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

I will now turn to his points one by one. 1. Education of ourselves I agree that knowing one's enemy is very important in any conflict. 2. Economic aid - this is settled and not in issue. 3. Negotiation. My opponent is here suggesting that resolutions should be negotiated with governments. Let me give an example of what he appears to be saying. Let us say that a large number of Germans decide that the entire western part of the country known as Poland should really be part of Germany. Most Germans voice this in discussions and protests. However, a small German faction infiltrates Poland and the Czech republic and begins bombing school buses. What my opponent is suggesting is that members of that faction (who are waging war against innocent civilians) should not be attacked with force. Rather, the world should now turn their mind to the issues and commence negotiations between the German and Polish governments in order to reach compromise. What he is suggesting is that we should send out the message to terrorists that their murderous acitivities will attract the exact kind of attention that they want. With respect, I disagree. 4. Due process - not an issue - settled 5. The remainder of my opponent's argument will require more thorough consideration. Firstly, he contends that between 2000-2003 AQ carried out more than 100 operations and killed thousands. I would like him to present some evidence of this, as my reasearch returned something in the vicinity of 10-15 attacks. Secondly, my opponent is suggesting that the "hatred" towards the USA amongst some Muslims arises from the fact that the US has troops stationed in foreign nations. That may well be true. It may well be true that the invasion of Afghanistan and of Iraq has prompted a rise in terrorism. However, we must remember that G. W. Bush and his allies attacked Iraq on the pretense of a presence there of weapons of mass destruction. The country was invaded (against international law and without the UN's approval and irrespective of the pleas of wmd inspectors) and a regime change was forced upon it. The attack on Iraq was an attack on a sovereign country (whether Saddam was a cruel authocrat or not). I concede that it made the USA unpopular. I further say it is not just the Muslim world that has formed some negative views of the USA as a result of the Gulf War. Attacks on Americans present in Iraq (while could be classed as terrorist) are attacks against an invading force (and their civilian aids). They are often not attacks on targets 'other than the real target'. To an extent (and without legitimising them! ) they may constitute guerilla warfare. Bush's attack on Afghanistan and his removal of the Taliban regime may also have been a rash decision. Arguably it WAS claimed to be part of the War on Terror. However, again, it involved an attack on a sovereign country and an attempt to change its regime. Coalition troops are still stationed in Afghanistan and having a fairly hard time. My contention NEVER was that military reaction should involve mass invasions of countries and forced regime changes. The fact that one president of one country has made a bad decision as to how to conduct military conflict (albeit he did have allies), does not mean that military conflict should not be applied against terrorism generally. I would like to point out that AQ is not a very helpful example in this debate. It is confined to one country (the USA) and its current low standing in some parts of the world due to its perceived "expansionist and imperialistic" policy. Even within the limited discussion about AQ, however, it should be pointed out that AQ has conducted terrorist activities on many occasions prior to 9/11 and it has done so on 3 continents. I will not argue with the assertion that Osama Bin Laden has a particular dislike of the USA. Let us keep in mind however that Islamic terrorism predates the USA by many many years, with its beginnings as far back as the 11th century (the Hashashins). TERRORISM IS A MEANS, NOT AN END My opponent and I are in agreement as to the above statement. That is clear from his argument. Terrorism is a method that some people employ to achieve their cause, to attract attention. Currently there are over 50 terrorist groups worldwide listed by US authorities (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Their goals vary. Their interests vary. Their nationalities vary. Many of them have their respective political "fronts" (I take it my opponent will accept this as common knowledge but if challenged I will provide references). Yes, of course the fact that someone conducts terrorist warfare is an indication that they're not happy about the status quo. I point out that there will ALWAYS be people unhappy about the status quo. We live in a world of limited resources, with groups disagreeing over territory, ethnicity, religion, money, natural resources. Of course it would be nice to have all these problems eliminated, to live in a world where everyone gets along. We should work towards it. We can make the world a better place. But it will never be perfect and without conflict. That is Utopia. Whether or not the end objectives of groups whose interests are represented by terrorists are legitimate is irrelevant. Whether it is feasable to reach agreement with those groups is also irrelevant. The end objectives of the groups should be addressed if raised by them in a proper forum (yes, those DO exist! ). However, they must not be allowed to think that by bombing a bus or kidnapping a civilian they are given attention. That would only legitimise their methods. They (and others) would only think that if they have a grievance and are not listened to all they have to do is bomb another bus. No, to the contrary. They must be shown that those activities fall upon deaf ears. "Engage in terrorism and we will NOT hear you. But we will find you. We will destroy you and your facilities. You want war, you get war". With all due respect, the course my opponent is suggesting would only result in legimisation of terrorism as a means of attracting attention, of coming to the negotiating table. It would result in a global proliferation of terrorism. In my submission that is simply unacceptable. In fact it is exactly what the terrorist is hoping to achieve! I will also point out that I am dissatisfied with my working conditions. I am underpaid. No one listens. Industrial action has not helped. Perhaps if someone out there did something drastic enough on my behalf, that would make some decision-makers notice me and my concerns. Perhpaps I would get a payrise. No, no no. And again NO. We must not and we cannot afford to negotiate with terrorists. We must not let them think that killing non-combatants will draw attention to their cause (whatever it may be). I strongly oppose.