The blood trail of Islam in Europe

What about western intervention in the Middle East. That's also part of the problem

Countries with no attacks are relatively poorer and those people want to go to the countries where there are attacks. Diversity works is all i get from this.

If Muslims have left a blood trail in Europe, The West have left an ocean of blood in the Middle East.

Countries with lower Muslim population

*All of these countries have an Islamic population of less than 1% in relation to its total population.

Poland - no serious attacks
Latvia - no serious attacks
Lithuania - no serious attacks
Romania - no serious attacks
Czech Republic - no serious attacks
Slovakia - no serious attack
Portugal - no serious attack
Finland - no serious attack
Iceland - no serious attack
Hungary - no serious attack
Armenia - no serious attack
Malta - no serious attack

I wonder what we'd find if you ran the numbers for the military expenditure of these countries in a middle eastern field of conflict...

I've already covered this. A lot of these countries have supported NATO involvement in the Middle East - a few have even provided troops, arms or money to help with aid.

No, its not. If that was the case then why aren't Romania, Poland the Czech Republic getting blown to bits? The problem is wherever there is a strong Muslim population the incidence rate of backward practices and terrorist attacks have increased. Generally, countries with less religious nonsense are much better off.

But have you run the numbers? You seem convinced that the number of Muslims in a country is an indicator for how vulnerable that country is to attack, but maybe there is just as strong a correlation for amount spent on wars in the middle east and how vulnerable the country is.

Why are there larger muslim populations in some countries than others? Excluding France, because the reason for that is that the majority of Algerians were considered citizens of the French Republic for a time, and a huge number of people from the Southern Republic (now algeria) migrated to the North before the Algerian Independence Movement took root.

If you're talking about the pure financial aspect of support, no I have not.

The perhaps it's... ill advised to jump to conclusions about the motivations or modus operandi of terrorist organisations.

Still doesn't detract from the fact that the higher the population, the higher the risk. If the UK had a zero Muslim population then its not hard to work out that any attack would have to be external. Given that external attacks are less common due to being much more difficult to orchestrate and pull off (as with 9/11), then the risk factor is much lower. Everything is about risk aversion and lowering risk.

I think it's wildly unrealistic to even consider that as a possibility which makes the rest of your post sort of pointless. With that is mind and back to the original point - correlation does not equal causation.

If Muslims have left a blood trail in Europe, The West have left an ocean of blood in the Middle East.

All of the other countries know the risks of Islam. Look at Hungary for example, they have had the threat of Islam present before during Empires and therefore they know what happens when you let a backward 7th century ideology get a grip on your nation. The Western countries do not know and think they know better, it will eventually be their own undoing.

Hmm the more protected a Muslim country is the less the "blood trail" in that country. E.g pakistan has nuclear weapons so it hasnt been attacked Iran is suspected of having nuclear weapons so hasnt been attacked (despite the fact the republican congress badly wants to), iraq did not have wmd so WAS attacked.

It was a hypothetical, nobody suggested it was ever a realistic option. The point still remains, the higher the population, the higher the risk and incidence rate of attack - this is the common trend across Europe that cannot be refuted. I'll even put it in a graph for you and then try and refute it. There will be some results that stray away from that but the general trend will remain.

A rather ambiguous statement really. Most conflict in the middle east is Sunni v Shia, extremism v moderate or tribalism. This has little to do with the west. Of course the west is at fault on some issues, but to simply to dismiss it all as the fault of the west is not only inaccurate, but wilful ignorance.