In order to defeat ISIS we have to kill the loved ones of terrorists

Thanks for making clear the rules. I should have thought of that, but I'm new and just getting the hang of it. 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." 1. http://edition.cnn.com... 2. https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org... 3.https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 4.http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 5.https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com...- arriving-in-euro 6. http://edition.cnn.com...