In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists
Debate Round Forfeited
Concentratingape has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||3 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||405 times||Debate No:||93873|
Debate Rounds (5)
We have tried a lot but nothing seems to have really worked so far. The only way to really put an end to the menace of global jihad and to quell the murderous tide that is now sweeping over huge swaths of western civilization is to play ball and show that we are going to go the extra mile to show that if you're messing around with us then you're going to pay a steep price.
Round 1. Acceptance, No Arguments
Round 2. Opening statements (no rebuttals)
Round 3. Rebuttals
Round 4. Rebuttals
Round 5. Final Rebuttals and closing arguments
1. The burden of proof is shared
2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss
3. No images or videos are permitted. Links to videos or Images may be used as sources, but the media itself may not be posted in the debate.
4. The character limit is 10,000
5. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments.
6. No Kritiks
7. No Semantics
8. No Trolling
9. All sources must be accessible online and all links must be posted to the debate.
10. Violations of any of these rules should be noted by voters in their scores for conduct.
To start off with, in the same manner you laid out the debating rules I think we ought to define the ambitions of the global coalition that are fighting terrorists all over the world and those of the terrorists themselves to get a better understanding of who we're fighting and what their methods of engagement entail for us.
As far as the western world concerned we want to go about our lives without having to fear terrorists who can happily in one fell swoop can take out dozens of lives along with themselves. Global stability and world peace is what we want. Now, one might argue that foreign policy, especially that of the U.S., has helped in sparking and incitingterrorist attacks and I would tend to agree that it has had that effect despite the fact that the western world, and in particular Europe, have opened up the gates to literally millions of undocumented migrants. Any foibles we may have ended up doing in wars abroad the people of the west have more than made up for by the humanitarian acts of kindness. Yet these are the people targeted by terrorists. The body count in Europe in less than a year as a result of terrorist plots is over 260 and counting.
The terrorist want to fight for their nefarious version of a God and die fighting for "what God wills", and in so doing are particularly keen on taking as many civilians casualties with them in death. This is an absolutely non-negationable position and a type of asymmetrical kind of warfare similar to that of the Kamikaze pilots of World War Two (but who only attacked military and not civilian targets) and as I recall we had to do deal with them Gruesomely and in an act of barbarism to stop the death toll from reaching the millions. The terrorists starting position is an full-out attack full-stop. The terrorists want to die as martyrs and they define their victories by the number of casualties they manage to slay before they get taken out.
We have waged our war on terror now for one and a half decade now. They have proved themselves to be a menace that is not easily rooted out, they do tremendous damage and their ranks seem to swell with more members joining their vicious global enterprise. We do don't seem to put much of a dent in the organisation since terrorist attacks have intensified and although we are making some headway in the war in the Levant, if that is being used as retaliatory attacks at home then we can count ourselves no victory. So as fighting terrorism is concerned we are more vulnerable now then ever before and Trump is right in saying that we're losing in many things including against ISIS.
In order to stop terrorist attacks from happening we have to fight them on an equal footing because when you look at it they don't care much for their lives. If we have hundreds or thousands of them with nothing deterring them from committing acts of carnage because there is nothing at stakes for them then we are screwed. This is the reality of today's warfare and in light of that fact then I don't care what any Geneva or human rights document say about the matter. If they don't reflect what's what in 2016 then I consider those documents null and void or ought to be reinterpreted if to be used at all.
The most hardened fighters of ISIS are from states of former Soviet Republics(1). Yet you don't hear much about terrorism in Russia? I think this sheds some light on the matter.
"[T]he KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.
In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the identities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately."
"This is the way the Soviets operate. They do things - they don't talk." (2)
Compare that with the fiasco of the U.S. Diplomacy which continues to drag on until this day. Torture works and certainly sprinkled in with a little barbarism does the trick(3).
