Why Arabs Lose Wars--Important magazine article originally in MEQ

[Cpl Steiner]

Cpl Steiner,

In an effort to get back on track, did you find the original thread article a worthwhile read? Or were you already up to speed on the matter?

In actual fact, yes, I found the original links worthwhile. One has to assume that there must be something fundamentally wrong inside Arab society for them to be so consistently beaten in war after war and the suggested reasons in the articles seemed valid to me.

Unfortunately the quality of your links took a nose-dive from there on. I then thought it worth while to ask you about your connection with Atlantis Rising. Personally I regard that magazine as pandering to all the "nut-jobs" in western society, who believe everything from Elvis still being alive to the Earth being hollow and inhabited by flying saucers. This is unfortunate as it does tend to reduce the credibility of everything else you say, at least in my eyes.

[John Kettler]

Cpl Steiner,

I've acknowledged (shall I break out the sack cloth and ashes?) that some of the links weren't all that good and have apologized. Wasn't kidding about the sleep deprivation issue, though, which contributed mightily to the problem. Was simply looking for certain data and didn't read several things through. OTOH, the Kaku book and the Gulf War Veterans of America should've been fine. Did you look at either?

Turning now to the magazine (have you read an entire issue?), it walks a fine line between cutting edge stories and Mulder.

I know, for I've run into such editorial sensitivities before, simply as a result of doing research for various articles. Channeling, of any sort, is out; doesn't matter what's said or how germane. Secret societies are in--provided the heavy conspiratorial angle is left home. You'll find lots of stuff on the Masons, the Templars, etc., throughout history, but you won't be reading a lot of the story, shall we say? I have a bit more leeway on high tech and its impact on society, having written quite some time ago on RFID issues, to include tagging people, but you'll never see an article on how multiple technologies fit into a beyond Orwellian scenario. You'll never see a discussion of global depopulation plans, U.S. detention camps, etc. Same thing for UFOs. Discussable--within limits.

This seems to be partially a magazine credibility concern, partially a not wanting to be a conspiracy rag and partially about the magazine's purpose, which is all about the return and revelation of lost knowledge, the upliftment of planet and people, the breakthroughs bringing a bright new tomorrow. IOW, the publisher's worried about freaking out, depressing and thus disempowering people.

Some of the brightest minds on the planet show up in the magazine: Michael Cremo, who has written multiple bestsellers (FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY, DEVOLUTION) on what science has in its cupboards but won't admit when it comes to the antiquity of mankind, is a columnist; Jeanne Manning, a bestselling coauthor herself (ANGELS DON'T PLAY THIS H.A.A.R.P) took over the New Energy column after her predecessor, MIT Ph.D. Dr. Gene Mallove (FIRE FROM ICE, founder of INFINITE ENERGY magazine), was murdered. We've had Dr. Robert Schoch, best known for going public with the devastating to conventional archeology geological evidence the Sphinx is much older than the standard model teaches, Graham Hancock (stack of books), Stephen Sora (Templar scholar and more), Christopher Dunn (evidence of advanced ancient engineering), the Flem Aths (scientific argument for how we have "impossible" maps showing the true outline of Antarctica), and many more.

There've been articles on evidence of optics dating back to Egypt, nanobacteria as they apply to heart disease, new materials that redirect EM energy, Stealth, energies of every sort, emerging disciplines, lost knowledge, modern attempts, which failed, to do ancient construction tasks with modern means; all sorts of new healing means, whole civilizations found right where ancient texts said they were (Gulf of Cambay, India), newly discovered texts, source critiques, attacks directed on researchers and their facilities, where the tech base was as of WW II, what NASA's really found, scientific meanings behind certain common symbols, the nature of consciousness, the nature of reality, blending the rationalist materialist and holistic views, etc. The magazine's beat is clearly stated, and it's definitely not for those who wish to remain purely status quo. Rather, it is intended to help move the goalpost of human knowledge and achievement ever higher--without destroying ourselves, the environment or the planet in the process.

If you'd like to discuss this further, we can give it a go in the GDF or PEM me.

