The paradox of armed conflicts, bombings, are only temporary solutions against Daesh (Isis)

Door San Daniel gepubliceerd in Verhalen en Poëzie


Tribes become involved in conflicts due to irreconcilable differences. As long as those differences are not life threatening, there is not too much going on. If those differences of opinion touch the own tribe, then a congenital caveman instinct emerges.

If our views, norms and values ​​are not respected or if another tribe wants to impose their norms or values ​​on us, then the time has come to act. Certainly if it affects our economy, which guarantees our well-being, or our liberties. In the earliest times the man with the biggest club won and after that it was quiet for a while in the valley. Until a new challenger rose to meet him.

The application of the bow and arrow made a huge difference, now you could eliminate someone who was different from you, at a distance. You no longer had to run towards your opponent and beat his brains in, but you pointed at your opponent with your arrow and you pulled the bowstring and the enemy ceased to exist.

In this way, there were always further developments that gave the attacking party an edge over the less advanced enemy. Not only was a knife extended to  the length of a sword, but you could ward off blows with the help of a shield. The problem is that every new development is immediately taken over by other tribes. So when everyone wields a sword and a shield again, numbers start to count. Or the advantage of a suit of armor or a horse or ... there is no end to it, always per war, conflict, there would be a novelty that would benefit the party utilizing it.

If you did not have enough fellow fighters and would therefore fear to be numerically defeated under the same circumstances, you would hire an army  of mercenaries in order to regain supremacy. As long as there are tribes that owe their tribal connection to a sense of solidarity based on equal views, there will be clashes with dissenting tribes.


Regardless in our modern world if there is a tribal connection to which you belong, or if you are part of  a cross-section collection, in a multitude of many tribe collections, we might for example, in our country, count ourselves as the Dutch and therefore as a subdivision of Europeans.

A fact that does not change when we travel outside of Europe. In that Dutch landscape of choices a tribe member can choose, for example, to be a football fan, for Ajax, or on the contrary support the rival Feyenoord, both rivals could share a preference for hard rock and that would make them tribal brothers in that area, one of them for example might also be very interested in classical ballet, placing him with that preference in the field of other ballet enthusiasts.

Cross sections of collections in collections .. a complex of variable variants as a gigantic ven diagram. This apart from skin color, religious beliefs or the lack thereof or in which province someone resides, whether someone has or has not studied and in the latter case where and to which class you belong.

That makes the European countries that are tolerant in nature, a magic ball of tribal ties, with one transcending rational, we consider ourselves the free world, the free West.

Just like with the bow and arrow, killing an enemy from a remote dictance is more pleasant than running towards someone and smashing his brain in with a piece of wood. Or, turning a knife in a chest.

Remote killing, with not physical contact is more impersonal and therefore easier to perform. The danger lies therein that mass slaughter at a distance becomes very accesible. The person with the largest 'club' determines the outcome of the battle and is himself untouchable.

Your bombers, for instance fly thousands of miles at the speed of sound  to their target and take it out. They are already out of sight, before the enemy realizes what has taken place.

Such an act is an act of war and then you can expect retaliation. Before you know it you'll find yourself in the world of guns and anti-guns and anti-anti-guns, and you soon end up in crazy technical warfare.

Finally, the West will have a space shield in its orbit around the Earth that will eliminate any "unfriendly" rocket. If the opposing party does not have such a defense mechanism, than they are done for.


Does bombing work? A simple answer is NO. It is not decisive. It is supportive and eliminates goals but does not consolidate anything. It brings a blow as a punishment but the enemy emerges from its hiding places and still occupies the same area that has just been bombed.

Wherever in the world a solution has been sought by the 'bombing out' (aside from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we disregard nuclear weapons) of the enemy, that strategy has failed miserably.

The US Army in Vietnam dumped the chemical Agent orange over the crops and trees. It harmed the population but did not eliminate the Vietcong. President Lydon B Johnson, the successor to Kennedy, started carpet bombing for days and weeks.