And just to get it out of the way, yes I am frightened of terrorists. I am more concerned about the real possibility about myself and thousand more being the victims of further attacks than I care for terrorists' girlfriends, mothers, children or close friends to live. Now, there ought to be some limitation to how many we kill in order to get the message across. I'm not saying we should wipe out their whole lineage but just have the authority and determination to do what we have to in order to thwart attacks on domestic soil. In fact, collateral damage is commonplace in wars and drone strikes so regardless if we continue to pick fight with terrorist whether at their home turf or on our soil, unavoidably there will be civilian casualties. With my proposal we might strike more fear in the heart of Islamists that the war will just gradually fizzle out (like in Russia) and therefore in the long run considerably cut the number of civilian losses. Now, as for other factors like American foreign policy that provokes radical Islamists, I think we should withdraw and don't get involved in other countries as much as we do, yet make clear that we are willing to employ said brutal tactics to protect ourselves.
We have to seriously consider the possibility that terrorism is becoming more and more commonplace. Europe and the U.S. are letting the Visigoths through the gates by allowing millions of undocumented migrants, who are 75% able-bodied men from countries where radical strings of Islam thrive, into our countries. In fact, ISIS has made a handsome amount of money from smuggling migrants into Europe and stated that there may be up to 5,000 ISIS fighters hiding among the waves of "refugees". The circumstances requires harsher measures lest we'll be at the mercy of invading ISIS soldiers. in the long run because the military and the intelligence services can only do so much we have to step up and face the fact that brutality works. The only question is how we ought to apply it effectively in order to send the message across to these folks. The circumstances will literally force our hands if we are to prevail and stop another 9/11 from taking place. (4)(5)(6)
Islamists then they will always be an impediment to the scientific Renaissance that really ought to define the coming decades, not some civilisational clash as things are going right now. Many lives are at stakes and if we're not ready to stand up to protect the lives of our own people then we will continue to incite fear and hatred amongst our people. I don't deny the fact that I have a genuine fear of radical Islam and I think my opponent t would be lying if hesaid he isn't. I'm acting out of self-preservation and am not ashamed for saying so. I think I've reached a much more sobering conclusion than people who continue to support the status quo which has no ending in sight.
We do nothing to make them fear what they're doing. As long as we're not deterring them then we can't win. Then it's just a numbers game with a few thousand fighters dead in air strikes just to see a few more thousand join the next day. We don't go and kill every cockroach when we have an infested home. We go and find the nest. Because they're not afraid of us they'll continue more emboldened than before for every attack that takes place. Instead we pride ourselves on taking out some ISIS holdout in Syria or taking out some prominent leaders here and there which in the long run makes no difference. If they don't genuinely fear us and our capabilities then our efforts are in vain.
I can therefore intercede with a question to my opponent: what can we do besides what I'm proposing to make terrorists hellbent of killing us think twice about killing 130 Parisians or 84 people in Niece? I doubt con will have much of an answer to that.
If we see terrorist attacks go on and off as they do then we have given up on our right to govern ourselves peacefully then we don't have a country anymore as Trump say. And he's right in that if we are not able to take the measures needed to strike them where it hurts then they will do it to us. And they have already proved that they're good at that. If things get worse then the blood is on the hands of those who willingly let the ISIS horse through the gates and stood idly by.
What I'm proposing is akin to comparing an axe murderer with the pilots flying Lancasters' over Dresden killing many in their wake. The axe murderer would in most people's mind seem less sympathetic than the pilot notwithstanding the fact that the pilot has most certainly killed dozens more people than the most vicious serial axe-murderer. Not a flattering analogy but I think a poignant one in the sense that even though the proposition of killing family members is cruel in nature it is more humane than not taking this course of actions thus emboldening the terrorists. Rosy rhetoric and status quo will not keep us safe and will not ward off aggressors.
"They may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families" lives."
Thank you. In this round of the debate, I shall state my case and then respond to the claims by the Pro in the following round.
Contention 1: International Law
All Four Geneva conventions contain a common clause known as Article 3 [1,2]. Section 1 of the Article states the following :
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
This article, which the United States has ratified, clearly prohibits the killing of non-combatants . Therefore the proposal by the Pro of killing the families of ISIS members would be classified as a war crime.
Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, an additional treaty signed in 1977, also states in Article 51.2 :
"The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."
