Hi /pol/ I have a question. Is there actually any proof that

>>139289161
>there is no direct evidence of a direct correlation.
sauce?

Is there any other pic of her?

>>139289602
>her

>>139289297
Google, check for yourself

>>139289161
Well, statistically speaking who commits the most terror attacks?
If you look into it you'll find most terror attacks occur in Muslim majority countries.
Now, have terror attacks increased in Europe since migrants from Muslim majority countries started migrating? Yes there's been a spike in terrorist attacks.
So, people coming from places where terrorist attacks happen more cause terrorist attacks to occur more often.

>>139289782
for the boipussy

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The obvious correlation is that the more of them there are, the easier it is for a terrorist to slip through. The numbers themselves are the issue. More of them to screen, more of them to monitor, it means that resources are spread too thin, which is why the terrorists who strike are always then said to have been "known" by police. They knew they were up to something, but there are so many others that they also know that are up to something that it's difficult to have their attention in the right place at the right time to thwart a particular attack.

If we only let in ten migrants from the Middle East, it wouldn't matter if they were peaceful or if they were terrorists, they wouldn't be able to make even the slightest move towards a terrorist attack because it'd have the full attention of the police.

>>139289945
Okay, but how do you know how much terrorist attacks have actually increased vs the amount of refugees, how can you show it's not home grown Muslims, is there a single graph or set of statistics that can prove refugees cause more terrorist attacks? Because at the moment answers just seem to indicate a gut feeling based on media reports.

File: IMG_1604.jpg (80KB, 1024x605px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1024x605px

>>139289161
Sage

>>139290374
Rape not terrorist attacks, it seems like no one can prove me wrong on this one.

>>139290343
The Muslims already in Europe were already in Europe. The spike didn't occur until new Muslims arrived from countries where terrorist attacks are very more frequent. If Muslims born in Europe were causing lots of terrorist attacks before the mass migration, there would be a steady increase, not a spike.

>>139289782
NO. you made the claim. now back it up. and if you cant, you lose and your thread is pointless.

>>139290685
god damn you're a brainlet.

>>139289161
>there is no direct evidence of a direct correlation.
Yes, that is a good point. I doubt anyone bothered to run a (((scientific study))), so there probably is no (((evidence))). Now run along and be a good goy, embrace communism because being successful is too hard, mix with colored folk to create coffee-colored children, and have sex with trannies. Good goy

it's actually pretty simple to prove.
Take the last 10 attacks, then find out if they were committed by foreigners or native born citizens
Every terrorist attack I can think of was committed by immigrants or their children, so that would suggest there is a correlation

Thicc pussy or small benis?

>>139290942
The default position is that there is no correlation, everyone just assumed there was, therefore the burden of proof lies with you my friend.

>>139290859
How do you know it wasn't home grown Muslims who were just pissed off at the Middle East getting bombed?

>>139291141
Ad hominem so I'll disregard

>>139291602
I don't recall that being the case myself and I haven't seen any alt rights providing this evidence, maybe because they were just homegrown Muslims.

>>139291148
Something about me being right then I didn't really read the rest.