KONY 2012
I was browsing youtube and then one video got viral.Well you guys have to admit, the video/movie was really great. It got people from around the world to react to this international phenomenon. Pro’s and Cons were made. However, this one really caught my attention visiblechildren@grantoyston.com. This blog actually made good points. Great and well thought points. They were indeed critically thought. I am expressing this in the most sincere manner. (Just in case some would doubt on my sincerity. haha! I am in no way being sarcastic in saying that the points of this writer are great. They really are.) However, for the sake of argumentation, I would like to rebut some of his points. THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, a reaction on the matter posted online. I do not have any intention to defame or to hurt someone. I am Respectfully presenting my thoughts on the matter. No hard feelings! :)
1. His point on the spending matters of Invisible Children. Although I do appreciate his argument. I think this would not hold water due to the fact that the money were voluntarily given. It’s not like they are recklessly spending taxpayers’ money. What they are spending are voluntarily given by the people who believe in their cause. So raising the point that they recklessly spend money, would really not hold water because the people who donate their money share the same cause, hence the thought of the money being spent recklessly would not be entertained. Why? The reason why people donate money is to be precisely spent on making those videos and posters. If Invisible Children would spend such money on other things not related to their cause then that would be using the money recklessly.
2. His point on Invisible Children supporting direct military intervention: I do concede that military intervention should be the last resort, but in this case, this is actually the last resort. Peace talks have been made and were futile. If the writer is only avoiding collateral damage due to the war, a fact lies that collateral damage in a war in unavoidable. We are weighing the lesser evil here. Ask this question, are you willing to sacrifice the lives of 3 children just to save the lives of other 66,000? Of course as much as possible we would want to protect all of their lives, but you have to do a reality check. Collateral damage is unavoidable and will never be avoidable. We live in the real world where wars happen and diplomatic talks fail. If we attack now, we could have hundreds of children from being kidnapped because whether we like it or not, diplomatic talks will not stop these militants from kidnapping. Kidnapping could still be done while peace talks are going on.
3. His point on Kony being no longer active since 2006 based on the own admission of LRA. It doesn’t mean that if Kony is no longer active, he cannot be prosecuted for all the war crimes that he did. Moreover, how can you trust a rebel group with their admission. They could immediately change their mind or worse, they could be lying.
4. His point on the exaggeration of Invisible Children of the events in Uganda. Although I am not a fan of the media and I do agree that they exaggerate and sensationalize news, in this case, there is nothing more to sensationalize. When you talk about sensationalism, there is a little problem that needs to be presented as grave to get as many attention as possible. However, I believe that the argumentation of the writer is a shot in the dark, because the events in Uganda are the worst! You don’t need media to sensationalize it anymore. Kidnapping, rape, murder and sexual assaults are innately henious and the numbers of victims are of thousands. There is nothing more to sensationalize. It is already that grave already. 100% grave. The problem is not small for you to need people’s attention by making it a grave one. The problem is already big! And the reason why people doesn’t know about these things is that no one had the guts to present them in a manner more accessible to the mainstream public. Of course people in international organizations have known of this problem for decades, but how many are those people who know about this? The information is only limited to the intellectual class. Hence, it necessarily follow that if originally only a few people know about this problem, it is not grave enough, and once it is presented in youtube and a lot of people reacted on it, it is sensationalized. The bare facts of the case is grave enough. Sensationalizing it would not make any difference, because we have reached the worst case scenario here.
I repeat, these are just my opinion and I am not trying to defame or destroy the credibility of anyone. And if you are in doubt on how I made all those assessments, let’s just say that I am just a typical and simple debater and a law student. :)




14




