Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Think-Tank RAND on Ukraine: Internment Camps, Executions

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) writes | about 4 months ago

United States 24

Today Donetsk, tomorrow Detroit.

A leaked memo attributed to RAND corporation think tank suggests the Ukrainian govt should engage in an all-out war in the east, including shutting down all communications, putting citizens in internment camps and killing all who resist such actions.

Today Donetsk, tomorrow Detroit.

A leaked memo attributed to RAND corporation think tank suggests the Ukrainian govt should engage in an all-out war in the east, including shutting down all communications, putting citizens in internment camps and killing all who resist such actions.

    In the shocking letter, which has been leaked to online media, the advice offers a step by step brutal guide in how to deal with the population in eastern Ukraine. The authenticity of the document which bears the RAND corporation logo, however, could not be independently verified.

    The RAND Corporation is non-profit global think tank which offers
    research and analysis to the US armed forces.

http://rt.com/news/170572-rand-east-ukraine-plan/

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So it's not possible (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47386409)

. . .that Vladimir Putin himself wrote this?

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47386781)

Heh, really. rt is the new Pravda. I sure as hell will never re-post their crap. For real news, read these guys [wordpress.com] .

Re:So it's not possible (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47387569)

Let us have a look:

There is no "we," but if there was one, I'm certainly not included in that group, and don’t hand me that crap that if you’re a taxpaying citizen of the West, you're part of the "we."/quote

Later:

As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe that Consumerism will be adopted globally despite the intentions and aspirations of the New Global Order. In fact, the resistance to such will ultimately lead to a global clash and human self-annihilation. An analogy of such could be likened to two diabolically opposed fraternal twins (two mutually exclusive Civilizations) in the mother's womb fighting for position in the birth canal and ultimately destroying each other in the process.
I believe the current clash between many of the Arab nations and the West (exemplified by the U.S.) is a clash over ideology; that ideology being Materialism, or more appropriately Consumerism.

I can't tell if the author is opposed to thinking about people in the plural, as in the first quote, or just cheerfully does it like everyone else, as in the second. Oh, from the About page:

That’s right, since there is no you and me, we have no basis to judge what we are and what it’s all about but judge we will.

If this is your blog, all I can say is: great Postmodernism!

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47388109)

Reality is a lie. Lying, therefore, makes this world go around. Accept it. Embrace it. Understand it fully. And most importantly, lie well and for all the right reasons.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47388135)

Oh, that first quote is something you like to tell us:

There is no "we," but if there was one, I'm certainly not included in that group, and don’t hand me that crap that if you’re a taxpaying citizen of the West, you're part of the "we."

  If I could keep track I would find a few post where you say exactly that. Postmodernism in action, if not words. But I think the quote I posted previously says it better. Like I said, you are a good soldier.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47388149)

This is a slippery cognitive slope, and I don't deny careen down it regularly.
All of these arguments are at least somewhat about scope: human beings, males, Roman alphabet users, English speakers, Slashdot readers. . .

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47388175)

All of these arguments are at least somewhat about scope...

From my POV they are about nature, the universe, to which we remain inextricably linked, but which sometimes you don't accept as you drone on and on about "purpose" when I try to spell it out for you.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47388267)

nature, the universe, to which we remain inextricably linked

I find that this cognitive realization, itself, implies at least an assumed purpose. So when you poke your abstraction enough above the carnal even to ponder such ideas, then reject any teleological point to life, it seems that you're:
(a) full of nonsense, and
(b) behaving as though life had purpose anyway.
Hence my droning.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47388333)

Well, if you wish to believe existence implies purpose beyond existence itself, you are obviously free to do so, but please, don't try to impose your "purpose" on anyone else that doesn't. To me, you are just using it to impose authority, and using theology to rationalize it. Just more of your cosmik debris.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47388429)

Well, certainly, one cannot discuss theological points at an intellectual level--if there were some closed-form intellectual proof, it should have long since been given. It would also contradict the theological need to preserve free will.
But you still haven't answered my point (b) above.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47388689)

But you still haven't answered my point (b) above.

The purpose is to live, or die, as you wish. I don't know about you, but I make my own purpose. You can too, if freedom is your goal. I feel no obligation to serve somebody else's. Theology is irrelevant, aside from interest in in some anthropological sort of way. It certainly isn't necessary to "preserve free will", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Re:So it's not possible (1, Flamebait)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47388963)

Not what I said: theology has to remain ambiguous in order to maintain free will.
If we lacked the capacity to grow toward God in a voluntary way, and also to reject God and sin, we should be less than human.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47391709)

...theology has to remain ambiguous in order to maintain free will.

That is not what you said. This is what you said. "It would also contradict the theological need to preserve free will." And it still makes no sense.

It is impossible to "reject god". Everything is god. And theology is a tool of fascists.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 4 months ago | (#47391751)

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47391817)

I hope they're eclectic eels...

Re:So it's not possible (1, Troll)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47392167)

"I will not buy this record, it is scratched"

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47392963)

Who?

Re:So it's not possible (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47392155)

And theology is a tool of fascists.

Which clearly explains the wanton tyranny of the pre-Constantine church, which I mean in the most sarcastic tone possible.

"theological need to preserve free will" == "remain ambiguous in order to maintain free will"
If faith were like a mathematical proof, there would still be deniers (due to human perversity) but the intellectual basis for denial would be removed. So you instead have a situation which all sub-fanatical believers have to admit is not provable, at least here under the sun.
Hopefully the Almighty digs your schtick when you meet Him.

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47392935)

They are once again rehashing [slashdot.org] an old story [slashdot.org] out there in genpop. Somebody is trying to leave you and your crowd a message.

Re:So it's not possible (1, Troll)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47394495)

Re:So it's not possible (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 4 months ago | (#47394559)

:-) Case in point...

Re:So it's not possible (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 4 months ago | (#47401621)

God. God aint a person. God aint a super-person.

Religion is a crutch, for people who can't handle God.

hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47387619)

In Syria and Kurdistan they are freedom fighters, in Ukraine they are "rebels" and "terrorists". Forward 'merican democracy!

Re:hypocrisy (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 4 months ago | (#47391759)

*Viagra Salute*

four minutes of glory - four hours of snoring
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?