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

To start off with, I don't recognise the current Geneva convention to be a legitimate document with which to tie or hands to. Surely rules need to be in place, but the rules have to be up-to-date with what's now and not post ww2 conditions which is not what we face today. It was recently revealed that the hostages in the Paris terrorist attacks were subject to gruesome torture that as soon as I read it made my blood boil. It was so horrid and ghastly that policemen on the scene vomited when they saw it. It turns out the French government suppressed the information about the eyes of victims being gouged out, castration and genitals being put in the mouths of the victims and women's vaginas being stabbed with knifes. They planned on using the videos of victims being torturedas propaganda for their ISIS brethren (1) The reason for the cover up is because we're weak and helpless against these acts. More attacks have happened since then by ISIS which shows they're emboldened to commit more attacks in the future. Undoubtedly revealing this piece of information would cause panic and that's why they've keep their mouth shut which is a treasonous act by the government for withholding the truth from the public. I think the job of a leader of a country is to protect his or her people first and foremost. And so in the face of the menace that kills and tortures dozens of our own citizens, the job of a leader is not to say "how can I make sure our actions are in line with the Geneva convention" but to the contrary "what should we do to make the terrorists fear our reprisals to the point where they'll no longer consider committing any act of terror against us". That should be the goal of our foreign policy and dealings with ISIS.What must we do to stop the bombs from going off. Remember what I said about finding the nest? It doesn't make any sense chasing after bad guys when there are more cropping up every day. We need to make sure that our reprisals will be on everyone's mind and that the last thing they'll want to do is to hurt us. If they feel there's not going to be any repercussions then there's no compunction to stop them from acting out like this. We have to start acting much tougher or else there will be more terrorist attacks of this nature again and again. Against these kind of people I say all bets are off. We shoudlnt hesitate to kill children, spouses, family members and use torture against said loved ones of terrorists held hostage to keep ISIS at bay. Sometimes you need to do cruel things in order to secure victory and guarantee safety and world peace. The bombings in Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined may have killed up to +- 300,000 people. When we look back at these historic events, what I propose pale in comparison. I am just saying let's kill, and if need be, torture the right amount of loved so that the terrorists know that whatever they do to us it's going to bounce right back at them and blow them in their face. My opponent compares apples and oranges by mentioning drone strikes saying "look, that didn't work out so well and was ineffective that's why your proposal will be ineffective as well". He argues is that it will push friends and family members into ISIS. However, the difference between drone strikes and the intentional killings of loved ones that I propose, is that those that've become terrorists as a result of drone strikes don't have anything to fear when they decide to take up arms because then the damage is already done. My proposal would stop the thought of committing a terrorist attack from ever entering their head because if they do THEIR FAMILY WILL BE TARGETS as a retaliatory act. Their family specifically. Now we don't do retaliatory acts. Maybe random drone strikes that won't necessarily affect any given terrorist directly. That's the difference. Drone strikes=create terrorists who fear little to nothing because the damage is already done. My idea=those who would have considered torturing and murdering American civilians would not consider it now because if they do the best intelligence in the world and the best equipped and trained military will hunt down and kill or torture the loved ones of said terrorist. The status quo=they feel empowered by the weak west that doesn't retaliate. My proposal would make them scared sh*tless and feel that finally they've met their overlord; better not goad the beast or things will get ugly. As far as Guatanamo bay is concerned, you know that they built a football field there not too long ago? Now they consider water boarding too much. How can you look at that and think we're doing enough? It's pathetic. ISIS is beheading us and and we have people saying we can't do waterboarding against terrorists. It's weak. (2) As far as America being ostracised from the rest of the world as my opponent seem to think It'll be, if the problem with ISIS gets even worse then people will effectively just say "look, do what you have to do to get us out of this mess". If things get worse that I dont think people will be as antagonistic to the idea as they are now. I don't hope for that day but if we continue the way we're doing and nothing new and radical comes to the table, then we might see another attack like in Paris. If we adopted it today then we might get ostracised for a month or two then life will go on as usual. Look, ISIS may sound tough but every man's got his price. It took a Dresden to demoralise and later defeat Nazi Germany. It took two atomic bombs to put Imperial Japan in their place. Have you read the accounts of what happened in Dresden and people being sucked into burning buildings and people hiding in fountains being burnt alive by fire bombs and the resulting heat? My proposal is humane in comparison with what that they had to go through in order for us to win. And we must win, because we can't have terrorists beheading us, gouging our eyes out, castrating U.S. and then putting our genitals in our mouths, disemboweling us, shovelling knives into women's vaginas, and I'm telling you all here horrid details again to remind you of the monstrosity which was carried out not in Kashmir or Iraq - this has now come to France! And ho knows where the next attack will take place? The authorities decided to keep their mouth shut about it because they're cowards and they know their weak response wouldn't temper the fear and rage that would ensue and will ensue the next time something like this happens. Keeping our hands tied and not allowing ourselves to fight the monsters effectively in a time like this is will in effect only serve to embolden the terrorists. They see us as the weak kid they can pick on and steal lunch money from. Look, it's either us or them. The event in Paris has shown us that. To not use the threat of force against these people is the only way because our ability to prevent terrorist attacks because using intelligence alone has its limits. With my policy in place even the most hardened "kill all the infidels and rape their women" jihadi would feel a strong knee jerk reaction knowing that a ruthless killing machine will do whatever it takes to make them feel the sting of their actions. What is my opponent going to offer as a solution that is somehow going to make a difference? seeing how he denounces the "torture" we're using - which doesn't include waterboarding! - I'd venture to say that he's advocating more of the same soft policies that have gotten us nowhere. When Reinhard Heydrich was killed in an assassination the Reich responded by going to the village where the killers were hiding and killing every male over 16 and all but four women. They deported, imprisoned and sent 13,000 czhecks to nazi work camps. After that no more attacks were carried out obviously. Hitler wanted to kill 10,000 but the generals had to tell him to slow it down a bit. And again, the Nazis were bad and I would've supported the operation and these czhecks who carried it out, but we can see that the German strategy worked because no one dared doing anything similar again.. (3) Again, do we have to be this extreme to achieve the same result? I think we can strike a balance to make it worth our while yet not having excessive force used. But by now the evidence is overwhelming that brutality works. We have to be responsible in the way we carry it out, i.e. we will let military strategists and negotiators find a balance. My opponent might interject and say "but what if there are bad generals that will go overboard with this" to which I'll respond yes, there might be bad people who'll use excessive violence every once in a while. We'll make sure that there are as few as of those as possible, but right now we don't have a choice. We can't worry about a few excessive deaths or torture when we have barbarians inside our gates ready to carry out as much carnage as possible. When that's the case then I don't care about some mistakes here or there when we're facing the very real possibility of being at the mercy of psychopaths who abide by no rules. I care more about my safety and my life and the lives of Americans than the loved ones of terrorists. Our safety can not be taken for granted. My opponent supports Jeremy Corbyn and therefore supports the mass influx of immigrants from Arab nations and do not support any real actions against terrorists that will make any difference, thus I Itake it he is not as keen on his own safety as I am my own. In order for me to go to public spaces and airports and not fear that anything will happen to me I'm willing to pay the price for that. My opponent is not. That's the difference between us. 1.http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 2. http://www.reuters.com... 3. https://en.wikipedia.org...