Kony and LRA haven't been in Uganda since 2006...
Kony and LRA haven't been in Uganda since 2006...
leedomargus
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2009
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Kony is FROM Uganda...
S
Sam
Guest
I'm not arguing with that. What's wrong with you? :S
The innocent children of Africa, their childhoods stolen, ripped from the arms of their crying parents. Soon unable to defend themselves they must learn to shoot, whlist a baying mob of savages cheer them on. Most will never learn to read or write, there are no medals for these brave lost causes, no victory, no respite. We must make the world aware, we must not turn our back...
ARSENE WENGER 2012!
ARSENE WENGER 2012!
Ha. This made me laugh.. I have a feeling you will receive an infraction, though.
Hopefully not like haha, intended as a joke. Hope nobody is offended
LiverpoolCF
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Please dont get mad at me at what im about to say but this is just my opinion...
The charity is really bad....only 32% of the actual money goes to Uganda.. and really Uganda is not a good place in the first place.. Rape and abuse of kids not only from Kony but most of Uganda.
The cause of taking down Kony is great but for a non=profitable charity 32% is not acceptable. If they give more to Uganda and the army then i may think of asking my parents to donate some money.
Im not sure why we need awareness....We know Kony now...what now? We go to Uganda and kill him?
This needs an actual action not awareness...And really Kony has child army...And if we start killing Kony's army we are killing kids, how does that make any sense if Invinsible children is trying to save kids from dying?
The charity is really bad....only 32% of the actual money goes to Uganda.. and really Uganda is not a good place in the first place.. Rape and abuse of kids not only from Kony but most of Uganda.
The cause of taking down Kony is great but for a non=profitable charity 32% is not acceptable. If they give more to Uganda and the army then i may think of asking my parents to donate some money.
Im not sure why we need awareness....We know Kony now...what now? We go to Uganda and kill him?
This needs an actual action not awareness...And really Kony has child army...And if we start killing Kony's army we are killing kids, how does that make any sense if Invinsible children is trying to save kids from dying?
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
No charity can be truly non-profit. They need to pay the people who do the work, assuming it is full time, pay the crews etc. that go with them, pay for projects like this. Take a look into other "Non-profit" charities and you'll see that 32%, really, isn't that bad.
Wha. What does their expenses have to do with them being non-profit. You donate money to them, and they spend it on a charitable cause, which includes expenses related to the charity. Non-profit means they spend their revenue surplus on charity rather than keep it as a profit.
LiverpoolCF
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
32% is not bad?
That is HORRIBLE
Every Non Profitable Charity must follow the example of Red Cross and Salvation Army...This guys I can trust 85%+ goes to the actual cause...
[h=3]Kony 2012 the ******* offspring of the liberal elite[/h]
What could be more annoying than the Kony 2012 campaign, that seething well of emotional incontinence where people who couldn't even point to Uganda on a map are logging on to Facebook or Twitter to squeal "I hate Joseph Kony"?
I can think of one thing more annoying: the backlash against Kony 2012, which is easily as shallow and thoughtless as the thing it professes to hate.
Indeed, over the past week, the bashers of Kony 2012 have achieved the rather remarkable feat of out-smugging and out-dumbing the anti-Kony clicktivist frenzy itself.
There is now almost universal agreement, certainly amongst serious liberal commentators, that Kony 2012 is not only a very weird phenomenon but also a very bad one.
This viral hate campaign against Joseph Kony, the mad and elusive leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, seemed to come out of nowhere, speedily marshalling an online army of angry youth who used their fingers and thumbs to express their intense (if newfound) loathing of this wicked Ugandan warlord.
The campaign became a superbly easy target of commentators' sniffiness. With its viral video featuring a blonde-haired, white-skinned boy being shown pictures of an evil black man "over there", Kony 2012 was rightly ridiculed for its borderline racist and certainly paternalistic undertones.
If Kipling gave us the White Man's Burden, which implored decent white folk to help save dumb foreigners who were "half-devil, half-child", then Kony 2012 gave us the White Tweeters' Burden, pleading with the internet generation to register their loathing of a foreign "devil" (Kony) and their pity for the foreign "child" (in the shape of all those child soldiers deployed by the LRA).
Then, when it was revealed that celebs like Rihanna and Justin Bieber had tweeted their support for Kony 2012, it was well and truly open season on this moralistic meme.
What do such airheads know about international affairs, the well-informed classes wondered?
