You keep bringing in that one old outlier, in face of all the evidence that spatial separation is actually a good defense to a typical islamist attack, which is commited by people with immigrant origins living in the western country, not "tourists". Why hasnt there been any islamist attack in eastern Europe so far?
"That one outlier" is the most successful terrorist attack in history and has been the defining event of this generation. I know it's inconvenient to your worldview because it doesn't fit neatly into it, but you
do not get to dismiss it just because you don't like its implications. It's important, and it's very pertinent.
Deal with it.And there have been attacks in eastern Europe. Or do you not consider Russia as part of Europe?
Outside of Russia, I'd say it can be chalked up to the rather trivial involvement of eastern European countries in Middle-Eastern affairs, which is in rather stark contrast to France and the UK. In short: Eastern Europeans countries that aren't Russia make relatively poor targets because they're not important enough (in this context).
Are you really implying that if we closed borders, the number of terrorist "tourists" from IS would suddenly magically increase so much that it would drawf the domestic terrorists, despite the fact that the complete opposite is true now, the domestic terrorists drarf the "tourists" from IS? This is a completely unreasonable assumption, based on nothing at all. It makes no sense. At least I have provided examples and numbers to back up my position. You are just claiming you are right, with no evidence presented.
I'm saying that the number of extremists you create by sending refugees back to IS is going to more than make up for the few terrorists you send back with them. You'll feel safer, but you won't be.
And I, and the people who agree with me, have been backing our statements with actual historical facts, because big surprise, some of us have actual formal education on this subject, which you plainly do not. The only evidence you've cited are two studies that don't actually agree with your point. So no, you haven't presented examples to support your position, you've cited data you've misinterpreted. All the **** you've spouted has been handily and comprehensively addressed and dismissed by everyone who's engaged with you. Which is why you keep going back to the same talking points.
Formulating a new argument would require you to consider the notion that you might be wrong, and you're not able to do that.
Perhaps they will be a bit more likely to join IS, but they wont pose much of a threat to us if they are in the middle east, will they? IS does not have ICBMs and threat posed by "terrorist tourists" from the middle east is pretty miniscule compared to homegrown terrorism. I am not afraid of IS, they are pretty much doomed now. Homegrown terrorism is the primary threat, one we need to tackle (at least stop from increasing).
Yes they will still be a threat. If they can't enter as immigrants, they'll enter as tourists. Sure, they prefer to enter as immigrants because it's got advantages, but they'll make do with tourist visas, and since you've so cheerfully sent them more recruits, there'll be more of them, and IS itself will have gained more support at home as well. Our world is too interconnected for something as trivial as distance to be an obstacle.
Yours is a short-term and ineffective solution that will ensure the longevity of IS and other extremist factions, because you're exactly the kind of person they claim to be fighting. Your way of thinking is a boon to terrorism.
You are helping them.
