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

I will begin by addressing my opponent's last point. The resolution stipulates that War (defined as government-sponsored armed action) is the best way to defeat terrorism. My opponent suggests that showing fault in his arguments would not be enough to win this debate. The concept of "best" necessarily entails relativity. "Best" is "better than all others". I therefore contend (as I did in my first post) that to win this argument I need to eliminate all other reasonable alternatives as inferior to military conflict. Do I need to cite statistics? I contend that I do not. Am I entitled to appeal to the readers' logical thinking alone? I contend that I am. *Why military action is better than my opponent's suggestion* With respect, my opponent has not suggested any strategy to fight terrorism. He suggested, in a nutshell, that if people could eliminate conflict then terrorism (as a means of dealing with conflict) would necessarily also be eliminated. That much is true. It is also impossible to achieve. As long as there are humans and limited resources and difference of opinion and competing interests there will be conflict. My opponent's long term solution is by all means a valid proposition. It's a solution to minimize war and conflict. It is NOT a solution to deal with terrorism as a means of achieving one's goals. *My position regarding negotiations with terrorism* I again repeat my firm contention that negotiating with terrorists is the absolutely worst way of dealing with terror as a method of fighting a war. Equally, showing terrorists that by their activities they will attract the attention they want, parties will come to a negotiating table, their demands will be considered, only amounts to legitimizing terrorism as a means of dealing with conflict. Let us remember, terrorists are people who attack "innocents". Do we want to show them that that strategy works? This is not a matter of statistics. This is a matter of common sense. I will now turn to my opponent's arguments in his last post. 1. The Israel situation. I agree with my opponent that both parties take part in atrocities. I do not contest his statement that Israel sponsors what also amounts to terrorism. Yes, the governments should be encouraged to talk. And they have been. In January 2005 a truce was announced by PRC and FAMB. This notwithstanding, terror attacks against Israel remained high, motivation to engage in terror remained high and the number of Kassam rocket attacks in fact increased (http://www.jpost.com...). Even if there ever is an end to the Israel situation, it will not have any bearing on the use of terrorism as a method of dealing with conflict. Other dissatisfied groups and factions around the world will have no reasons not to engage in terrorism. In fact, the opposite will be true. They will know that waging terror wars gives them the attention they want. It will in fact encourage them. 2. AQ operations 2000-03 Whilst I could take issue with the statistics mentioned (eg, the writer referred to by my opponent quotes his source very vaguely in effect making it untraceable), I will not. It is obvious that an invasion of an entire country coupled with the toppling of its government will be met by resistance. I never once suggested that Bush's war on terror should be supported or considered as a proper way of fighting terrorism. I do not and have not supported either his invasion of Afghanistan or that of Iraq (see my debate on Bush being USA's "best president"). Again, this does not mean that military action is not the best way to deal with terrorism. It just means that invasion and forced regime change are likely to lead to a longer conflict. Is that any surprise? Having said the above, three points need to be made: a)evidence exists that as at September 2008, AQ has been significantly weakened in Iraq, if not dismissed entirely. This is said to be largely due to the "Sunni Awakening Councils, former tribal leaders and insurgents who turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq as it became increasingly sectarian, and sided with the U.S" (http://www.infoplease.com...) b)AQ's operations against American interests originated with Bin Laden's 1996 Fatwa (http://www.infoplease.com...). This Fatwa pre-dates 9/11. It pre-dates Afghanistan. It pre-dates Iraq. c)AQ itself has been said to concede that they are losing the ‘war on terror'.( http://www.strategypage.com...) Many people around the world have voiced their opposition to Bush's attacks on Afghanistan (to a lesser extent) and Iraq. They have spoken, they have published, they have demonstrated. The USA has lost many friends. Does this justify terror as a method of voicing such opposition? Of course not. 4. My opponent suggests we look at why terrorists do what they do The answer is: to achieve what they want. AQ wants to rid the world of USA's influence. IRA wants a Republic. PLO wants a Palestinian state. Again, there are over 50 FBI-listed terror organizations around the world. And again, by suggesting that we listen to their concerns once they have stepped on the terrorist path, we are legitimizing their methods. Terror is a means. It is not an end. I agree that the USA has killed huge numbers of non-combatants. I agree that invading Iran would be a horrible mistake. I would go on to suggest that Clinton's ultimatum on Serbia was in itself state terrorism. Does that diminish my argument? Of course not. 5. My opponent's solution Supporting democracy is a great idea to make the world a better place. That is, if one believes that democracy is indeed the best system. There are, however, those who suggest that there is no evidence that democracy leads to less terrorism (http://www.foreignaffairs.org...). The UK is a democracy and yet just consider IRA. Israel is a democracy. Russia (presumably) was a democracy. And yet consider Chechnya. You will not win everyone's heart. It is impossible to satisfy everyone. As long as there are humans, there will be conflict. Those choosing terrorism to deal with it must be shown that their methods do not work. 6. My "strategy" What I advocate is not a new concept. It essentially entails tactical counter-terrorism. Relying on intelligence to find terror cells and destroying them quickly and where possible covertly. Most countries have their tactical counter-terrorist forces. This is the war I'm advocating. Not one where entire countries are invaded. What we need is better intelligence and more information sharing between allied governments. At the end I will point out that I have never in my life voted for a representative in the US Congress (or any US state legislative body). When I did live in the USA, I was not its citizen and was too young to vote in any event. It appears that my opponent is making an assumption. In fact, most of his argument appears US-centred. I do not blame him for it. However, I will make the general point that this results in grossly limiting the scope of a very very broad global issue.