Can someone explain to my why bombing will work?

[JumpandScore]

All the arguments for/against I've heard so far seem to be either it's wrong to bomb innocent civilians, or look what these people did to us, in Tunisia, Paris etc.

In my simple mind, of course bombing civilians is wrong and there's no disputing that the other events were dreadful. However, I don't understand how bombing Syria will make it stop.

I don't want another long thread about the rights and wrongs, but can someone explain why those in favour think it will make the terror stop? If I thought the bombing would put an end to the terror attacks, I might find myself in favour, despite the inevitable civilian causalities, with a reluctant needs must attitude but ATM it just seems like were sending the bombs just to do "something" without a clue as to how or why it will be effective.

But maybe I've missed something?

Wether it's over money or extreme religion is probably of little concern to the families of victims of isis tbh.

The bombing will be specific & targeted to known Daesh areas/camps from what I have been told. Not blanket bombing.

Don't forget there will be a huge amount of Intel gathering that we will never be party to,( quite rightly IMHO) it is underway now, we just have to trust & hope that the forces deployed are successful.

There are no winners, it is all very sad but it is out of our hands now.

Russia released pictures yesterday and are saying that the oil stolen by Isis is being transported across the border to Turkey who are buying it (funding ISIS) where its refined then shipped onto other countries to be sold worldwide hence our cheaper fuel at the moment. Could we all be funding ISIS

Are Russia being more honest than us? Its all a confusing mess.

'Jeremy Corbyn calls for economic sanctions against banks and countries funding Isis

The Labour leader has previously said the UK should be asking questions about Saudi Arabia's involvement'

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-for-sanctions-against-banks-and-countries-funding-isis-a6739081.html

No wonder no one wants to listen to the bloke, he's getting too close to the truth for comfort.

Why did they not start with the sanctions? Is Saudi Arabia too powerful to be sanctioned. Could they effectively bankrupt the UK if they fancied? How many of the Eton boys/Cammys pals have shares in the arms trade?
I massively resented the comment about sympathising with terrorists if you were against bombing cities. I have always detested war/fighting/violence, when I see bombed sites - I can smell it from my living room :( . Growing up in Northern Ireland we KNOW how incidents like Bloody Sunday merely served to make normal people terrorists. If we bomb cities, what is the difference?

Saudi is a tricky one... The Saudi king is actually a moderate leader, aiming at (too) slowly westernising/modifyling the crual extremes of Sharia law there. Isil/s is being backed by a relative of his, and we really don't want that relative in power next, this king is far better for everyone that the prince who is bankrolling the terrorists.

Indeed.

The Saudi regime is awful. But possibly the best kind of awful.

I left my moral certainty by the roadside a couple of years ago.

Russia released pictures yesterday and are saying that the oil stolen by Isis is being transported across the border to Turkey who are buying it (funding ISIS) where its refined then shipped onto other countries to be sold worldwide hence our cheaper fuel at the moment. Could we all be funding ISIS

floppyjogger i am glad you posted this as this is exactly what i have been thinking. Unleaded was less than a pound a litre in my local petrol station. I filled the tank, where i would usually be marvelling about how cheap it was, instead i had a sick feeling in my stomach that this is all related and we are complicit

claig could you link to where you got your information with regard to the oil pipeline, I'd like to read more about that as I hadn't heard about that at all. Thanks.

RiverTam, here is a good article on it from the Guardian

www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

and her is an article from the United States Armed FOrces Journal

www.armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/

That is not the only reason that this has al been done to Syria and Assad, but it is one of the big reasons. There is also the attempt to stop the Shia Crescent of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the attempt to reduce Iranian influence, to weaken Russia and supply Europe's gas from Qatar, to eliminate a strong independent Syria, to spread chaos and to redraw the Middle East etc

Am glad that this post is not only discussing the number of people who will be killed but also the other hidden agendas that a lot of people are ignoring.

When I heard in the news that the MPs had voted to go to war, I felt a deep sadness. One, because Cameron has not got a clear plan with what would happen once they start bombing.

My biggest fear is the fact that they expect to get help from the 70 thousand Syrians who they think will be fighting on the ground. From my understanding of this, is that it is the same group that is fighting ASad. I would assume this group will put their interest first which will be to get rid of ASad before dealing with Isis.
How is that even rocket science. I feel that this is another way the uk will arm this group to get rid of ASad and this will be another Libya or Iraq. Where the the leaders who we deem not to be good leaders a taken down. But what we have learnt from the history of this is the fact that they may have been the reason why these places had a bit of peace. I cannot deny that they murdered a lot of people but to compare the numbers, it's genuinely a lot more now. Everything seems a mess.