This article makes it clear that it is illegal to target civilians or threaten violence among civilians. This article was signed by the US but it has not been ratified, however, it is still considered binding ever since the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Ruling . As the families of Terrorists would in most cases be civilians, the Proposal by the pro amounts to a war crime under Protocol I.
Committing these crimes war crimes would effectively eliminate the Moral authority of the United States and in all likelihood turn the US into a pariah state, and possibly result in the expulsion from NATO and the OAS and threaten other alliances the US has with nations such as South Korea, Japan, and Australia.
Contention 2: Ineffective
In addition to the strategy proposed being a war crime, it is also ineffective as it would only create more terrorists.
Past and present US counterterrorism strategies have actually resulted in creating more terrorists than it kills. A prime example of this is the use of drone strikes. The use of drone strikes in areas outside of conflict zones, such as in Yemen and Pakistan has resulted in an increase in anti-American sentiment and terrorist recruitment . Drone strikes create a wedge between local communities and the United States and brings them closer to groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda or the Taliba. Drone strikes have also resulted in a large number of civilian deaths. These deaths, especially the deaths of children, are then used by terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban to recruit new supporters. Local people are more willing to join out of a desire for revenge against the US. Many of these recruits are friends and family of the victims . We have seen this, especially in Yemen . In 2009, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had very few members and controlled no territory, however, US drone strikes have allowed AQAP to recruit new members. The group now controls large swaths of the country and has well over 1,000 members.
Another Example of a failed counterterror policy is detention at Guantanamo Bay, which I will elaborate on in the next round.
Such a policy as proposed by the Pro would likely yield similar results, as relatives and friends of the victims would likely be pushed into the hands of ISIS and give ISIS a new propaganda tool.
It was recently revealed that the hostages in the Paris terrorist attacks were subject to gruesome torture that as soon as I read it made my blood boil. It was so horrid and ghastly that policemen on the scene vomited when they saw it. It turns out the French government suppressed the information about the eyes of victims being gouged out, castration and genitals being put in the mouths of the victims and women's vaginas being stabbed with knifes. They planned on using the videos of victims being torturedas propaganda for their ISIS brethren (1)
The reason for the cover up is because we're weak and helpless against these acts. More attacks have happened since then by ISIS which shows they're emboldened to commit more attacks in the future. Undoubtedly revealing this piece of information would cause panic and that's why they've keep their mouth shut which is a treasonous act by the government for withholding the truth from the public.
I think the job of a leader of a country is to protect his or her people first and foremost. And so in the face of the menace that kills and tortures dozens of our own citizens, the job of a leader is not to say "how can I make sure our actions are in line with the Geneva convention" but to the contrary "what should we do to make the terrorists fear our reprisals to the point where they'll no longer consider committing any act of terror against us". That should be the goal of our foreign policy and dealings with ISIS.What must we do to stop the bombs from going off. Remember what I said about finding the nest? It doesn't make any sense chasing after bad guys when there are more cropping up every day. We need to make sure that our reprisals will be on everyone's mind and that the last thing they'll want to do is to hurt us. If they feel there's not going to be any repercussions then there's no compunction to stop them from acting out like this. We have to start acting much tougher or else there will be more terrorist attacks of this nature again and again. Against these kind of people I say all bets are off. We shoudlnt hesitate to kill children, spouses, family members and use torture against said loved ones of terrorists held hostage to keep ISIS at bay.
Sometimes you need to do cruel things in order to secure victory and guarantee safety and world peace. The bombings in Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined may have killed up to +- 300,000 people. When we look back at these historic events, what I propose pale in comparison. I am just saying let's kill, and if need be, torture the right amount of loved so that the terrorists know that whatever they do to us it's going to bounce right back at them and blow them in their face.
My opponent compares apples and oranges by mentioning drone strikes saying "look, that didn't work out so well and was ineffective that's why your proposal will be ineffective as well". He argues is that it will push friends and family members into ISIS. However, the difference between drone strikes and the intentional killings of loved ones that I propose, is that those that've become terrorists as a result of drone strikes don't have anything to fear when they decide to take up arms because then the damage is already done. My proposal would stop the thought of committing a terrorist attack from ever entering their head because if they do THEIR FAMILY WILL BE TARGETS as a retaliatory act. Their family specifically. Now we don't do retaliatory acts. Maybe random drone strikes that won't necessarily affect any given terrorist directly. That's the difference.