The commentariat's cynicism towards Kony 2012 was best summed up by a writer for the Independent in Britain, who slammed the "famous people emoting on a cause they know nothing about" and the campaign organisers' "total insensitivity to questions of race, power and representation".
That sounds fair enough. And yet, there is something not quite right in the anti-Kony 2012 camp. Its treatment of Kony 2012 as a bizarre, almost inexplicable campaign, as a "vain viral campaign" which "seemingly popped out of nowhere", overlooks the fact that this brand of childish and naive international grandstanding actually has some major antecedents in modern politics.
Indeed, Kony 2012 is best viewed, not as an aberration, but as the ugly end result of the reduction of complex international issues to black-and-white morality tales over the past 20 years. And who is responsible for that reduction, for the relentless dumbing down of our understanding of global conflicts so that everything ends up being squeezed into a straitjacket of Good and Evil?
That's right, some of the very same "serious" commentators and campaigners who now heartily laugh at Rihanna and her minions for getting their hate on with Joseph Kony.
One of the main criticisms made of Kony 2012 is that it uses simplistic, childlike language to try to stir up emotions over what is actually a complex political situation. As one critic put it, the problem with the campaign is that it promotes a "bad guy script", replacing the tough challenge of understanding modern Uganda with the cheap thrill of expressing outrage against one of its weirder warlords.
That's true - but who was it who zapped serious politics from international affairs and replaced it with a shallow, knee-jerk moralism? It wasn't the tiny team behind Kony 2012, but rather the far bigger and more influential collective of "humanitarian interventionists" - those politicians, journalists and human-rights activists who have spent the past two decades reducing every messy conflict around the world to a simple case of Good v Evil.
One of key architects of "humanitarian interventionism", Tony Blair, was loudly applauded by serious liberal newspapers such as the Independent and the Guardian when, in 1999, he set out his mission to replace realpolitik with black-and-white moralism.
In a speech in Chicago, unveiling what would later become known as "the Chicago doctrine", Blair declared that when "evil" is occurring somewhere in the world, then "the principle of non-intervention [should] yield to the international responsibility to protect". He explicitly used nursery-style language to describe this new interventionist imperative. So he said that his and Bill Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was a "battle between good and evil, between civilisation and barbarity".
The serious commentariat - including some of the people now slamming Justin Bieber for looking at Uganda through fairytale goggles - lapped up Blair's uber-moralisation of complex international issues. Indeed, many of them treated Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb Yugoslav leader who was attacked by Blair and Clinton, in the same way fuzzy-minded teens now treat Joseph Kony - as a wicked, awful, unspeakable man whom they could conspicuously hate.
So the Guardian described Milosevic as "the chilling embodiment of evil" - the same post-political language now inherited by the organisers of Kony 2012. Other serious reporters openly admitted that railing against "evil" Serbs in the 1990s provided them with a moral rush and sense of purpose. One Guardian columnist said:
If Kony 2012 really has emptied a complex conflict of its nuance and turned a foreign warlord into a dastardly figure we can all feel good about hating, then it learned those tricks from serious players in the world of modern liberal politics - they've been doing the same thing for two decades.
Indeed, the hacks and activists of the "humanitarian" set have even plied their low moralistic trade in Africa, acting paternalistically towards that continent long before Kony 2012 did.
During the Darfur conflict of the mid-2000s, all the tools now used by Kony 2012 - the language of good and evil, the depiction of certain Africans as mad, the achievement of a cheap moral thrill through lambasting evil wogs - were all honed by liberal campaigners and commentators.
So, very few commentators took George Clooney to task when, in his capacity as a spokesman for the Save Darfur Coalition, he said of Darfur: "It's not a political issue. There is only right and wrong." Apparently it is bad for Bieber to depict Africa in black-and-white terms, but okay for Clooney to do so.
Nor did commentators mind when a celeb spokesman for Save The Children declared in 2007 that "Africa is a very complex place, but the Darfur crisis is quite simple. The conflict is essentially the Arabs against the Africans. It's all tied up in various battles over things like oil and gold." That assessment of Darfur is easily as boneheaded as Kony 2012's analysis of Uganda.
Meanwhile, a veteran British journalist hysterically claimed the situation in Darfur was "comparable to the death camps in **** Germany". And the great and the good in the right-on world of caring commentary and NGO activism sagely nodded in agreement.
Indeed, the searing criticism made by the author Mahmood Mamdani of the Save Darfur campaign in 2007 reveals that it was, in many ways, the predecessor to Kony 2012. Mamdani said the serious media and serious activists had connived in the
Yet what such mocking overlooks is that the moralistic zealots of the simple-minded Kony 2012 campaign are actually the ******* offspring of the liberal elite and its cynical, self-serving moralisation of international affairs.