Returning now to our original discussion, what bedevils the Arabs militarily is by no means confined to them. Rather, it seems to be a reflection of not just their, but a whole series of cultures.

You can read much the same, for example in Tuchman's STILLWELL: THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE IN CHINA in trying to get the Nationalist Chinese organized to fight the Japanese in WW II (instead of the Communists), in accounts of American OSS advisers trying to get the Chinese Communists to fight the Japanese, rather than the Nationalists,

in any number of accounts from Africa, in the so-called banana republics and more. The core issues are the same, or at least similar. And it's certainly not confined to 60 years ago, either. Americans in Vietnam ran into everything we're discussing and more. Read, for example, some of the gyrations South Vietnam went through when trying to respond to the 1972 Easter Offensive. Key units were forbidden to move, commanders wanted armor just because it was prestigious, phantom soldiers (often dead) got paid by the thousands. More recently, weapons intended to fight first the Russians, then the Taliban, keep getting squirreled away for that time honored Afghan sport called inter-tribal warfare. The taking of U.S. relief supplies for Myanmar and the "rebranding" of what was left as from the junta is yet another example of this obsessive concern with holding on to every sliver of power, control, and above all, face.

China spent billions not just building (evicted former occupants for venue construction) cleaning up Beijing (only where tourists were allowed), but making sure no one said anything (if at all possible) to the foreigners, the foreigners said nothing to the Chinese citizenry, no unsightly person was seen (to include protesters), nothing that would freak out western sensibilities (stands selling dog and snake as food) was to be had, basically selling a gigantic lie, while most of the population lives in desperate poverty with pretty much nothing, only to be caught in one lie and scam after another before the entire world.

This, though, is how the game is played. The difference between a show army and a go army may be seen in what the Vietnamese did to the Chinese some years ago when they made an incursion--and got stomped. Given time, the Vietnamese army will decline much the same way, unless stern measures are instituted to stop it. The Vietnamese army, though, had all that nonsense burned and blasted out of it, at least in terms of field commanders, by years of war against the astronomic power of the U.S. The Chinese, by contrast, were little more than an armed mob against crack fighters defending their homeland, and if they had air support, it was a joke. While the result surprised many, it was to be expected.

Further, I regret to inform you the U.S. military has repeatedly trod the same sorry ground. Can you, for example, imagine any modern American president since Truman

who would've put up with the months of garbage McClellan put Lincoln through? Do you recall the insanity of Vietnam where careerist officers got "their tickets punched" in 90-day tours, just enough time to thoroughly disrupt what unit cohesion had been painstakingly and bloodily built, while the typical grunt was there for a year, led by officers who generally didn't know him, frequently didn't know what they were doing, and often didn't care? That and kill count obsessions are how you got My Lai. Read Stanton's THE RISE AND FALL OF AN AMERICAN ARMY.

After Vietnam, it was even worse, for the military was demoralized, drug infested, underfunded, etc.; everything was let slide for a long time. See Hadley's THE STRAW GIANT for the gory details. While we may deride the Russians for whoring out, hazing and torturing their recruits, we conveniently forget the epidemic of cadet rapes at the Air Force Academy (and the coverups thereto), the multiple academy cheating scandals, the widespread, almost institutional abuse of women in the service, Tailhook (Navy's disgraces are covered in Vistica, FALL FROM GLORY), leaking atomic subs and more.

Of course, now we have the Air force under the spotlight, what with Minot, gross violations of decades of ironclad procedures, sleeping with launch codes, etc. If there's a book out on the Air Force specifically, my apologies for leaving it out.

The real point is this: When appearance is more important than reality; when seeming is more important than being; when "face time" with the boss is more important than knowing and leading the troops; when probity is replaced with "gundecked" logs and falsified readiness reports; when promotions are based on superhuman criteria (sitteth at the right hand of the Father, Who consulteth with him in all things = Average), rather than rational criteria; when "can do" compromises fundamental safety (see Osprey crash, which also featured falsified maintenance records); when concern for self and own comfort (MACV and failure to crack down on supply looting REMFs) outweighs that for one's troops (see Slim's warning to his officers); when career and position are more important than integrity and fundamental decency (how many senior military leaders have you ever seen resign?), then the very problem we've been discussing becomes our problem. Peacetime militaries breed this disorder like agar coated Petri dishes breed bacteria. The traditional British officers' mess toast was "To a plague and a bloody war!" These, you see, were their best hopes for advancement in both rank and pay.