Drone strikes=create terrorists who fear little to nothing because the damage is already done. My idea=those who would have considered torturing and murdering American civilians would not consider it now because if they do the best intelligence in the world and the best equipped and trained military will hunt down and kill or torture the loved ones of said terrorist. The status quo=they feel empowered by the weak west that doesn't retaliate. My proposal would make them scared sh*tless and feel that finally they've met their overlord; better not goad the beast or things will get ugly.
As far as Guatanamo bay is concerned, you know that they built a football field there not too long ago? Now they consider water boarding too much. How can you look at that and think we're doing enough? It's pathetic. ISIS is beheading us and and we have people saying we can't do waterboarding against terrorists. It's weak. (2)
As far as America being ostracised from the rest of the world as my opponent seem to think It'll be, if the problem with ISIS gets even worse then people will effectively just say "look, do what you have to do to get us out of this mess". If things get worse that I dont think people will be as antagonistic to the idea as they are now. I don't hope for that day but if we continue the way we're doing and nothing new and radical comes to the table, then we might see another attack like in Paris. If we adopted it today then we might get ostracised for a month or two then life will go on as usual.
Look, ISIS may sound tough but every man's got his price. It took a Dresden to demoralise and later defeat Nazi Germany. It took two atomic bombs to put Imperial Japan in their place. Have you read the accounts of what happened in Dresden and people being sucked into burning buildings and people hiding in fountains being burnt alive by fire bombs and the resulting heat? My proposal is humane in comparison with what that they had to go through in order for us to win. And we must win, because we can't have terrorists beheading us, gouging our eyes out, castrating U.S. and then putting our genitals in our mouths, disemboweling us, shovelling knives into women's vaginas, and I'm telling you all here horrid details again to remind you of the monstrosity which was carried out not in Kashmir or Iraq - this has now come to France! And ho knows where the next attack will take place? The authorities decided to keep their mouth shut about it because they're cowards and they know their weak response wouldn't temper the fear and rage that would ensue and will ensue the next time something like this happens. Keeping our hands tied and not allowing ourselves to fight the monsters effectively in a time like this is will in effect only serve to embolden the terrorists. They see us as the weak kid they can pick on and steal lunch money from.
Look, it's either us or them. The event in Paris has shown us that. To not use the threat of force against these people is the only way because our ability to prevent terrorist attacks because using intelligence alone has its limits. With my policy in place even the most hardened "kill all the infidels and rape their women" jihadi would feel a strong knee jerk reaction knowing that a ruthless killing machine will do whatever it takes to make them feel the sting of their actions. What is my opponent going to offer as a solution that is somehow going to make a difference? seeing how he denounces the "torture" we're using - which doesn't include waterboarding! - I'd venture to say that he's advocating more of the same soft policies that have gotten us nowhere.
When Reinhard Heydrich was killed in an assassination the Reich responded by going to the village where the killers were hiding and killing every male over 16 and all but four women. They deported, imprisoned and sent 13,000 czhecks to nazi work camps. After that no more attacks were carried out obviously. Hitler wanted to kill 10,000 but the generals had to tell him to slow it down a bit. And again, the Nazis were bad and I would've supported the operation and these czhecks who carried it out, but we can see that the German strategy worked because no one dared doing anything similar again.. (3)
Again, do we have to be this extreme to achieve the same result? I think we can strike a balance to make it worth our while yet not having excessive force used. But by now the evidence is overwhelming that brutality works. We have to be responsible in the way we carry it out, i.e. we will let military strategists and negotiators find a balance. My opponent might interject and say "but what if there are bad generals that will go overboard with this" to which I'll respond yes, there might be bad people who'll use excessive violence every once in a while. We'll make sure that there are as few as of those as possible, but right now we don't have a choice. We can't worry about a few excessive deaths or torture when we have barbarians inside our gates ready to carry out as much carnage as possible. When that's the case then I don't care about some mistakes here or there when we're facing the very real possibility of being at the mercy of psychopaths who abide by no rules.
