Quote:
Originally Posted by Savvy27
Why involve bigger issues? The organization has a narrowly defined goal, which is the capture of a monstrous criminal. They aren't a nation building or humanitarian organization, so why criticize them on those grounds?
|
It portrays him as a major source of issue in the area when there are much larger concerns at work (and where other sources have said his relevance has decreased in recent times). If they provided more context and that killing him would be a start, not the means to an end, or argued that this issue deserves priority over other issues because (for example) saving the children increase the more available workers for the future, I'd be better with it. It feels though that they put him in as the "big fish" in the area...that his death would be the magic bullet. Is it? I don't know. If it is, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, that Invisible Children did a great job with their mission and deserve commendation.
In other words, my concern is that they don't put enough context into the issue and may not fully act in best interests of the nation. As AR_Six mentioned before, the area is very complex politically and even humanitarian actions become destructive to the local economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Just to be clear, I didn't mean "your" to be directed at you specifically. I meant "your" in the general sense. To be honest, I really only looked at the info graph in your post.
|
Also to clarify, that was from Invisible Children's defence of the criticism directed at them.