For example, here is an argument connected to the real world: "Terrorism is driven by failures of economic opportunity."
This argument is obviously incomplete. But it can be engaged with using facts. You might say, "no, you can see that theology is important in converting economic inopportunity into terrorist action."
But you don't propose models of how the world works. Instead, you say, "There are too many immigrants in Europe. They are coming in too fast. This causes terrorism."
The causes are not debated. I acknowledged long ago ITT that the causes of terrorism (extremism in general) are many - poverty, culture, religion, ideology, perceived oppression.. It is pointless to debate, because we agree here. What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change - how many times have I said ITT that "we do not have a magic wand to solve poverty", or that I am skeptical of cultural assimilation? It does not matter what the ultimate cause is, if you cant change it, if it does not point to a practical solution, its irrelevant for our purposes (solving the problem, not just writing long tractats about it).
My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.
When told that the terrorism was not caused by immigrants, you say, "We need to stop immigration, so that terrorism will be reduced."
What is the percentage of attackers with muslim immigrant background among all those deadly terrorist attacks in western Europe in the last decade or two? Is it far more than their share of population? Yes or no? If yes, then it is caused by immigrants (from certain countries, that is).
When told that terrorism is often permitted by failures in already existing intelligence tracking, you say, "We need to do more about immigration."
Do you think there is any serious untapped potential in that area? I dont. Intelligence services are working pretty much the best they can, so unless you propose great increase in the surveillance state (a bad idea), this is not a realistic solution. I am not interested in unrealistic, pie in the sky solutions. It is not possible to monitor effectively for terrorists when you have millions of muslims in your country, even beginning to form parallel societes and their own enclaves.
When told that your policy is in line with Daesh demands, you say "It doesn't matter, they are not rational." Then you say "Daesh actually wants more immigration, so we should prevent immigration."
I am saying that I dont base my policy on Daesh demands, but on what I want to achieve. I am saying that yes, my solution is incidentally opposed to the Daesh demand of more muslims in Europe, but thats not why I chose it at all, my reasoning is different than the simplistic "do the opposite of what Daesh says".
You advocate a doctrine of spatial separation to lower terrorism. You say that Western presence in the Middle East is safe and not a risk, you say that it is safe as long as there are few Muslims in the West. When told that major attacks against the West were not plotted or primarily executed in the West, you say that...I don't know: you don't seem able to address this point. You probably go back to saying that Muslims are bad.
Western presence in the middle east can be a risk, and I am not fan of it too (tough it can also be a mitigating factor if conducted properly). But it is far below the risk posed by mass immigration. Unless we stop the latter, the former is pretty much not worth talking about.
My point is not about the severity of attacks, but more about the frequency and preventability. 9/11 once in a decade? Whatever, we cannot prevent that anyway (and YOU cannot too). Regular terrorist attacks, caused primarily by domestic terrorists, several times a year? We have a big problem, and one with an obvious solution that would at least stop it from growing.
Recent attacks in Paris were caused in large part by muslims living in Europe. Most attacks are this way and it is going to be dominant way of attacking us in the future.
Because breeding ground for terrorism on European soil is the biggest security threat for us. Not what is happening 2000km away.
I dont know why it is so hard to understand for you that domestic islamic terrorism coming from European muslims is the largest threat to Europe, especially as their numbers increase over the long term. And this is the problem we should address. Western presence and activities in Middle East are secondary, not very important. I am not very interested in talking about that. You are mentally located in Middle East for some reason, always bringing up Daesh this and Daesh that, but I am talking about Europe here. Forget about Middle East. Move yourself mentally over to Europe, and answer the question "what is the best long term (decades and more) security strategy for European nations?" And the answer is obvious -
strict immigration control and well secured borders. Spatial separation. And also doing our best to integrate muslims who are already legally here, before someone claims that I dont acknowledge that part, or that I want to deport them all.
Do that, and the worst that can ever happen to Europe are sporadic isolated terrorist attacks coming from abroad. No matter what happens in middle east!
Do the opposite, and security situation inside Europe will continue to deteriorate, with several islamist attacks every year, and in the long term it may very well end up resembling middle east itself, with persistent ethnic violence or even a civil war of our own. This is the worst case scenario.
