The Global War on Terror is a Worthwhile Response to Acts of Terror

A recent round of high alerts and embassy closings, inspired by media savvy criminals, has caused millions of Americans to begin collectively fan-girling in abject terror. "Omigodomigod honey, a terrorist! Get the broom!" Eeek. Causing the home of the brave to puddle itself in fear has become a sort of low-hanging fruit for "terrorists" worldwide. The American media, ever watchful for high-paying hyperbolic hysteria, does its best to advertise for these criminals, and America consequently cowers. But, before we start shredding our Bill of Rights (with the exception of the Second Amendment for gods sakes; freedom), and bombing some developing country into the Iron Age, perhaps some of us should remind our timid friends that these fears are overblown. "Darling, it's a terrorist, not a spider. Get off the chair." "But, I am afraid of terrorists, kill it!" "You are acting like it is something dangerous, like a spider or a mouse. Get off the chair, and hand me the broom. I'll shoo it outside." Political "leaders" within the United States have built entire careers on the premise that they can keep us 'safe' from the horrors of international terrorism. They have heroically suppressed the ominous "terrorist threat," in the ultimate strawman match. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars 'protecting' the American public from non-Christian Arabs who live in Arab-places and worship Muhammad. Or something. But, be afraid. They do not mention that foreign terror groups kill fewer Americans than mice, or spiders. They do not mention how easy it is to 'keep America safe' from the threat of video-taped beheadings and Sharia Law. "No! Don't shoo it outside; they carry diseases. You have to kill it. Then, we need to duct tape the house up, and go burn down the neighbors home, because that is where it came from. Then, we need to put out a mortgage on our home to pay our son to go into the neighbors house as it is burning, and stomp more terrorists." "But, our son might die, and we might kill the neighbors..." "No! We have to do it!" "There, look: it's flown out the window. The terrorist is gone." "Borrow against our house, burn the neighbor's home..." "Honey, please calm down..." "I will not calm down! FREEDOM!!" The Global War On Terror has caused crippling levels of American debt at a time when such an astronomical level of investment could have helped aid economic recovery from the Great Recession. Sober estimates calculate that over one hundred thousand human deaths have been directly caused by the American military response to terrorism. America has become known as the Western nation that will use human torture, and will openly attack international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions... as opposed to protecting, strengthening and expanding the mission of human rights. The American perspective can often be summed up as, "we have not given them enough reason to hate us... yet." Americans have also been eager to place caveats all over the American Bill of Rights, whose role in history is not surpassed by the Magna Carta. All of this sacrifice, all of this destruction, in order to protect us from a 'threat' that kills fewer Americans than mice, or spiders. How Lethal is Terrorism in the United States? If we count only "international, Muslim terrorists, then the likelihood that any particular American citizen might be killed in an act of terror plummets into near insignificance. Most Americans who die from acts of terror are killed by the hands of other Americans. The most likely such victim of a terror attack in the US is black, Native American, gay, non-Christian, or Hispanic. If we remove these victims of terrorism, and count only attacks by international, Islamic terrorists, then the victim count drops to a very low level. So low, in fact, that it becomes difficult to calculate. If an American wants to avoid being killed to death by an evil terrorist who is not white, Christian, or American, then no action is needed. No protective steps are necessary. All such defenses can be carried out in the "background," by law enforcement and investigative agencies. In the United States of America, it is literally easier to be killed by a dead chicken than by an Arabic terrorist. This Debate: In this debate, I will argue that the American response to acts of terror is not justified, or worthwhile. I will argue that the excessive political killings conducted by the US, the damage done to the rights of the American citizenry, the costs involved, and the irrational fear of many Americans are not worthwhile based on the terrorist attacks alone. My opponent will need to do the opposite, and argue that these things are necessary components to the American response to terror. Burden of Proof is shared. This analysis may include attacks against the United States interests abroad, and may encompass the entire history of the United States from 1815 on. (Only actual terrorist attacks originating in Africa, Asia and the Middle East may be considered; not paramilitary attacks or assassinations.) I do not intend for this to be a semantic argument. Any attempt to argue from another definition than the ones provided below will result in full forfeiture, and a seven point penalty in my favor. Any attempt to play semantic gotchas is a matter of interpretation, but I ask that my opponent agree to forfeit these points now as penalty for such action in this debate. The first round should be set aside for Acceptance, and broad arguments. Arguments presented here will not require rebuttal. Drops cannot be counted as concessions. Definitons: Terrorism: There is no universally accepted definition of Terrorism, which presents challenges in debates such as this. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” [2] This definition is overbroad, and can be used to describe almost any unlawful action by any person. Therefore, the following definition will be accepted for this debate: "Terrorism is a military/political tactic that uses fear and intimidation as it's primary method of subduing an enemy." Additionally, the only terrorists that can be evaluated in this debate are Arabic, Muslim, and non-American. Explanation of the definition: The use of an anti-tank missile, no matter how terrifying, can never be considered an act of "terrorism," because the actual damage caused by the missile is the primary means of subjugation. Likewise, threatening such catastrophic damage is not "terrorism," since the damage itself remains the primary means of subjugation if the opponent wishes to engage in combat. Threatening to take and execute hostages, on the other hand, constitutes an act of terrorism, since the actual killings cannot, by themselves cause a target audience to submit to the political goals of the terrorist. The anti-tank missile will destroy a target regardless of whether or not the target is afraid. Executing hostages does nothing unless an audience is aware that the killings have occurred, why they happened, and feels irrational fear as a result. Justified/Worthwhile: Semantics are not allowed. These terms are used only to indicate actions that produce beneficial results. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.fbi.gov...