No, bombs are no solution and only help the wrong sides.
The old trick of spreading fear.
Nobody will be convinced that way.
May god bless the victims.
I'd like to add some thoughts for the use of the words faschism and fundamentalism:
Let's start with the basic communication problem in:
Me more money, You less and must agree.
On its way it turned out, that this program is easier to do as a group.
So it changed very early to: all for us, the others must agree.
Short: oligarchia.
Legions of examples in history, some efforts against this.
Like christians. In the beginning they said: share all with everybody.
This somehow "very dangerous idea" was immediately disturbed by the addition:
but not for the women. (Paulus)
Instead of demanding: including the money. (Judas)
The resulting hassle led to the support of the Paulus party by Konstantin (weapons, troops!).
With the new slogan: all for us, eat dust if you don't agree.
Well, "share all with everybody" survived within:
katharoi, Valdez etc. (heresia)
Then the "holy clean inner circle" threw out the married ones, to make way for the
help foundation for our beloved brothers who are not allowed to divide the heritage of their family.
So the oligarch bosses had no more problem to isolate/make disappear their brothers and sisters:
"Take this monastry/cathedral and stop f..."
Of course, they went insane without, and we all remember the burning.
So, as a result, the church split.
But the "dangerous idea" survived: Kant.
With the addition of Marx: including the money.
Faschism was founded to prevent the "loss" of the money.
Impera without divide. (no dividing of the wealth of the nation)
And this is important: A whole nation (=currency!)! (Italy, Germany)
That's why I think it's better to talk about fundamentalism when it comes to discuss
the plans of any "holy clean inner circle", like the one that initiated London.
Where ever they are, and there are a lot of them, they have one thing in common:
All for us.
They differ only in: Dead or alive.
The ones "alive" could be partners to talk about replacing us with everybody, the others never.
And this never is the point of chance to ask: To be or not to be?
And raise fear and misuse it.
A dilemma, and the basic problem remains, more or less...
So we better discuss further, if it's really a good idea, these hedge fonds. And share holder values.