PDA

View Full Version : Who's behind the Kony 2012 viral film?



Dolphins9954
03-11-2012, 07:56 PM
The 30-minute story is designed to raise awareness of the alleged war crimes of Joseph Kony, the rebel leader of the Lord's Resistance Army or LRA in Central Africa. He's accused of kidnapping as many as 30,000 children in the past 26 years.

"Turning the girls into sex slaves and the boys into child soldiers and he forces them to kill their own parents."

A San Diego-based charity called Invisible Children produced the video, which went online Monday. The charity's web site asked viewers to contact 20 celebrities and get them to spread word about the film. Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ryan Seacrest mentioned the campaign to their millions of followers on Twitter and Facebook.

"They've been really smart about targeting a set of people and the celebrities," says Lindsey Turentine, the editor-in-chief of the technology website CNET. "It's a broad set of celebrities, but what most of these celebrities have in common is a huge social media following."

The result: an African militia leader is now the topic of conversation in schools yards across the country, including this Los Angeles middle school.

"It is amazing how people got really interested in this topic, because Uganda children are so far away," said one student.

Jason Russell made the film. He's advocated for international action against Kony for nearly a decade. The film is part of Invisible Children's campaign to rachet up pressure to arrest the warlord by the end of 2012.

But in Uganda, journalist Rosebell Kagumire says the film exaggerates the current situation and wonders what lasting good it will do.

"At end of the day, it simplifies the war that is so complex and gives this picture that you know only a certain person -- if a college student from America gives the money they will stop Kony. So I'm wondering where's the link between them giving money and stopping Joseph Kony, who has been fighting for 25, for 26 years"?

Invisible Children has been criticized for what it spends on media productions and marketing instead of direct aid to Africa. Last year, the charity took in $13.8 million. They spent $8.9 million and just $3.3 million went to programs in central Africa.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57393761/whos-behind-african-militia-leader-viral-film/

Dolphins9954
03-11-2012, 07:59 PM
Here's a good rant about this......


oYpzVA5lRwI

rob19
03-12-2012, 05:12 AM
that was unbearable

rob19
03-12-2012, 05:28 AM
We're not going to war with the Ugandan Govt. Theoretically we'd be, as stated in the movie, providing tactical advice to the Ugandan Govt, and not sending in any armed forces, this is nothing like Afghanistan. Furthermore, they didn't 'pocket' 70% of the money, they might have thought the best way to ultimately get the most money is by spending money marketing the foundation, & I think they've succeeded in getting people's attention, so it might actually be a smart business decision. Third, if the numbers of child soldiers is slightly exaggerated, I still think that's still probably too many child soldiers. I appreciate the skepticism, but the criticisms are weak.

In my opinion, the reason why some people seem to be desperately looking to poke holes in the integrity of the foundation is because it's true that there are a ton of other countries that have ****ed up situations going on there, and if we fix one situation, why should we not fix them all? Why does Uganda get to be the lucky one? Because they got more press? So these people realize that this precedent for helping Uganda might spark more campaigns to aid other countries with bad situations, while America, given it's own political instability, probably doesn't have the resources to fund this type of noble crusade. So instead, rather than acknowledging that we may be powerless to stop the atrocities happening abroad, we try to assuage our guilt by attempting to disparage the virtue of the effort.

Dolphins9954
03-12-2012, 08:33 AM
We're not going to war with the Ugandan Govt. Theoretically we'd be, as stated in the movie, providing tactical advice to the Ugandan Govt, and not sending in any armed forces, this is nothing like Afghanistan. Furthermore, they didn't 'pocket' 70% of the money, they might have thought the best way to ultimately get the most money is by spending money marketing the foundation, & I think they've succeeded in getting people's attention, so it might actually be a smart business decision. Third, if the numbers of child soldiers is slightly exaggerated, I still think that's still probably too many child soldiers. I appreciate the skepticism, but the criticisms are weak.

