Terrorism in general will be best defeated by military means (war).

Ladies and Gentlemen, We have come to the final round of this debate. I will now briefly summarise the arguments. I have opened by asserting that in order to prove the resolution all I need to do is demonstrate that "war" is a better means of defeating terrorism than any reasonable alternative. My opponent and I appear to have agreed as to what alternatives are available. I have raised some alternatives, he has raised others. With respect, through the entire debate, my opponent has not addressed the issue of fighting terrorism. Rather, he has proposed (broadly speaking) that if the world were a better place there would be no terror. He is technically correct. In a perfect world there would be no conflict and therefore no terror. But perfect worlds are not easy to come by. I have rebutted my opponent's point by saying that as long as there are humans and limited resources and differences of opinion, there will be conflict. I further contended (and still do) that terror must be fought as a means and not an end. My opponent has suggested that we look at why terrorists do what they do. I negate that. I have firmly contended throughout this debate that terrorists are not to be given the attention they are trying to get. They are not to be shown that their methdos are working. To send them that message would mean to invite more conflicted groups and individuals to turn to terror. nb. If there were no humans, there would be no terror. By extension, the best and fool-proof way of fighting terrorism is to nuke the entire earth. And that really means war. (this is of course not to be taken seriously!) Much has been made of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in this debate. I never said I agreed with those wars. However, I have showed some evidence (see round 3) that the Iraq situation has in fact been somewhat successful in fighting AQ. Whether that is believed or not is irrelevant. The Iraq and Afghan conflicts are not good examples for this debate. They are extreme examples of war. They are invasions of sovereign countries coupled with a toppling of their regimes, all on dubious legal and moral grounds. The war I have suggested is on a much smaller scale. It still meets the definition of war. ("international or domestic military action sponsored by the government and targeted against any state, group or individual" - as agreed by the parties in Comments). I have contended that terrorism should be attacked by the use of elite counter-terrorist troops, preferably covert. In other words, they won't know what has hit them. They won't know against whom to retaliate. But they will know that someone is onto them. This will instill fear in other potential terrorists. It is not a new concept and it has been done for many many years by various governments of the world. My opponent has not responded to my last round and chose instead to forfeit. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have showed that my opponent's suggested alternatives would not work. It does not take statistics and science to work that out. All you need to do is use common sense. Sending a message to terrorists that their tactics achieve their purpose, that it gives them the attention they need, is effectively legitimising terrorism as a means of fighting a conflict. This includes negotiations. Having rebutted my opponent's proposed methods of fighting terrorism and having presented a workable method of fighting a war against terrorists (not perfect, but workable), and having met no rebuttal to my last argument, I contend that I have proven the resolution. Although it may go against our natural instincts as human beings, although it may be sad, although it may be costly, war (in its small-scale, precise, intelligence-based version) is unfortunately the only viable option when it comes to fighting terrorism. I now ask that you vote Pro. Thank you.