I care more about my safety and my life and the lives of Americans than the loved ones of terrorists. Our safety can not be taken for granted. My opponent supports Jeremy Corbyn and therefore supports the mass influx of immigrants from Arab nations and do not support any real actions against terrorists that will make any difference, thus I Itake it he is not as keen on his own safety as I am my own. In order for me to go to public spaces and airports and not fear that anything will happen to me I'm willing to pay the price for that. My opponent is not. That's the difference between us.
Before I begin, I would ask the pro to Organize his responses from here on out as I have organized mine.
Response to Pro's Round 2 Argument
The Pro initially argues that US foreign policy in the middle east is responsible for inciting terrorists, however in the next paragraph, he argues that terrorist attacks are the result of a Clash of Civilizations. These two theories are contradictory. One theory states that terrorism is the backlash against US policies and perceived western imperialism, while the other states that terrorism is simply the result of cultural divisions and a hatred of western democracy. This contradiction is a serious issue, as one argument would indicate that further intervention would only make things worse, while the other promotes further intervention.
The Pro then states that the War on terror has failed as the number of terrorists has swelled. This is because of what I stated in the previous round, that US strategies such as, Drone Bombing, have increased animosity towards the US and increased sympathy towards terrorists and increased recruitment. By making this argument the Pro has effectively conceded one of my main contentions before it was even made.
The Pro goes on to state that he considers the Geneva Conventions null and void because they do not account for the realities of modern war. While the rationale behind such a claim can be debated, it does not change the fact that the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, under Article VI, Section II of the US Constitution . The argument made by the Pro simply does not align with the legal reality.
The Pro then claims that there is reasons so many of ISIS's recruits are from the former soviet states, and then cites the brutality used by the KGB against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and thus brutal strategies get results. There are several problems with this argument. First, the Pro fails to provide a link between KGB tactics and ISIS recruits beyond basic geography. Secondly, the argument does not make logicla sense. Thirdly, while the KGB may have obtained the release of 4 Hostages thanks to their actions, it did not result in the destruction of Hezbollah or deter people from joining Hezbollah, as the organization still exists and continues to gain strength. It did not even result in the end of the Hostage Crisis, as the crisis continued for another 6 years. Lastly, it does not in anyway show how killing the families of terrorists will stop terrorism.
The Pro then argues that we must strike fear into terrorists, but fails to show in any way how it will actually stop terrorists. And as I have shown in my argument, such strategies only create more terrorists.
The pro then goes on to argue against allowing refugees into Europe, however, he does not show how this is at all relevent to the debate that is being had and argues that "75%" of immigrants are "able bodied men". The source for this claim however is from "Refugee Resettlement Watch" a blog which opposes asylum for refugees, which is not in any way a reputable source. While it does provide a link to the UNHCR website, the actual number giv oen by the UNHCR is 51% of refugee arivals in Europe being men, the word able bodied does not appear, and only 33%f all the refugees (including women and children) are from Syria . Not only are the claims by the pro false, they are irrelvent to the debate.
Throughout the rest of his arguments, the Pro never once shows how the strategy would be effective at all, claiming it would be a deterrent, but fails to show how. He challenges me as to how I would stop terrorism, however, this is not what the debate is about. The resolution states "In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists", not "How should we defeat ISIS".
Connection 1: International Law
The Pro opens his round 3 arguments by again claiming he does not recognize the Geneva convention. Again, this does not change the legal reality of the situation, as I have already stated.
The Pro's emotions towards the actions by terrorists do not change the fact that there are law and rules that the United States has agreed to abide by and are considered the supreme law of the land.
While the videos of ISIS actions may work as propoganda, video of American War Crimes works just as effectivley as I have shown.
The Pro cites Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Dresden as why nations must do cruel things to win, however, it must be remembered that in all of those cases occurred prior to the Geneva Conventions.
