War on Terror

Thanks to my opponent for issuing this challenge. I hope for an interesting debate. Good luck to both of us! :) For the sake of this debate, we'll be setting aside the official conspiracy theories so this doesn't transform into a "The Al-Qaeda is a CIA creation" debate and I will like to begin by addressing the questions asked by my opponent. Firstly, I'll like to say that the invasion of Afghanistan is not justified by 9/11. official reports state that 9/11 was Al-Qaeda's doing while Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban at the time, a radical ruling party that held control over Afghanistan through strict interpretations of Shari'a Law and Opium trade. http://en.wikipedia.org... Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is a separate militant movement that is solely focused on Jihad against against the west, the USA in particular. http://en.wikipedia.org... Al-Qaeda are widely regarded as the organization that is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. While this group is speculated to operate in Afghanistan, it is not officially based there so it's unlikely that Afghanistan could be blamed for the 9/11 attacks. Secondly, my opponent asked about Islamic theocracies. Being a muslim myself I'm likely biased and will have to say some aspects of islamic theocracy are good(which is another topic altogether I won't be addressing here), but mostly theocratic states lead to trouble. A couple examples are persecution of religious minorities and hostilities against the west and Israel. One noted example is the persecution of members of the Baha'i faith in Iran. http://www.bahai.org... There are also many well-known incidents where Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made several Anti-Israeli, Anti-Semitic remarks including threats to nuke Israel and holocaust denial. Thirdly, my opponent mentions the removal of terrorists that threaten the western way of life. I'll like to address this by first pointing out that Islam does permit acting in self-defense. While both my opponent and I can probably agree that many of these actions are not in self-defense, the terrorists will certainly argue that they are. Their countries are being invaded and innocent people are being killed. I think things like this will create a revenge mentality, especially when loved ones are the victims of this western aggression. By this point, these terrorists likely believe they're under attack due to what could be perceived as western imperialism. In return they choose to strike back in self-defense which leads to my opponent's fourth question about whether the US should maintain a policy of non-intervention or not. This is a complicated issue. It is completely understandable to wage war in self-defense if your own country or one of its allies is attacked. However, in most cases, I believe the US should maintain a policy of non-intervention. They have probably the most powerful military force in the world and should not abuse this power for their own economic or strategic gain(As many alternate theories that won't be addressed here point out, the invasion of the middle east could have been for resources). There is also the question of whether the US should be using its military might to police and protect the rest of the world or to strictly stick to self-defense. I thank my opponent for asking some interesting questions to start this debate off. I look forward to his responses. Once again, good luck to both of us!