Defeating ISIS with Violence is impossible.

Definitions Ground troop: -The branch of an army made up of units trained to fight on foot.[1] - Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot [1] Combat: -fighting between armed forces.[2] -take action to reduce, destroy, or prevent (something undesirable). [2] Ground Combat Troop: To get this definition, being that there is no direct definition I combine the definitions of ground troop and combat. -Soldiers armed and trained to fight on foot in order to reduce destroy or prevent the advancement of the enemy and who are designated to participate in fighting between armed forces. *Prefer this definition because the framers of the debate resolution most likely wanted to talk about the implications of putting more soldiers, as we have before, into the middle east, which is probably because ISIS is becoming a greater threat. This is opposed to my opponent’s advocacy, I content that this debate is too wide to talk about ALL types of attacks, especially being that the greater resolution suggests that ground troops will be doing the attacking. ISIS:-All of the members who compose of the current ISIS group and anyone who joins in the future. Impossible: “very unreasonable” [3] Synonyms- “unattainable, unachievable, unobtainable, unwinnable, hopeless,impractical, implausible, far-fetched, outrageous, preposterous, ridiculous,absurd, impracticable, unworkable, futile” [3] The case “1.) Pro said that 'ISIS operates by way of radical religion and ideology.' True. So what?” -This is a logical proof, thus the first point should be self-evident and not need to be proven or self valuable. “2.)…. The Pro has brought forth no examples of where this happened.” Take for example the 2010 case of Faisal Shahzad, the attempted bomber of Times Square. So I am not adding my own points to much I will simply use quoted evidence from source 4. “Faisal Shahzad was sentenced by a federal judge to life in prison yesterday for his attempted bombing of Times Square, a crime for which he previously pleaded guilty. Aside from proving yet again how uniquely effective our real judicial system is (as opposed to military commissions or lawless detention) in convicting and punishing Terrorists (see this NYT Editorial on that issue this morning), this episode sheds substantial light on what I wrote about on Monday: namely, how our actions in the Muslim world — ostensibly undertaken to combat Terrorism — do more than anything else to spur Terrorism and ensure its permanent continuation. Ever since Shahzad was apprehended, the media storyline has been one of fauxbafflement: why would a naturalized Pakistani-American citizen with an M.B.A. and such a nice, middle-class life in the U.S. possibly turn into such a vicious Terrorist Monster? But from the start, the evidence answering that question has been both clear and overwhelming. The New York Times examined a decade’s worth of emails and other private communications as Shahzad became radicalized against the U.S., in which he railed with increasing fury against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, drone attacks in Pakistan, Israeli violence against Palestinians and Muslims generally, Guantanamo and torture, and asked: “Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows?” When he pleaded guilty in June, this is what he told the baffled and angry Judge about why he did what he did: If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, “we will be attacking U.S.,” adding that Americans “only care about their people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die” “One of the first things he said was, ‘How would you feel if people attacked the United States? You are attacking a sovereign Pakistan’,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the interrogation reports are not public. And then yesterday, at his sentencing, this is what he said when asked if he still wanted to plead guilty: “Yes,” said Shahzad, and then said he wanted to plead guilty and 100 times more,” because he wanted the U.S. to know it will continue to suffer attacks if it does not leave Iraq and Afghanistan and stop drone strikes in Pakistan. Calm, but clearly angry, and standing the whole time . . . . Shahzad said the judge needed to understand his role. “I consider myself a Muslim soldier,” he said. When [Judge] Cedarbaum asked whether he considered the people in Times Square to be innocent, he said they had elected the U.S. government. “Even children?” said Cedarbaum. “When the drones [in Pakistan] hit, they don’t see children,” answered Shahzad. He then said, “I am part of the answer to the U.S. killing the Muslim people.” [4] “2.)…. most Muslims do not support ISIS” On this point I will have to agree, most muslims do not support ISIS, the issue is not, do many of the 1.4 billion muslims support ISIS. The issue is whether or not our actions will create more terrorists and MAKE more muslims support ISIS. To support this claim I will now provide evidence which comes from a Chicago University study named the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism. “a new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiateswhat is (a) already bleedingly obvious and (b) known to the U.S. Government for many years: namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings isnot Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather. . . . foreign military occupations. Pape and his team of researchers draw on data produced by a six-year study of suicide terrorist attacks around the world that was partially funded by the Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. They have compiled the terrorism statistics in a publicly available database comprised of some 10,000 records on some 2,200 suicide terrorism attacks, dating back to the first suicide terrorism attack of modern times – the 1983 truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 U.S. Marines. “We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns, … and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign,” Pape said in an interview last week on his findings. Pape said there has been a dramatic spike in suicide bombings in Afghanistan since U.S. forces began to expand their presence to the south and east of the country in 2006. . . . Deaths due to suicide attacks in Afghanistan have gone up by a third in the year since President Obama added another 30,000 U.S. troops.” [5] Here are some charts showing the number of terror strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan over time. Iraq incidences of terror attacks over time Afghanistan “More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans. Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.” –from same University of Chigago study on terrorism and its roots. Cites [1] http://tinyurl.com...... [2] http://tinyurl.com...... [3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...