In my opinion, the reason why some people seem to be desperately looking to poke holes in the integrity of the foundation is because it's true that there are a ton of other countries that have ****ed up situations going on there, and if we fix one situation, why should we not fix them all? Why does Uganda get to be the lucky one? Because they got more press? So these people realize that this precedent for helping Uganda might spark more campaigns to aid other countries with bad situations, while America, given it's own political instability, probably doesn't have the resources to fund this type of noble crusade. So instead, rather than acknowledging that we may be powerless to stop the atrocities happening abroad, we try to assuage our guilt by attempting to disparage the virtue of the effort.


Cashing in on Uganda's oil boom

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15645354


When 2/3 or more of money raised for charity doesn't even go to the people it's suppose to help. That's shady business no matter what. Sure they got lucky and a movie they made almost 10 years ago finally caught some steam on the net. But what about those 10 years where it didn't and the majority of that money wasn't going where it should be going. And what about if the movie never got attention at all? Watching the movie it clearly was justifying and setting the stage for intervention. Which would more than likely be the USA that will do it. And many bleeding hearts out there would love to go to war over something like this without understanding the major complexities and ramifications of it. While the military industrial complex and oil companies would love another adventure especially under the guise of "saving the children". What's happening over in Uganda is horrible and tragic. And it's not just from KONY. The Uganda government is responsible for the same atrocities as well. Supporting that government and it's war crimes while fighting an army of child soldiers for it's war crimes is a situation we don't need to be in at all. Especially for our troops who have seen enough and been through enough. Imagine sending them over there to kill kids with guns? Unfortunately the whole thing is one big cluster F that we should avoid. Unless it's to send money to organizations that really do good work for the people in those areas.

Dolphins9954
03-12-2012, 09:45 AM
Here's a good article on this......


Good warlords, bad warlords and the #kony2012 campaign


"There is no easy way of saying what I feel right now, except a deep hurt and gnawing urgency to bang my head against my desk as a prescriptive to make the dumb-assery stop."

That was how (http://desk-airline.ru/ais/ditante.php) TMS Ruge, the Ugandan co-founder of the development NGO Project Diaspora (http://projectdiaspora.org/), responded to the Kony 2012 campaign that last week spread across Facebook and Twitter like some kind of digital rash.

Not surprisingly, the clip (Ruge dubs it a 'self-righteous idiocy train') is seriously misleading, falsely implying there's war raging in Northern Uganda when there's not. In fact, Kony has not been in the country for six years; his group is a much-depleted rump, numbering a few hundred people at most.

"To call the campaign a misrepresentation is an understatement," writes the Ugandan journalist Angelo Izama (http://thisisafrica.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/acholi-street-stop-kony2012-invisible-childrens-campaign-of-infamy/).

"While it draws attention to the fact that Kony, indicted for war crimes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/joseph_kony/index.html) by the International Criminal Court in 2005, is still on the loose, its portrayal of his alleged crimes in Northern Uganda are from a bygone era."

As Ruge says:

"Catching and stopping Kony is not a priority of immediate concern. You know what is? Finding a bed net so that millions of kids don't die every day from malaria. How many of you know that more Ugandans died in road accidents last year (2,838) than have died in the past three years from LRA attacks in whole of central Africa (2,400)?"

Supporters of Invisible Children and the clip argue that, whatever its limitations, #Kony2012 has at least started a conversation about Uganda and its problems, a conversation that would not otherwise have taken place.

Yet it might equally be said that the 2003 invasion of Iraq spurred a global discussion on that country - but that didn't helped ordinary Iraqis much.

The Iraq comparison comes to mind because, although most retweeters think they're backing a purely humanitarian NGO, Visible Children actually endorses military action in Uganda.

