If he's a even a terrorist. Just because IS claim responsibility doesn't actually mean they were behind it. They've claimed responsibility before for things that they weren't involved in planning, recruiting or supplying logistics to. Islamist groups often claim an action ideologically.

Now I do think its more likely than not linked to Islamanutbarc**ts due to Bastille, but its unusual in that the driver ran off, and was armed, rather than 'going down taking as many with him as possible'

If he's a even a terrorist. Just because IS claim responsibility doesn't actually mean they were behind it. They've claimed responsibility before for things that they weren't involved in planning, recruiting or supplying logistics to. Islamist groups often claim an action ideologically.

Now I do think its more likely than not linked to Islamanutbarc**ts due to Bastille, but its unusual in that the driver ran off, and was armed, rather than 'going down taking as many with him as possible'

That's a rather simplistic argument, and really only applicable in specific cases, with hindsight. Its also worth noting that of course without immigration any number of good or vital roles fulfilled by muslims, such as doctors or surgeons, would also have not occurred. And bear in mind that the NHS is dependent on migrant workers and employs a vast range of foreign doctors.

You're simplifying the concept of immigration down to a single factor, in order to establish your agenda, rather than exploring it in a wider context.

Yes, some migrants are a threat to people in a society, but how many are a boon? And not just economically, but functionally as well.

Certainly I believe that anyone who is applying for immigration who can be show to a reasonable degree to have involvement with Islamist terror such as IS should be have their status revoked, and either be deported (if they aren't prepared to turn informant).

What percentage of muslims are extremists?

A few years old but gives a picture... [Link]

Edited by nickgusset (21 Dec 2016 1.45pm)

I don't think that anyone could reasonably make a case for a blanket ban on all Muslims but certainly a highly selective process for all immigrants would be favourable and would have almost certainly prevented the atrocities we have experienced. There is no hindsight involved in this at all as it was predicted by many including myself. To suggest otherwise is just arse covering. There is certainly not just a single factor for the argument against mass immigration but there is no better one than preventing citizens from being murdered en masse. To argue otherwise is to suggest that these mass murders are acceptable collateral for a short term propping up of the economy.

List of terrorist incidents in December 2016. [Link]

Spot the common denominator...