Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
United States

Jeremiah Cornelius's Journal: US Think-Tank RAND on Ukraine: Internment Camps, Executions 24

Journal by Jeremiah Cornelius

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/

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • . . .that Vladimir Putin himself wrote this?
    • 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].

      • 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!

        • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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. . .
            • 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.

              • 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.

                • 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.

                  • 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.
                    • 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: (Score:1, Flamebait)

                      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.
                    • ...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.

                    • by Bob_Who (926234)
                      My hovercraft is full of eels.
                    • I hope they're eclectic eels...

                    • 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 Al

                    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

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

                    • Who?

                    • :-) Case in point...

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

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

No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

Working...