Khar Khar:
This was not some "counter-attack," this was terrorism.
This blurs the line between terrorism and unconventional warfare. When Al Qaeda used a truck bomb to attack a US marine base in Beirut so many decades ago, that was not terrorism, that was unconventional warfare. When Al Qaeda hijacked passenger jets and slammed them into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, the financial centre that pays for attacks on their land, this was not terrorism, it was unconventional warfare. During that same attack, Al Qaeda slammed a passenger jet into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the military they were at war with. That was not terrorism, it was unconventional warfare. Of course, the fact it was a form of warfare justifies response by invading Afghanistan. The only catch there is the government of Afghanistan (Taliban) offered to hand over Al Qaeda. George W. should have accepted that offer, but he wanted a war.
Now we have ISIS. Al Qaeda was a non-government organization trying to kick all foreigners out of their part of the world. They didn't defend territory, so conventional warfare didn't work. Now we have ISIS, and many of the same civilians who want all foreigners out are supporting ISIS. But ISIS isn't a non-government organization, they're trying to use war to create a nation. During World War 2, air bombing of Dresden was highly controversial. This was not attack on military infrastructure, it was just attack of civilians. What ISIS did to Paris is not ethically any different. Scale is actually much smaller. This is what you get when you go to war. And expect it'll get worse before the conflict is over.
Khar Khar:
Your second section also doesn't make sense.
Try "destroying" a ball of pond scum with a sledge hammer. All you'll do is spread the pond scum farther, which will grow where it lands. Spreading it just causes it to grow faster.
Khar Khar:
Further, there are clear and obvious strategic reasons why you want to use planes.
Planes work against tightly formed organized army formations. They don't work against infiltrators dispersed among civilians.
Khar Khar:
How would removing Assad get rid of ISIS?
Government forces of Syria could focus on ISIS instead of splitting their attention on fighting a two-front battle against their own people. And Western countries could provide aid directly to the military of Syria.
Khar Khar:
That would be the option you declined to include, which is for a concentrated Western attack on ISIS.
That is option 1: escalation. Expect they will respond with escalation in kind. ISIS has managed to get one radicalized individual to attempt a raid on our Parliament building. You say there hasn't been another 9/11 in the US yet. Yet. Russia got involved, this resulted in a Russian airliner crash. France escalated, the result was Paris. If the US escalates, expect something in the US.
Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise stop bombing with CF-18s, and send trainers for regional forces. That makes sense. That's the best option.
If ISIS continues to attack western countries on their own soil (or counter-attack) then expect an all-out invasion. We haven't seen NATO allied with Russia since World War 2. Imagine the full might of USA, Russia, France, Germany, UK, Spain, Hungary. Who else has been involved, or has been affected by refugees? I believe all of NATO is in some way involved, including new eastern European members. Are we at a point that could be justified? Will the US Security Council authorize all-out war against ISIS? War is messy; yes we would win, but at what cost?
But "picking at them" like was done with Al Qaeda will only make them stronger.
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Moderator 
CKA Uber 