Brendan O'Neill is editor of Spiked in London. View his full profile here.
Kony 2012 the ******* offspring of the liberal elite - The Drum Opinion - If Kony 2012 really has simplistically turned a foreign warlord into a dastardly figure we can all feel good about hating, then it learned those tricks from serious players in
What could be more annoying than the Kony 2012 campaign, that seething well of emotional incontinence where people who couldn't even point to Uganda on a map are logging on to Facebook or Twitter to squeal "I hate Joseph Kony"?
I can think of one thing more annoying: the backlash against Kony 2012, which is easily as shallow and thoughtless as the thing it professes to hate.
Indeed, over the past week, the bashers of Kony 2012 have achieved the rather remarkable feat of out-smugging and out-dumbing the anti-Kony clicktivist frenzy itself.
There is now almost universal agreement, certainly amongst serious liberal commentators, that Kony 2012 is not only a very weird phenomenon but also a very bad one.
This viral hate campaign against Joseph Kony, the mad and elusive leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, seemed to come out of nowhere, speedily marshalling an online army of angry youth who used their fingers and thumbs to express their intense (if newfound) loathing of this wicked Ugandan warlord.
The campaign became a superbly easy target of commentators' sniffiness. With its viral video featuring a blonde-haired, white-skinned boy being shown pictures of an evil black man "over there", Kony 2012 was rightly ridiculed for its borderline racist and certainly paternalistic undertones.
If Kipling gave us the White Man's Burden, which implored decent white folk to help save dumb foreigners who were "half-devil, half-child", then Kony 2012 gave us the White Tweeters' Burden, pleading with the internet generation to register their loathing of a foreign "devil" (Kony) and their pity for the foreign "child" (in the shape of all those child soldiers deployed by the LRA).
Then, when it was revealed that celebs like Rihanna and Justin Bieber had tweeted their support for Kony 2012, it was well and truly open season on this moralistic meme.
What do such airheads know about international affairs, the well-informed classes wondered?
The commentariat's cynicism towards Kony 2012 was best summed up by a writer for the Independent in Britain, who slammed the "famous people emoting on a cause they know nothing about" and the campaign organisers' "total insensitivity to questions of race, power and representation".
That sounds fair enough. And yet, there is something not quite right in the anti-Kony 2012 camp. Its treatment of Kony 2012 as a bizarre, almost inexplicable campaign, as a "vain viral campaign" which "seemingly popped out of nowhere", overlooks the fact that this brand of childish and naive international grandstanding actually has some major antecedents in modern politics.
Indeed, Kony 2012 is best viewed, not as an aberration, but as the ugly end result of the reduction of complex international issues to black-and-white morality tales over the past 20 years. And who is responsible for that reduction, for the relentless dumbing down of our understanding of global conflicts so that everything ends up being squeezed into a straitjacket of Good and Evil?
That's right, some of the very same "serious" commentators and campaigners who now heartily laugh at Rihanna and her minions for getting their hate on with Joseph Kony.
One of the main criticisms made of Kony 2012 is that it uses simplistic, childlike language to try to stir up emotions over what is actually a complex political situation. As one critic put it, the problem with the campaign is that it promotes a "bad guy script", replacing the tough challenge of understanding modern Uganda with the cheap thrill of expressing outrage against one of its weirder warlords.
That's true - but who was it who zapped serious politics from international affairs and replaced it with a shallow, knee-jerk moralism? It wasn't the tiny team behind Kony 2012, but rather the far bigger and more influential collective of "humanitarian interventionists" - those politicians, journalists and human-rights activists who have spent the past two decades reducing every messy conflict around the world to a simple case of Good v Evil.
One of key architects of "humanitarian interventionism", Tony Blair, was loudly applauded by serious liberal newspapers such as the Independent and the Guardian when, in 1999, he set out his mission to replace realpolitik with black-and-white moralism.
In a speech in Chicago, unveiling what would later become known as "the Chicago doctrine", Blair declared that when "evil" is occurring somewhere in the world, then "the principle of non-intervention [should] yield to the international responsibility to protect". He explicitly used nursery-style language to describe this new interventionist imperative. So he said that his and Bill Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was a "battle between good and evil, between civilisation and barbarity".