As the tumblr calling itself Visible Children (http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com/) explains:

"the group [behind #Kony2012] is in favour of direct military intervention, and their money supports the Ugandan government's army and various other military forces. Here's a photo (http://www.scarlettlion.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GlennaGordon_InvisibleChildrenA.jpg) of the founders of Invisible Children posing with weapons and personnel of the Sudan People's Liberation Army. Both the Ugandan army and Sudan People's Liberation Army are riddled with accusations of rape and looting, but Invisible Children defends them, arguing that the Ugandan army is 'better equipped than that of any of the other affected countries' […] These books each refer to the rape and sexual assault that are perennial issues with the UPDF, the military group Invisible Children is defending."

The author Michael Deibert (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-deibert) makes the same argument in several must-read articles. Invisible Children, he says, advocates US military support for the government of Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, a regime implicated in human rights violations (including the use of child soldiers) and electoral fraud. Indeed, though almost no-one in the West is aware of it, Barack Obama has previously sent Special Forces troops to Uganda in the name of hunting down Kony. This new call for an increased military presence comes, wouldn't you know it, just as huge oil reserves have been discovered in the country.

Deibert concludes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-deibert/joseph-kony-2012-children_b_1327417.html):

By blindly supporting Uganda's current government and its military adventures beyond its borders, as Invisible Children suggests that people do, Invisible Children is in fact guaranteeing that there will be more violence, not less, in Central Africa.

I have seen the well-meaning foreigners do plenty of damage before, so that is why people understanding the context and the history of the region is important before they blunder blindly forward to "help" a people they don't understand.

US president Bill Clinton professed that he was "helping" in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1990s and his help ended up with over 6 million people losing their lives (http://michaeldeibert.blogspot.com/2008/09/congo-between-hope-and-despair.html).


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3883140.html

rob19
03-12-2012, 06:39 PM
You're too fixated on percentages rather than overall money. Say a few years back when their charity didn't have as much pub. and no one knew about it, only brought in about 1 million in donations. Say they gave 80% of that to direct action in Africa, that's still only 800k. Whereas now, through the money they've spent marketing, they may take in close to 13 million a year in donations, and even at 30%, it dwarfs the other scenario. Furthermore, these guys aren't getting rich. The guys who run this pay themselves about 80,000$ a year, not "pocketing" millions, as these criticisms try to make it seem. Do you know what most organizations would pay someone to get 30 million people to watch a film? More than 80k.

Secondly, I'd like to clarify the stance of the movie pertaining to "military involvement". They advocate that the United States play the role of 'tactical advisers', & NOT sending in any armed troops. The article you posted mentioned that Obama sent aid to Uganda and that no one knew about it; well they should, because they mentioned it in the movie. Obama, in accordance with the wishes of the organization, sent tactical advisers to cooperate with the Ugandan Govt, not "sending in the troops". Which brings me to my next point, we'd be, as we already have with Obama, COOPERATING with the Ugandan Govt, not going to war with it. We'd be sending in no troops, according to the plan advocated by the movie, people hear "military assistance" & they think it means through armed forces.

The article also seems to contradict itself. First it says we want to go to war with Uganda for their "new found oil", then they say we shouldn't support the Ugandan President. So which is it? Are we going to war with Uganda or are we cooperating with their President? It obviously can't be both.

I'm in agreement we shouldn't be involved in regards to armed troops, which the makers of Kony2012 never suggested anyway, but I just find the criticisms lazy.

Dolphins9954
03-12-2012, 07:06 PM
I don't see where it says we're going to war with Uganda over oil.It just states that oil is a motivating factor for our involvement there. While stating the hypocrisy of our support for the government in Uganda that is responsible for war crimes and atrocities themselves. Basically we're choosing sides in a war where both sides are evil. According to the article above and Michael Deibert from the Huffington Post. Invisible Children does advocate "direct military intervention" while supporting Uganda's military financially too. A military once again that has committed plenty of war crimes. I think there's bit of wishful thinking to think our "military advisor" role will stay that way. Especially with all the attention now. The military industrial complex always needs a new pair of shoes.

