Jump to content

KONY 2012


Stench Trench

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I leave you with the following two links.

 

And a comment from one of the links that pretty much sums up everything about the current situation:

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/03/09/some-ugandans-critical-of-kony-2012/

 

and this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/07/guest_post_joseph_kony_is_not_in_uganda_and_other_complicated_things

Which is a blog form someone who lived in Uganda.

 

 

Just because he's not in Uganda anymore doesn't mean that he isn't still killing people and is not longer a threat.

 

3 days ago the LRA attacked a village in DR.Congo displacing 3000 people and abducting ten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again it's not about the cause. It's about the qualifications.

 

Is Invisible People qualified enough to lead the attack on the LRA? Not if they think kony's in uganda. They're using eight year old soundbites to get your money. Think about that. A company who claims to be all about making the problem in africa visible, is betting that you've never seen a video from them before in your life and is reusing old footage in a bid for your donations. Are you catching the irony in that? It's ironic on multiple levels so i hope you're at least getting some of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, the bone you're picking is about IC's credibility to set the foreign policy agenda of the US in Africa but that does not mean it's the only bone that can be picked or even discussed.

 

As far as I am aware IC have publicly stated that Kony is now working in the border region of Sudan, CAR, DRV and Uganda. Not that that makes them any more qualified to assess whether the US should commit resources to the fight (and as an aside, they did not, the President and others who are qualified did well before these guys turned any screws).

 

Secondly, what qualifications does one need to utilise the levers of democracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to point out our FP and how our "war on terror" is a ploy to make war in the middle east for all sorts of other reasons which have nothing to do with anything "terror" related.

 

What this guy is doing is terrorism, it's not blowing up American citizens, or Israeli's but it is terrorism, if we are going around stopping this, why can't we get involved here? It's a fundamental question. I don't agree with fighting this terror problem all over the planet, but apparently our establishment is. Can you connect the dots now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.prisonplanet.com/kony-2012-organization-exposed-as-lucrative-business-model.html

 

I just want to point out that I never said that this organization was righteous, or the solution to these types of issue's. I was just attempting to point out that the idea of ending this kind of behavior is a good thing, and I support that.

 

I was also just pointing out that Facebook is not as bad as cocaine and using it to spread awareness of idea's or event's makes sense. It makes more sense to use social media in this way, than to share what you've done during the day to all of your friends. Personally I use it to keep track of people's birthday's.

 

This is "terrorism", so how can our war on terror be justified, if we are only going after terrorist's in specific area's? That are only harming certain groups of people?

 

My track record of opinions on this forum should show what I am, and what I believe, you want to think I'm something else, go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to point out our FP and how our "war on terror" is a ploy to make war in the middle east for all sorts of other reasons which have nothing to do with anything "terror" related.

 

What this guy is doing is terrorism, it's not blowing up American citizens, or Israeli's but it is terrorism, if we are going around stopping this, why can't we get involved here? It's a fundamental question. I don't agree with fighting this terror problem all over the planet, but apparently our establishment is. Can you connect the dots now?

 

Can you explain how the LRA is a terrorist group or is using terrorism as a policy/tactic, please?

 

I would suggest first saying what terrorism is or giving it a definition, whether using one of the many already available definitions or your own so we have a basis on which to form our opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.

 

That is wikipedia. Not saying wikipedia is fact but I think this is a good place to start at least for a basis at which to label such actions if you disagree, or would like to expand on this fine with me.

 

Now from my opinion of what he does to keep his numbers and to incite fear in the population, I think he would fit into that label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key element to terrorism is the use of fear to coerce action (or lack of action) from the target.

 

Is the LRA stating that attacks will continue until demands are met and if so, what are the demands?

 

I understand that the LRA wanted to institute their particular brand of theocracy in Uganda but they were taking and holding territory with the end goal of ruling Uganda, right? That's sounds more like an insurgency to me. Insurgent groups will often use terror as a tactic but their overall behaviour will lean more to insurgency than terrorism.

 

Some basic identifiers used are that insurgents are looking to replace the current state with themselves or their preferred leaders and in doing this they seize and hold territory. They will usually have a collective force organisation such as paramilitary forces, command group and ranking hierarchy. Given their weaker power (manpower, capital, access to weapons, technology and information) insurgents will normally employ particular tactics that take advantage of the asymmetry (commando style raids, propaganda, assassination, terrorism - being the use of extreme fear to coerce a change in policy by the targeted actor). They key definers are to replace the standing state and the seizing of territory in order to eventually control all the contested territory.

 

Terrorists normally using the sole tactic of creating fear as a lever to alter a particular policy (it's usually political terrorism in that terrorists are attempting to change the policy of a particular state). That may be to remove troops from a foreign land, implement religious edicts like Sharia law or a particular economic model such as socialism/Maoism, etc. Terrorists operate in cells as opposed to a structured and combined force (that will often assault a particular target), terrorists generally will not act to seize and hold territory and they are not looking to over-throw the state, rather they look to influence decisions of the state.

 

This obviously then places AQ as an insurgency of global scale and there is much qualified literature out there arguing for this perspective. However I am yet to come across information that places the LRA in the camp of terrorism as opposed to that of insurgency as outlined above.

 

That's not to say that I disagree with you, I am about the furthest thing from credible when it comes to Africa. However all that I have read so far would suggest that LRA/Kony is not a terrorist but that they employ terrorism as a tactic among other tactics of asymmetric warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said yourself they want to rid the Middle east and replace them with a power of their liking, so is the difference really the fact that they don't want themselves to replace the current government and someone else who thinks the same way? I remember "strong points" that we had to take back all over Iraq and Afghanistan, so if they had held onto that territory would they now be the same?

 

I don't see how much different these two groups of people are, just the groups of people they are at "war" with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks crook

 

Does anybody know where page two is going with this? Wild Jumbait jumped in and I have no idea what he's trying to say, which makes people arguing with him even more confusing to me.

 

Is the goal for everyone who disputes my side just to establish "good intentions should be worth something?" If so, fuck that. If all you care about is for your actions to be done with good intentions, then you're not really taking responsibility for your actions. Kony has good intentions. Israel threatening to go to war with Iran have good intentions. People are fucking idiots when they get caught up in this "thats not what I meant, fuck you." Stuff. It's egotistical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...