The serious commentariat - including some of the people now slamming Justin Bieber for looking at Uganda through fairytale goggles - lapped up Blair's uber-moralisation of complex international issues. Indeed, many of them treated Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb Yugoslav leader who was attacked by Blair and Clinton, in the same way fuzzy-minded teens now treat Joseph Kony - as a wicked, awful, unspeakable man whom they could conspicuously hate.
So the Guardian described Milosevic as "the chilling embodiment of evil" - the same post-political language now inherited by the organisers of Kony 2012. Other serious reporters openly admitted that railing against "evil" Serbs in the 1990s provided them with a moral rush and sense of purpose. One Guardian columnist said:
My father had the honour of fighting fascism; I instead have the strange privilege of meeting the people who are fighting a pale but unmistakable imitation of the Third Reich [the Serbs].
Chris Hedges, who covered the Yugoslav conflicts for the New York Times, likewise admitted to getting a thrill from screeching at the Serbs.
Many of us, restless and unfulfilled, see no supreme worth in our lives. [W]ar, at least gives a sense that we can rise above our smallness and divisiveness.
This is precisely the same emotion now motoring the Kony 2012 campaign - the narcissistic desire to rise above one's own "smallness" by indulging in an orgy of collective hate against a man who seems simplistically evil and Third Reich-like.
If Kony 2012 really has emptied a complex conflict of its nuance and turned a foreign warlord into a dastardly figure we can all feel good about hating, then it learned those tricks from serious players in the world of modern liberal politics - they've been doing the same thing for two decades.
Indeed, the hacks and activists of the "humanitarian" set have even plied their low moralistic trade in Africa, acting paternalistically towards that continent long before Kony 2012 did.
During the Darfur conflict of the mid-2000s, all the tools now used by Kony 2012 - the language of good and evil, the depiction of certain Africans as mad, the achievement of a cheap moral thrill through lambasting evil wogs - were all honed by liberal campaigners and commentators.
So, very few commentators took George Clooney to task when, in his capacity as a spokesman for the Save Darfur Coalition, he said of Darfur: "It's not a political issue. There is only right and wrong." Apparently it is bad for Bieber to depict Africa in black-and-white terms, but okay for Clooney to do so.
Nor did commentators mind when a celeb spokesman for Save The Children declared in 2007 that "Africa is a very complex place, but the Darfur crisis is quite simple. The conflict is essentially the Arabs against the Africans. It's all tied up in various battles over things like oil and gold." That assessment of Darfur is easily as boneheaded as Kony 2012's analysis of Uganda.
Meanwhile, a veteran British journalist hysterically claimed the situation in Darfur was "comparable to the death camps in **** Germany". And the great and the good in the right-on world of caring commentary and NGO activism sagely nodded in agreement.
Indeed, the searing criticism made by the author Mahmood Mamdani of the Save Darfur campaign in 2007 reveals that it was, in many ways, the predecessor to Kony 2012. Mamdani said the serious media and serious activists had connived in the
...reduction of a complex political context to a morality tale unfolding in a world populated by villains and victims who never trade places and so can always and easily be told apart.
That is precisely what Kony 2012 is doing in relation to Uganda. It is very unbecoming of the serious commentators who actually invented that mode of shallow, moralistic politics to now take the mick out of Kony 2012. How easy it is to mock P Diddy and teenage Americans for engaging in collective posturing against evil foreigners.
Yet what such mocking overlooks is that the moralistic zealots of the simple-minded Kony 2012 campaign are actually the ******* offspring of the liberal elite and its cynical, self-serving moralisation of international affairs.
Brendan O'Neill is editor of Spiked in London. View his full profile here.
Kony 2012 the ******* offspring of the liberal elite - The Drum Opinion - If Kony 2012 really has simplistically turned a foreign warlord into a dastardly figure we can all feel good about hating, then it learned those tricks from serious players in
This Kony thing is getting out of hand.. First we had Kony 2012.. Then anti-Kony 2012.. Now anti-anti-Kony 2012? Are you freaking serious? Where will it end!?
If something is anti-anti does that make it pro-Kony 2012?
If something is anti-anti does that make it pro-Kony 2012?
If something is anti-anti does that make it pro-Kony 2012?
Yes, and also extremely retarded, supporting a cause because you are against the people that are against the cause, renders the cause pointless.
co-founder of invisible children caught 'spraying his invisible children' in public
Invisible Children Co-Founder Detained: SDPD | NBC San Diego
oh dear...
Invisible Children Co-Founder Detained: SDPD | NBC San Diego
oh dear...