CedarPhin
03-12-2012, 07:10 PM
It's just the flavor of the week for the latest cause to be up in arms about. I don't think we'll be sending any troops down there, it just makes zero sense. Other than presumed oil wealth, that part of Africa doesn't offer a whole lot to the US' interests, certainly not worth fighting a giant war over.

It sounds to me like we're aimlessly chasing this boogeyman through the Ugandan jungles, similar to pursuing the Vietcong in Vietnam. I personally don't think anything will happen there, as we're already pretty pre-occupied with what's going on with the whole Iranian situation.

We've got advisers/covert ops all over the place. I can remember walking down the street in Colombia and seeing US troops intertwined with their Colombian counterparts. We'll probably handle this Ugandan effort like we handle that.

Dolphins9954
03-12-2012, 10:11 PM
It's just the flavor of the week for the latest cause to be up in arms about. I don't think we'll be sending any troops down there, it just makes zero sense. Other than presumed oil wealth, that part of Africa doesn't offer a whole lot to the US' interests, certainly not worth fighting a giant war over.

It sounds to me like we're aimlessly chasing this boogeyman through the Ugandan jungles, similar to pursuing the Vietcong in Vietnam. I personally don't think anything will happen there, as we're already pretty pre-occupied with what's going on with the whole Iranian situation.

We've got advisers/covert ops all over the place. I can remember walking down the street in Colombia and seeing US troops intertwined with their Colombian counterparts. We'll probably handle this Ugandan effort like we handle that.

God I hope not. We have quite a few bases in Colombia with troops and spend a lot of money down there on the vain attempt to stop the cocaine trade. Colombian style would still be too much. I do agree that Iran and the middle east are the more likely scenarios.

Dolphins9954
03-13-2012, 09:39 PM
Joseph Kony resolution introduced in House


Two House lawmakers on Tuesday introduced a resolution supporting efforts to counter the Lord's Resistance Army, hoping to build on the momentum created by a viral YouTube video spotlighting the atrocities of LRA leader Joseph Kony.

The resolution (http://royce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/McGovern_Royce_Res_Spotlights_Kony_and_LRA_3.13.12.pdf), introduced by Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. and Ed Royce, R-Calif., calls for, among other things, expanding the number of regional forces in Africa to protect civilians and placing restrictions on individuals or governments found to be supporting Kony.

Kony gained notoriety in the U.S. this month when a 30-minute video produced by the group Invisible Children went viral, picking up more than 50 million views in just four days. The video spotlighted how the Ugandan warlord has been accused of kidnapping up to 30,000 children in the past 26 years, using girls as sex slaves and boys as child soldiers.

Invisible Children has since taken heat (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57394045/charity-defends-kony-2012-video-expenses/) for how much of its budget it spends on aid to Africa versus marketing. Additionally, some Ugandans have complained (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57394257/anti-kony-video-draws-criticism-in-uganda/) the video misrepresents and over-simplifies the issue.

Still, McGovern said in a statement that the new attention the African conflict is receiving is a good thing.

"I am hopeful that we can use this momentum as a force for change," he said. "We must do all that we can to protect innocent civilians -- especially children -- and end LRA violence once and for all."

Last year, McGovern and Royce introduced and helped pass into law "The Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act." Subsequently, President Obama sent 100 U.S. troops to Central Africa (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/14/politics/main20120685.shtml) to serve as advisers in efforts to hunt down Kony.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57396592-503544/joseph-kony-resolution-introduced-in-house/


And so it begins..........

CedarPhin
03-13-2012, 10:25 PM
Good Christ Almighty.

CedarPhin
03-13-2012, 10:29 PM
It is pretty cool he's got a bunch of child soldiers though. It'd be like an army of Tatu from Fantasy Island's chasing after you with guns and machetes.

rob19
03-14-2012, 01:39 AM
'Expanding'? We already had forces there? If so, in what capacity? Armed?

CedarPhin
03-14-2012, 03:36 AM
100 or so Special Forces acting as "advisers" to the local army.