Contention 2: Ineffective
The Pro claims that I compare apples to oranges in regards to drone strikes. While on the surface this might slightly make sense, if my actual argument is examined, you will find that my contention was not simply that it pushed family towards terrorists, it also push friends, neighbors and relatives towards terrorists and inspired animosity towards the United States. He claims drone strikes are random, however the actual name of the strategy is 'targeted killing", and Drone Strike are used to take out suspected terrorists, not just willy nilly.
The Pro states that his strategy is extremely different from drone strikes as those are not "retaliation", however, given the definition of retaliation is "the action of returning a military attack; counterattack...", the War on Terror in its entirety could be considered an act of retaliation .
On the issue of Guantanamo bay, the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo bay has likewise increased animosity towards the United States because it has been used extensively by ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in it propoganda. The Pro cites the fact that waterboarding is no longer used, and the fact that a football field was recently built as reasoning as to why it has not ineffective, saying more torture should be used. This does not change the fact that Guantanamo Bay has become synonymous around the world with American human rights abuses and has become free propaganda for terrorist groups.
The Pro never shows how his strategy would not create more terrorists or that it is not ineffective, instead highlighting the crimes committed by ISIS. He openly admits his case is based on emotion, not in facts. He cites the case of Reinhard Heydrich's murder and the response by the Nazis as to why brutal responses work, however in doing this the Pro has effectively stated that the US military should look to the Nazis for inspiration. It must be remembered that it was the crimes committed by the Nazis that inspired the Geneva conventions in 1949. He never actually responds to the modern day examples I have given, and never actually answered the contention.
The Pro concludes by attacking me, and my support of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party leadership election, claiming that therefore I do not care about my own safety. Not only is this an ad hominem, it is a violation of the rules I set out and the Pro agreed to, which states, "No Trolling". Bringing up something irrelevant such as my support of a candidate is not an issue in this debate and should be considered trolling.
As far as the alleged contradiction concerns, terrorism is a multi-faceted problem and makes no sense to view it as a one-solution-fits-all kind issue where it's either intervention or none at all. If we are at war because they've declared such as against us then obviously we have to intervene. I've been explicit in that I won't intervene unless our very safety depends on it, so no nation-building and that sort of stuff. However, when we intervene we have to do it only in defence and carry it out ruthlessly and effectively in order to make a terrorist attack against us unappealing and not worth it in light of the consequences we'll bring upon them. We're not doing it today and let me mention drone strikes as an example.
When I said drone strikes are "random" obviously they're not random as in "we just bomb random places willy nilly".That's not what I meant and obviously there's the whole business of locating the person in connection with terrorism and then do the attack. However, as a terrorist sees it, the process of locating a terrorist could be anywhere. However, there's no guarantee that some of a specific terrorists' loved ones are going to be among the dead in a drone strike since we are not actually targeting them. If the current terrorist attacks that have taken place were to lead up to us intensifying our drone strike missions then whether or not their family members are going to among the death toll is up to pure chance and thus "random". My whole point is that when we are issuing a specific and crystal clear message, that if you committ an act of terror, then your familiy will guaranteely be targeted for elimination.
I never went on to give any reasons as to why there are so many terrorists from former Soviet Republics and never tried to link it to anything, so Con is falsely paraphrasing me there. He also manages to give an erroneous description of the Lebanon hostage crisis and therefore fails to refute my point. The crisis didn't last six more years as my opponent claims but ended when Russian understood that the time for diplomacy ended when one of their hostages were shot dead which they responded to by letting the KGB Alpha group do their thing which ended in the hostages being immediately released.
"it did not result in the destruction of Hezbollah or deter people from joining Hezbollah, as the organization still exists and continues to gain strength"
No, obviously it didn't destroy Hezbollah. It would be silly for me to suggest that it did and it's silly of you to bring it up. The point is that the russians managed to rescue their hostages effectively using the threat of force. The crisis lasted another six years for hostages of other nationalities who didn't act as forcefully as the russians did.
"however in doing this the Pro has effectively stated that the US military should look to the Nazis for inspiration."
