Ok so if we don't know what difference it is making should we not find out first either way?

Everyone agrees something needs to be done ISIS, the question is what.

Why do governments like the idea of bombing? Much lower chance of casualties of their citizens from the armed forces which of course is a good thing, and therefore less pressure than if we had boots on the ground as such and higher casualties.

The issue of course, is what the bombs do. I'm not clear on what will be bombed, but judging from the past it will mean 'mistakes' are made, such as the murder of people working in hospitals, children in their homes, people attending weddings and the murder of the general population in these areas.

You cannot simply bomb a town and expect to only kill ISIS terrorists. And you'd have to question the intelligence information being provided from those towns.

So is it right to discuss if there are other options that are more likely to achieve the ultimate goal or removing ISIS? Of course. Unless bombing is the only possible solution.

Are are we bombing Assad, ISIS, other groups who are rebels \ freedoms fighters \ terrorists dependent on your point of view, or just the whole country.

What would be great is if some thought had been put into what should be done, it should really come from the UN, but that won't happen, so it each government should at least try to have some form of plan.