It earned him the nickname "baby killer Johnson." Sector after sector was carpet bombed, as planes were all flying side by side and releasing a carpet of bombs and not only explosive bombs but napalm bombs, fire bombs, as well.

Where they landed a sea of ​​flames arose that scorched everything, and the unfortunate ones who survived it were mutilated for their entire lives by burns.

That setteld it right? NO. The Americans could not win a war for the first time in their lives. No matter how many boys they sent, no matter how many bombs were dropped, the Vietcong remained in its place.


They were Guerrilla fighters, just like the Jihadists are now, they were not there for a while, because they were hiding and then they'd come out to continue their evil ways. it has been a tough lesson for the Americans. The most modern army in the world could not beat the guerrilla fighters. You can't win such a  battle as the enemy goes 'invisible' when under attack.

The real battle must be decided on the ground. House to house, from street to street, neighborhood to neighborhood and then those areas need to be occupied and consolidated. 

Search for and find the enemy .. not at a distance .. but just like before, see and kill, with your knife, with your gun with your bayonet .. kill. An impossible battle. It is a numerical picture that decides the outcome, with air support you can weaken the enemy, but then the infantry has to come in and hunt from building to building until a village, or city is 'clean'.

And then, you have to consolidate that area or they will return, so you'll have fewer infantry troops for the next village at your disposal and just like flies trying to conquer a fly strip, progress slows down until everything comes to a grinding stop.

A similar situation  occurred in the First World War where the Allies and the Germans from 1914 to 1918 opposed each other, buried in trenches in an endless battle. Just look at 1914-1918 war cemeteries in France those speak more for itself than a thousand history books.

An entire generation of Britons died there, and they are therefore called 'the lost generation'. The war is called the 'Great war' and it is hard to imagine but there were more casualties in that war than in later wars. 7,947,000 dead on the Allied side. On the German side 5,603,000. This was, by the way, the first war that was fought with the help of air support. The numbers speak for themselves. No victory, only losses on both sides.


The Russians have learned their lesson as they tried to conclude with all means the war in Afghanistan.  It didn't work, you can't win a guerilla war. Simply because there will be always someone to take the torch over. Very much the same as with the resistance in the 2nd world war, that could not be eradicated, while the reprisals against the resistance were horrific.

It is nice if there is a navy that steams up and then fires rockets on enemy targets. Or if there are conclusive bombings. They will not miss their goal, they are laser guided but nothing  has changed, since time of antiquity.

The infantry will have to do it, ground troops that are so numerical that they automatically have superiority determine the final balance. It is sad, war is tribal and will always cost a lot of young lives .

You can  only win if you really destroy the other party, man to man, hand to hand and who wants that? It is not attractive for the West to end up in a second Vietnam and we should try to avoid that at all costs.

San Daniel 2019


for more info concerning San Daniel press the following link/ voor meer info betreffende San Daniel druk op de link a.u.b.:landingspage-san-daniel


Nederlandse auteurs page van San Daniel in Hebban

and the page of Dutch authors in Hebban

Author's pages:

Amazon author’s page San Daniel


Deel dit artikel aub! / share this information please! 

Vriendelijke groet en God Bless, kind regards and God Bless!

28/10/2019 03:58

Reacties (3) 

28/10/2019 14:04
Klopt allemaal oog om oog, tand om tand, maar zo werkt het niet meer, die tijden hebben we gehad.
28/10/2019 10:11
You're perfectly right.
In fact, we still fight our wars the same way as apes do: in the end it's the numbers (of the boots on the ground) that count - and, of course, mental attitude.
If you apply 'human rights', especially those of civilians, in enemy territory you can never win a guerilla war, as there is no visible difference between a civilian and a fighter. A child you just spared because of it's age can blow up your comrades with a hidden explosive a few seconds later.
The European perception of human rights will never be able to cope with terrorism, as terrorists, w...
28/10/2019 15:26
yes..quite so..for terrorists anything goes which is a means to an end
Copyright © Alle rechten voorbehouden.
Door gebruik te maken van deze website geef je aan dat je onze Algemene voorwaarden en ons Privacy statement accepteert