I mean come on, first I give you a perfect example of KGB (which you managed to get completely backwards) and when I provide another proof with the german general you shame me for "drawing inspiration from the Nazis (OMG!)".Obviosuly I have used several historic events from the ww2 as weell (before the wonderful Geneva convention obviously) that goes to show how brutal attack that strikes genuine fear into the opponent are effective.
The Geneva convention appears many times in your argument, yet do you realise that we are arguing whether or not my proposal would be necessary to stop ISIS and not whether or not my proposal would be possible by today's set of laws? If that was the thesis of this debate then obviosuly you would be right that it is not feasible. However that's not the theme of this debate so it's an entirely invalid argument to make.
I provided links to (and my opponet hasn't bothered to respond to) the fact that ISIS admits it is sending jihadis over with the waves of regugees showering Europe and the US, 5,000 in some estimates. In fact, ISIS is already gloating that they already have operatives that have come into Europe posing as war-torn refugees that are "wating to be activated". Jeremy Corbyn has pushed vehemently for Europe to do more and for UK to accept a similar number of migrants as germany does in spite of all the security risks we now know are fully present. Since I have laid out the facts that show the risks involved with there being thousands of jihadis among the refugees, your support of Corbyn goes to show that your humanitarian keenness trumps your safety concerns about the very possibility of there being more terror attacks that will have tremendously destabilizing effect on our civilization and our way of life. There are only so much we can do in stopping terrorist attacks from happening, as we must be all too aware of by now, and thus we do not yet the scope of how horrendous the consequences this may have in the future. Already they're calling for Angela Merkel to resign because of the spate of attacks that have happened in Germany. By allowing the destabilisation of the west in this way, ISIS are winning slowly but surely. We can now see the fruit of our actions in the wake of the multiple terror attacks that have happened by migrants, the most horrific of course being the attack in Paris.
So no, me attacking you this way is not an ad-hominem because it is a factual critique of your point of view and your efforts to refute me when you're not considering or realizing the real elephant in the room and therefore comprimises your entire argument.
Also, I can't find the 51% figure you're mentioning. Instead it hovers between 75% to 72% and that's the overall figure I find everywhere. The point is that we don't have proper vetting mechanisms and we don't know how many sympathise and are willing to take up arms with the jihadis. This will pose a huge safety risk for Europe and the U.S. You look at what happened a few days ago in Afghanistan where an entire shopping mall was blown to bits and they still don't know how many are dead, that's the kind of disaster that may be in the table if fortune is not with us. If that happens and if we can stave off attacks of this nature, then ISIS have won big and we'll look back at our stupidity in letting it happen.
I don't think I need to say much more to prove my point. My opponent got the facts wrong, tried to shame for "drawing inspiration" from history and went to great lengths to define and defend the Geneva Convention which is irrelevant to this debate. I have argued quite effectively that a policy of mutually assured destruction against the terrorists, specifically regarding their families, which would make a terrorist find himself in a stalemate. I think the worst would be to appear beatable while at the same time stoking the Muslim hatred of America. The fact that Muslims use propaganda of American bombings or torture (when we used to do torture) serves as a recruiting mechanism and riles them up as long as they believe there to be a chance to strike back and effectively win. If we have a policy of mutually assured destruction (I.e. shred the persons they hold close to heart) then there effectively won't be any attempts to get under our skin. So must we try not to do the same and therefore I argue for minding our own business and not interfere unless they interfere with us.
The reason why this approach will work is, that if more countries were to adopt the same policy then we would snatch away from ISIS what is their main weapon: their power to create terroriste otherwise they're semi-well equipped but can easily be defeated if more nations go together and make a joint effort to squash them. As long as we don't allow me to wreak major havoc through mass shootings and bombs going off then they will be toasters as soon as a joint Arab coalition can be formed and throw ISIS into the dustbin of history.
I want to apologize beforehand, my original response was much better and more thorough, however, due to a computer glitch, all of my work was lost and so I had to start over. My original response was much better, in my opinion, however, now it is gone forever.
Cause of Terrorism
The Pro states that Anti-Imperialism and the Clash of Civilizations are not contradictory. However, this is simply false. The two theories are competing theories within the academic community and are a major point of debate. The Clash of Civilizations stipulates that conflicts in the post-Cold War world are the result of religious and cultural identities, while Anti-Imperialism states that conflicts are the result of western imperialism and colonials and failed interventionist policies. To put it simply, one is based on culture, and the other is based on politics.
