This line of attack doesn't hold water.

They're not the main protagonists. If you're planning a terrorist attack in Europe, if you've got half a brain you'll be aiming to target the highest profile, most committed and involved country possible. As the group leader, America is tricky, so its close ally the UK will do nicely thank you very much.

There have also been terrorist attacks in other countries besides the UK, such as France, Spain and Belgium which has had a significant number of recent attacks. It's worth pointing out that Belgium committed far less troops to the 'War on terror' and 'Operation Enduring Freedom' than Poland, which was also one of the leading contributors to the NATO force in Afghanistan, and only marginally more than Hungary.

Has this point been trotted out to tee up a reply (in regard to perceived anti-muslim refugee laws in Poland, ergo supporting the constant anti-immigration arguments on here) if so the basis for it being made is in fact incorrect. Poland accepts muslim immigrants and refugees, it does not accept relocation refugees from other countries.

Poland also has far less of a history with the Middle East, colonialism and empire building.

Wha

Firstly, is this a riddle? 'What's clear is an ice bath is cool and nothing is clear'.

Secondly, I'm not a massive fan of segues, but fine.

Poland is not a major player in the recent conflicts in the middle east. Neither is Hungary when both compared with the UK and of course the US. These facts then link into my original response to Stirling. See post. Again.

Polands recent historical colonial prowess is minimal (note, not non-existent) when compared to the exploits of the British Empire. Also a fact.

Ergo, the UK is more attractive as a destination to attack than Poland, likewise with Hungary. And we've come full circle.

Also note that the point regarding colonialism and involvement in the middle east was part of a wider point, not the only reason for justification.

Please get your facts right about the troops being sent to Afghanistan.
Although the ones being sent are frontline battle troops,they are there to train and instruct.
In Kabul, solely as training and advisory.

If it's possible for you to keep left and right out of it in just one post that would be ace, so we can just debate the points raised. I don't identify with either or nail my colours to the mast as spectacularly as you lot because it doesn't help anyone. *rolls eyes*

Back to the point...

I agree that smaller numbers of minorities in a country probably goes some way to preventing segmentation and 'closed communities' like we have here. I also agree that having more islamic citizens in a country would by the very nature of probability increase the chance of terrorism 'in the name of islam'.

However I cannot agree that this is the sole reason why the UK is a target for terrorist attacks when compared with the two countries given as examples. I also don't think it's possible to claim as much. Plus, I don't see this as a reason to tar a whole swathe of individuals with the same brush. It's ignorant and helps no one.

Regarding colonialism and our history, it would be hard to argue that our past did not have at least a slight contributing effect. Note, I never said it was the primary reason, just part of it.

As for your point regarding Hindus and Sikhs, no idea. I'm theorising here because I don't know the answers, but possibly because they are supposedly more peaceful religions, because we're not occupying and bombing countries where the main religion is... Islam, and because the fact that most prominent terror organisations orchestrating these attacks proclaim themselves to be doing so in the name of muslim faith. Probably.

Plus, I don't see this as a reason to tar a whole swathe of individuals with the same brush. It's ignorant and helps no one.

You forgot to say, Jeez.