WSE
03-14-2012, 10:43 AM
I dont disagree about the war thing, but attacking Invisible Children for how they spend money is imo wrong

they are non profit, but since when does non profit mean all money needs to go directly to the cause they support. Obviously, this film has had popular appeal, and something like that will have a lot more effect that direct aid. To me, the film does a better job of serving their purpose than anything else they could do if their goal is removing Kony.

As for the reps calling for war after this, its pathetic. If you are a U.S. Rep./Senator, responding to public appeal is one thing, but calling for war after a documentary about a situation its your job to know about is pathetic. Sounds like they just want something to say about national security in their reelection campaigns. I hope that NY Dem is not reelected. Pathetic statement. We are in no situation to go to war against an African warlord.

Dolphins9954
03-14-2012, 03:06 PM
'Expanding'? We already had forces there? If so, in what capacity? Armed?

http://royce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/McGovern_Royce_Res_Spotlights_Kony_and_LRA_3.13.12.pdf


The text is very broad to say the least. Everything from "expanding regional military forces" to having "security areas". There's even more nation-building as well by "improving telecommunications and infrastructure" in the country.

Dolphins9954
03-14-2012, 10:59 PM
rU_1jnrj5VI


Well that didn't pan out.

Dolphins9954
03-16-2012, 06:43 PM
Invisible Children co-founder found masturbating in public, vandalizing cars and possibly under the influence of drugs


A co-founder for Invisible Children (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/results/?keywords=invisible+children&x=0&y=0) was detained in Pacific Beach on Thursday for being drunk in public and masturbating, according to the San Diego Police Department.

Jason Russell (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/results/?keywords=jason+russell), 33, was allegedly found masturbating in public, vandalizing cars and possibly under the influence of something, according to the SDPD. He was detained at the intersection of Ingraham Street and Riviera Road.

An SDPD spokesperson said the man detained was acting very strange, some may say bizarre. Video: SDPD statement (http://bit.ly/ydYEgB)

"Due to the nature of the detention, he was not arrested," Lt. Andra Brown said. "During the evaluation we learned we probably needed to take him to a medical facility because of statements he was saying."

Police said they received several calls Thursday at 11:30 a.m. of a man in various stages of undress, running through traffic and screaming.

Police described Russell as "in his underwear." He allegedly took off his underwear at one point, but it was back on by the time officers arrived, said police.

Several people attempted to calm him down and when officers arrived police said he was cooperative.

"He was no problem for the police department however, during the evaluation we learned that we probably needed to take care of him," said an SDPD spokesperson. "We determined that medical treatment was a better course of action than arrest."

Russell was taken to a medical center after the incident.




Source: Invisible Children Co-Founder Detained: SDPD | NBC San Diego (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/jason-russell-san-diego-invisible-children-kony-2012-142970255.html#ixzz1pK2OJboE)


You can't make this stuff up.

rob19
03-16-2012, 09:57 PM
Invisible Children co-founder found masturbating in public, vandalizing cars and possibly under the influence of drugs


Haven't we all been there?

Dolphins9954
03-17-2012, 11:59 AM
Haven't we all been there?

Masturbating : Yes. I can go from the right to left hand without missing a stroke.
In public : No
Vandalizing : No
Under the influence of drugs : Does a bear sh!t in the woods?

Dolphins9954
03-18-2012, 12:52 PM
Some more news on Jack-Off 2012 with video.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/17/kony-2012-meltdown-stress-wife

Dolphins9954
03-18-2012, 06:22 PM
TjdH2LDH5LM

Dolphins9954
03-20-2012, 09:10 AM
QWACLKaOC08

Unbelievable!!!! This is what Invisible Children, the makers of the KONY 2012 movie, were spending 2/3 of the money people donated to them on. It's one big joke.

Valandui
03-23-2012, 07:00 AM
QWACLKaOC08

Unbelievable!!!! This is what Invisible Children, the makers of the KONY 2012 movie, were spending 2/3 of the money people donated to them on. It's one big joke.
Productive use of funds there.