To bomb or not to bomb....

We keep hearing about ISIS as though it's one organisation with a central leadership, it isn't, it's a term for a collection of cells. Attacking in Syria will do absolutely nothing to protect Western Europe. The US have been bombing Syria for a year, yet the Paris attacks occurred.
What will happen is that people who are prone to being radicalised, will be, because they'll see it as an attack on them and they'll sign up.
The OP made a comparison to people in Nazi Germany not really supporting them. Well, to also make a comparison to WW2, bombing of London didn't break the spirit but merely strengthened it.
The Paris bombers were mainly French citizens. The terrorist threat to the UK does not come from Syria. The cost of these bombings could have been better put to use in security at home.

 

Can you perhaps elaborate upon your experience regards Muslims?

 

The problem is the way it's perceived ..bombing Syria, as though we're declaring war on Syria which is not the case, we are extending the bombing we already do against Isis, over a border that Isis do not recognise anyway. It can't be wrong to wreak havoc on the people who behead, burn, throw gay men off high buildings, enslave women, murder children and other religions and generally brutalise anyone they wish.
I doubt it's an answer in itself, but there is a possibility it helps degrade their forces enough for others to annihilate them. Battlefield defeats may well put off many supporters who wish to join a winning team.

 

The problem for me on the bombing issue is that over the last twelve months the US have flown thousands of bombing sorties over Syria yet the number of Daesh fighters has increased , our 8 planes will make sod all difference to reducing Daesh numbers, it might well increase them . We need to give the Kurdish forces heavy artillery weaponry instead of a few machine guns , we need to counter the propoganda offensive by Daesh to the disaffected in Europe, bombing for bombings sake is just a ludicrous strategy .

 

Having read various bits of his diatribes against them I can only come to the scholarly conclusion that one of them shagged his bird and spilled his pint or indeed vice versa.

 

You know what happend last time with the intellegence Iraq war thousands of innocent civilians and our own troops ended up killed. How many country's are already bombing syria I think the majority of the public don't support these air strikes.

 

What happened in 1991 , Saddam killed thousands of his own people then invaded Kuwait then Scudded Isreal after having several warnings by the coalition to move back refused. If you ask me someone with that attitude deserved his Arsenal kickin

 

To be fair, 3 or 4 nukes would sort it.......

Cue: Me going into hiding for a couple of days.

 

Sorry that is simply NOT true. Documentaries perpetuate that myth usually based on the old propaganda newsreels from the era. I was born near the East End and knew many relatives who experienced the Blitz including my parents (My mother was in the RAF and was in charge of a barrage balloon post - one of many that ringed London) The spirit of Londoners came very close to breaking - within a few weeks confidential documents of the time stated.

It was the fact that the RAF could still put up a defence and the attrition rate of German aircrew was unsustainable and operation Sealion (invasion) had to be postponed that took the pressure off

I am not saying bombing alone is a solution, nor is bombing civilians acceptable but don't use the Blitz as an argument for stating that bombing strengthens those targeted's resolve. It does NOT!