What ideas are there instead of bombing?

Goodness me nig so we kill the people we are trying to rescue from the evil. How insane is that?

So soon when faced with someone who has fled from the evil in utter terror, perhaps lost beloved members of their family, or watched a child with ghastly injuries suffer an agonising death. Endured all sorts of degradation like loosing your home and all your dreams. When they say to you "please stop the bombing" will you enquire "what is the percentage?"
Can't you understand how wrong that is?

Well there you go! I think that will tell everyone that getting tough with S.A about where, and to whom they sell weapons of war is a non starter!

We lowered flags last year in tribute to the deceased king of Saudia Arabia

Well, what is the answer then? Nobody in their right mind wants anybody to be bombed, but when you're faced with such evil, what on earth can you do except maybe walk away from it and let the M.E sort it out for themselves, with the strongest, most ruthless coming out on top. Is this an possibility? Those desperate people could be annihilated, or living under extreme cruelty if we were to take this option. Those poor souls are between a rock and a hard place. In an ideal world dj's suggestions are spot on, but it's not, and it just won't happen, too many insurmountables, Saudi, being one of them!

I dont remember seeing any documentaries concerning ww1 or ww2, of people asking the government for the bombing to stop in Britain.

How many are begging it to stop. And how many want it to continue. What are the percentages/split.

How do you explain the decision to bomb to those people fleeing the Racca area and who are begging that the bombing stops as it is killing so many innocent civilians.What do we say? "Oh the pain is worth it in the end if we get rid of IS"!!! Tell that to a grandmother who has just lost her grandchild, or sees the child utterly terrified or severely injured.

We starve IS of weapons.and money?! This is virtually impossible for a start! WE don't supply them with anything, so how on earth do we persuade countries that do, to desist?! i.e. Saudi Arabia?!!! Why on earth would they listen to us? and even if by a miracle they did, how long would this persuasion take? Meantime IS continue on their murderous way! No doubt we will help rebuild, but let's face it that is running ahead just a bit!

No, bombing is not acceptable under any circumstances.
We starve Daesh of money and weapons.
We also stop criticising and being suspicious of all muslims. That's how they get radicalised and join Daesh. We try to understand proper Islam and accept it as a religion of the world as much as Christianity and Judaism, etc.
We talk to all muslims who are not IS. We isolate the problem.
Bombing is a quick fix and creates as many other radicals as it kills. It also kills too many non Daesh members.
We also help to rebuild the country that forces have destroyed. UN peacekeeping forces include engineers.
Just looking at the photos of a destroyed city in Syria makes me feel appalled at what we have allowed to happen, even Assad doing it. But Assad is needed to rebuild his country. We use Assad, even though his human rights record is terrible.

Countries cannot be forced to unite though

What is NATO for if not for situations like this?
There should also be close collaboration with countries in the Middle East as well.

A united stand is what is required.

Apologies if I am not understanding correctly.
So bombing under certain conditions may be acceptable.
Thanks for the replies.

whitewave, this is what I keep coming back to when thinking about it. Someone - sorry cannot recall who- referred to us joining our allies .

America want Aseed out , France and other countries joined in the bombing, we voted no but Cameron wanted in.

Russia want Aseed in and are bombing. Turkey is in, Canada has opted out.

Each country withheld intelligence from other countries . This is not what I consider allies fighting together

France have upped their bombing yet those guilty of the Paris killings were European

It just seems - let's bomb Syria no matter we have different reasons to do so.

Many experts have said the bombing will solve nothing, it will take armies to go in there. Would all the countries involved send in armies or will we have some armies in and other countries aircraft bombing

Terrifying thought , and we can be fairly sure of America bombing and shooting in. -friendly fire

I thought Cameron's case for bombing very poor.

Simply bombing because our allies are doing so is a weak argument especially for a mature country like the UK. Cameron singularly failed to explain where he saw us and Syria in a year's time, and it is this very omission that has convinced me of this countries unpreparedness in the months ahead, and doing so with a reduced army both in man power and weaponry.

This time in 2013 and until last winter we were exhorted to go to war against Assad - a war criminal - now we are supporting him in his fight - this is someone who has used chemical weapons against his citizens

Perhaps some like some MP's from all parties are waiting for Cameron to give answers to the select committee and the house

You have simplified the question soon
Yes there will be some grans who would not countinence bombing at any cost, and there are those who may find bombing acceptable providing certain conditions can be met. There are others who agree with bombing without conditions.

I am in between the first and second example but my rationale tells me that disease that is IS will not be stopped by just bombing, particularly as they are securely embedded within the population.

Perhaps you could explain to me how our bombs can distinguish between one and another?

Good question!