The Paris attacks were justified

Thank you, fellow Sunni daughter of Allah.In this round I will both provide a constructive argument for why these are justified that is two-pronged, and a rebuttal against my opponent's entire constructive case. I will provide some reasons for why these Paris attacks were justified, but I ask the bloodied and harmed Westerners who view this debate to not take their personal biases into account, rather just what is said in this debate - tabula rasa judging if you will! Before I begin, I want to point out that the resolution is asking if what the Islamic fighters did in Paris was for good reason or based in morality (which is too sketchy for a debate among this userbase, so it is wise to interpret moral to mean good reasoned). So if I prove that if they did it for a good reason overall, then I should win.CASEContention 1. These attacks will bring about the Dajjal, the second coming of Jesus, and will lead Islam to rule the world.Graeme Wood, March 2015, writes: An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory. This means that if we contiue to attack the West then we will influence their allies (the de facto ally of the West is Iran in the fight against ISIS) into fostering the Dajjal into existence (for, if there is no reason for Iran to hate ISIS, then why would the Dajjal rise?). Further, the Dajjal rising from the ashes of Paris will cause a. a death toll in ISIS that is greater than that of the attacks in Paris which effectively justifies the action of the terrorists in Paris for their own blood is shed (for there are more than 5000 ISIS members, and only 5000 will remain) and b. Islam will reign true throughout the world unattacked. This justifies the Parisian attacks for two reasons: there is direct justice served from the deaths of ISIS members, and because Islam will foster throughout the world (ISIS did this for a good reason, for their religion says that they should spread it to the blind to give them sight of the truth). This alone should be enough to affirm the resolution.REBUTTALSMy opponent's entire case can be summed up as: they didn't deserve to die. But, there is retribution from the deaths of many more ISIS members that justify this attack, and Islam is fostered because they died.Further, they actually did deserve to die, because they are instruments in what Graeme Wood calls the "Army of Rome" (which means the army of the West) - which will give rise to the Dajjal and will try to give rise to the apocolypse. If we did not kill at least some of the instruments in this Roman army, then there is a possibility of a widespread apocolypse to happen at a later date than a sooner one (apocolypse is good in this sense; pre-apocolypse is anti-Islamic and the post-apocolpyse, which isn't actually apocolyptic, is pro-Islam and pro-power) - something that means that we cannot acheive Allah's full will.So, they are instruments of the Roman Army, so they deserved to die - this alone breaks your entire negative case. Allah yusallmak!