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

To begin with there needs not be a contradiction between the fact that there is a hatred of the west in certain segments of the Muslim world and the fact that that terrorists are stoking that hatred by by actions and certain interventions. If you read the works of some of the most prominent scholars of radical Islam, those who've come to shape the minds of radical Islam, we can look at guys such as Qutb, Khomeni, Bin Ladin, you can look at their writings and see that there is an overall objection to American culture and the way of life that is being portrayed abroad through Hollywood and media is having a corrupting influence on the islamic culture, Islamic family, way of life, etc. and that these moral and cultural grievances with America is closely interlinked with the objection to American foreign policy. One does not stand against the other but are in fact wholly connected and act Synergetically. (4) 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. (1)(2)(3) 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. 1.http://europe.newsweek.com... 2.http://www.express.co.uk... 3.http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4.http://dl4a.org...