While the Pro does cite the works of Salafist thinkers like Qutb and Bin Laden (he also cites Khomeini who was not a Salafist), who did believe that Western Culture was corrupting, it must be noted that these beliefs only became popular because of Western Interventions in the middle east. According to Foreign Policy magazine "...if we want to get rid of terrorism or greatly reduce it to what it was before, we need to stop blaming religions, history, culture, etc. but look at our own actions and begin changing our ways because it has obviously created a long history of blowbacks and other failures." 
Furthermore, the book he cites, Why Jihad Went Global, actually negates the clash of civilizations theory and argues that it was because of the politics and strategy of the Jihadist movement led by Al-Qaeda. 
While the Pro does clarify his position in regards to drone strikes, he states that in addition to the terrorists who are already being targeted by drones, the families would be added to the kill list as well. What this would inevitably mean is that the number of drone strikes would need to be increased, only making the problems I have demonstrated exponentially worse. The Pro has not responded to this contention, and thus we must assume he, therefore, concedes this contention.
Examples Given by the Pro
The Pro has given two examples of how the resolution would be effective. The first is the KGB response to the Lebanon Hostage Crisis. The Pro Criticizes my rebuttal of this example, claiming I "erroneously" depicted it. While the three remaining Soviet Hostages were released after the KGB's brutal actions, the goal of that operation was the release of hostages. The goal of the proposal we are debating is the complete destruction of ISIS. The Pro does not want to kill the families of terrorists to force them to acquiesce to specific demands, the goal is to wipe out the terrorist organization. The pro has thus far failed to show how this example of what you could call "negotiation through intimidation", for lack of a better phrase, demonstrates the effectiveness of killing terrorists' families.
The second example given by the pro is that of Nazi War crimes committed following the Murder of Reinhard Heydrich. The con criticizes my response for being shaming, however, the point that I was making is that it was acts like this which ultimately inspired the adoption of the Geneva convention, in order to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.
Immigration and Refugees
The issue of immigration and refugees has once again been cited by the pro, however as I have previously stated, the pro has failed to show why this is relevant to the debate that is being had. The Pro claims that I have failed to respond, however, this argument is nothing more than a red herring meant to distract from the resolution of the debate. It is simply irrelevant to the current debate. As it is not relevant, I will not waste characters on responding to the claims.
The Pro then against attacks my personal political views and support for Jeremy Corbyn. The Pro attacks Jeremy Corbyn's views on Syrian refugees and says that by extension, I must have the same view. However, this claim simply does not hold any bearing as I have not once in this debate expressed either support or opposition to Corbyn's views on Syrian refugees. The fact is that this issue is also irrelevant to this debate. While the Pro states that this is "not an ad hominem" because he is addressing the fact that I support Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership race, and this thus undermines my claims, however, this is the very definition of an ad hominem attack . The pro is casting doubt on me personally as a way of undermining my case, but without actually addressing my arguments or sources. As I have previously stated, this is both irrelevant and a violation of the rules laid out in round 1.
The Pro then claims that he cannot find the 51% figure I gave in the last round. This figure came from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) . The source was provided as source 2 in the last round but is also included as source 4 in this round. All of my sources may be found at the end of my argument.
In the last round, I demonstrated how the Geneva Conventions are legally binding and are considered the law of the land under the US constitution. While previously the Pro's argument has been that the Geneva convention is not relevant in 21st-century warfare, he now argues it is not relevant to this debate at all. This argument is a prime example of moving the goalposts, the Pro has moved the parameters of the argument in order to better suit his conclusion. As he does not actually address the arguments I have made, and rather attempted to move the parameters of this topic of discussion, the contention still stands.
Thus far the pro has failed to give any reason as to why this strategy would not create more terrorists, and has only argued that terrorists would be scared from committing future acts, however, he has not demonstrated this or given any credible evidence to support this claim, and thus the contention stands as is.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.