stealing food from villagers to survive.

The once-feared gang of killers and child-kidnappers has only about 200 members still alive, according to estimates in Congo, where it is now based.

...


The Pentagon has spent about $40-million on the anti-LRA mission since last October, deploying 100 military advisers to help the four African armies in their hunt for the LRA.

Many commentators in Uganda have scoffed at the viral video about the LRA, produced by a U.S. group called Invisible Children, which has been viewed by more than 13 million people this week. The total number of victims of LRA attacks since 2006 in all African countries is less than the number of car-accident victims in a single year in Uganda, one commentator noted.

And while the Ugandan military has been heavily involved in the hunt for the LRA over the past few years, it also has been widely criticized for human rights abuses including rape of women and looting of mineral resources.

Some observers suggest that the Ugandan military, controlled for 25 years by Uganda’s authoritarian president Yoweri Museveni, could have defeated the LRA many years ago if it had chosen to do so.

“For years I’ve believed – and in fact have said publicly – that Museveni could have taken out the LRA but was in no hurry to do so,” said Stephen Lewis, the former UN ambassador for HIV/AIDS in Africa.

“When years ago, I spent quite a bit of time in Northern Uganda for UNICEF, almost all of it dealing with the terrible consequences of Kony and company, it was widely felt in the Ugandan foreign diplomatic corps that Museveni was deliberately not pressing the advantage,” Mr. Lewis said. “I’ve heard awful stories about the behaviour of the Ugandan troops.”


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2363751/
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby wordspeak2 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:22 am

So LRA is barely a whimper at this point. Interesting... I'm not sure how that affects Stephen's thesis about Heritage Oil. That still might be a factor.

But thanks, SLAD, for the Keith Snow article. I wish he would write something right now. I've seen Keith speak with his kick-ass slide presentation a couple times; he's a fantastic journalist who's spent literally years in central Africa. In the article just posted Keith wrote that the current Ugandan government "has helped the people of southern Sudan fight against Khartoum."

"Uganda’s clandestine support for the people of South Sudan—the Sudan People’s Liberation Army—and the UPDF/SPLA alliance with the Pentagon and private military companies is something that is equally unreported and hidden, especially by the purveyors of the genocide line on Darfur."

That might have something to do with what's going on, because Sudan is the site of a massive resource battle for western (as well as Chinese) corporate interests, especially oil. Further arming the Ugandan army would stack the deck more heavily against the government in Khartoum, which has been non-compliant. The phony "Save Darfur" campaign has been successful, but the battle goes on; this may be an expansion of "Save Darfur" into Uganda, with western liberals again being unwitting pawns for imperialist interests.
Last edited by wordspeak2 on Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wordspeak2
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:35 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:There's a reason for this timing. Psyops is going to be exposed big time. Watch.


How do you think we could expect this to come about?
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby Jeff » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:39 pm

Invisible Children "Kony 2012" Leader Suggests It's About Jesus and Evangelizing

Is one of the biggest viral video in history Christian fundamentalist propaganda? Invisible Children's founder lays out his agenda at Liberty University.

March 8, 2012

...

On its face, the effort appears secular, and evangelizing is not mentioned as an objective.

But in a November 7, 2011 appearance at Liberty University, as part of Liberty's Fall Convocation speaker series, Invisible Children co-founder Jason Russell hinted that Invisible Children was also an evangelizing effort, and during his talk Russell coached Liberty University students on what could be characterized as extremely low-key, or stealth, evangelism.

Joining Russell onstage during his November 7 Liberty University appearance was Alex Harris, credited with playing a key role in driving Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential bid. At 20:20 into the 39 minute discussion, Harris received a question from the Liberty University student audience - "What is the greatest challenge to the millennial generation, in impacting the world for Christ ?"

Jason Russell fielded the following question from the audience which was, as characterized by Johnnie Moore, Liberty University Vice President of Teaching Projects,"How do you motivate hypocritical, apathetic Christians to, kind of, `get in the fight'?"

What was "the fight"? The message was ambiguous. Earlier in the discussion, Jason Russell had stated his goal of "ending genocide" and capturing Joseph Kony, but that goal seemed framed within the larger project of evangelizing the nations. During the discussion, as a backdrop, hung a blue curtain that proclaimed, "Liberty University: 40 Years of Training Champions For Christ".

...

http://www.alternet.org/visions/154477/ ... gelizing_/


User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Kony 2012

Postby psynapz » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:52 pm

Milton Allimadi wrote:The U.S. knows all African countries oppose AFRICOM. So what does the U.S. do? Pick a "devil" and in this case Kony and say we are really going to Uganda to help them get rid of a "devil." And since everyone knows about Kony's atrocities, who would object if the U.S. sends 100 U.S. "advisors" to help Uganda (then 200 troops, then 300, then 1,000 troops...Then we suddenly have the AFRICOM command in Africa). IF THE US GOAL WAS TO GET JOSEPH KONY don't you think they could just use one or two PREDATOR DRONES? I don't for a minute believe Invisible Children is an independent do-good outfit. They are paving the way (with Kony, brutal as he is, as the bogeyman) for AFRICOM which would then make it easier for U.S. to control the rich oil fields in the northern part of Uganda, in South Sudan, in Congo's lake Albert region, and in Central Africa). The U.S. only needs ONE PREDATOR DRONE to take out Kony. Invisible Children have either been duped or are being manipulated by clever grown ups.

This is an interesting point. But it fails to take into account the necessity of intelligence work to track his movement and pinpoint his location for such a drone strike. It looks like it would be pretty damn hard to do, but he's right that if the determination were there, it would be done already. He's also right that this has the appearance of a Hegelian dialectic in midpoint of execution. And about Goebbels. He would have +1 Liked that video immediately. And retweeted it. And retweeted it. And retweeted it...
“blunting the idealism of youth is a national security project” - Hugh Manatee Wins
User avatar
psynapz
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:01 pm
Location: In the Flow, In the Now, Forever
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 156 guests