To Kill Or Not To Kill?

Today David Cameron is taking a step forward in his determination to strike at the heart of the organisation calling itself "Islamic State".

He has made clear his intention to bomb them out of existence.

He has some support and quite a lot of opposition to this course of action.

Those who support him believe that this will end the threat to the rest of the world posed by this extremist fundamentalist group whose doctrine of hate has been clearly demonstrated by the events in Paris a couple of weeks ago.

I have no expertise in military matters but, like most people I do have opinions, and a political and ethical view of such strategies.

Many people are torn between seeking a violent revengeful solution and wanting some other way of ending this frankly terrifying threat.

My own view is absolutely unequivocal, I do not believe in killing.  Nor am I naive enough to believe that a peaceful solution could ever be found.

What I don't understand is why, if 'they' the Governments of all the countries prepared to bomb the
terrorists, know where to  find them, are satisfied that their target is accurate, and think that bombing will put an end to the threat, they cannot find a means of isolating the terrorists.  That done, the brilliant technology available should be able to remove all means of communication from them.
Once separated from all outside contact they would then in effect, be under siege, and, as in times gone by could then be 'starved' of all their support.

Game set and match!

Well it is at least a different way of tackling what threatens to be one of the greatest evils of this century.

Evil feeds on contact and support.  Take that away and it will eventually wither and die.

Naive?  Probably.
Simplistic?  Certainly.

Possible?   Maybe.