I don't like war, but I will say this: One of the reasons we are still at least somewhat unlike the Arabs militarily is that we've been through enough wars over the years to at least force the worst of the deadwood and incompetents out, one way or another. If you read GENERATION KILL, though, we've got a ways to go! The other reason is that though we dance around the edge at times, we don't have quite the culture of fear that both colors and paralyzes the Arab and other militaries under dictators and the like. As Franklin observed,"The knowledge one is about to hanged concentrates the mind wonderfully." If you think the Pentagon's full of mincing courtiers and self-important egos now, add the prospect of summary execution to the equation and see how ossified and N.I.H. it gets then. Read Suvorov's THE "LIBERATORS" for some exquisite examples of just how full of themselves even those close to power can become. See particularly the chapter called Misha.

In some ways, maybe we've just been lucky! Certainly, down through the years this country has produced plenty of military commanders every bit as bad, if not worse, than some of the ones we deride. We, though, have had two great allies on our side: Time and Distance.

Generally, we haven't had to operate in do or die mode with everything at stake. We had time to sideline the obvious hacks, retire some more, observe what worked and what didn't militarily, protected most of the time (exception :burning of Washington!) by two vast oceans. Generally, we fought on somebody else's turf. What if we'd been, say, Poland, with our armies commanded by Burnside? Doubt we'd still be here!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Darius359au]

Quote:

The (Martian) artifacts he claimed to have found were only a few feet long but were recognizably martial. Gun emplacements and the shattered remnants of a tank seemed apparent to this writer, a former military analyst. One of the vehicles looked very much like a World War II German Panzer I, right down to its peculiar track work. Others seen in the vicinity looked like a World War I rhomboid tank and a U.S. M-48 of 1960s vintage. Whatever these things were, it seems that in later frames they received the full NASA disinformation treatment in which they were made to disappear as apparent alien artifacts.

Cpl Steiner,

I am indeed, as well as the anthologies FORBIDDEN HISTORY (one chapter) and FORBIDDEN SCIENCE (nine chapters). What Wicky's on about is in the article; it references certain images you can see under Pasadena Conference at the Enterprise Mission site. When the images are properly reassembled, what emerges looks like miniature versions (only a few feet long) of the vehicles Wicky's having so much fun with. The items on Mars were presented together with the Enterprise Mission best match from a terrestrial perspective and as a lifelong treadhead, they looked pretty good to me. What they definitely didn't look like were ordinary rocks, and if they were, it would be reasonable to ask why NASA so grossly altered the imagery? See for yourself; don't take either Wicky's or my word for it.

In an effort to get back on track, did you find the original thread article a worthwhile read? Or were you already up to speed on the matter?

Regards,

John Kettler

Been wondering on the above and how they vehicles got there and Ive reached a conclusion , Its the PZ1 that gives it away , It was Nazi Flying saucers from ww2 that put them there

I do like the line in the second quote , sorta puts it all in perspective "When the images are properly reassembled"....anyone see something wrong with that line? , especially if the person making the statement has a vested interest in the whole story being true.

Did a quick google on the "Brightest minds on the planet" named in the above wall of words from JK and one phrase comes to mind - "All the Nuts in the Fruit Cake";)

[John Kettler]

Darius359au,

It's very easy to show that the images were tampered with by NASA, in that as officially presented, the horizon line faintly visible in the distance itself is staggered. Is that normal where you come from? The images were apparently first digitally sliced into vertical strips, then these strips were moved up or down relative to each other, before the image was reshot, completely altering how the eye perceives the scene. The Enterprise Mission simply reassembled the altered image as it should've been in the first place. That's what was shown, both the before and the after, and that's what I reported. As for the other, you're entitled to your own opinion, but how many of the books I named have you read? Any?

Regarding the "wall of words," NOT having to do with my AR work, I made many serious points, but I note you replied to not one.

Regards,

John Kettler