Currently Muslims are the main targets and by far the most numerous victims of terrorist action, so there probably is a correlation.

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/to-anyone-who-compl...

When you say Muslim you're ignoring other important factors as well. All attackers in France were petty criminals who had prior convictions and poor human beings with a history of spousal abuse, alcoholism, etc.[1] They most likely were at the bottom of the economic strata weren't educated beyond school or had well paying jobs or opportunities.

Seems more likely to be an issue of disillusioned youth making poor choices that hurt themselves and others.

As a counterpoint to your supposed claim. Muslims do exist in large numbers in Singapore, yet they are allowed to work and are given equal opportunity and do contribute economically to the nation.

[1] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alc...

So you're saying ban poor people. How dare you! And agist as well. All youth make poor decisions and hurt people!?1!one!1

Saying I have a muslim friend, he's cool, is not a counterpoint for a literal request for statistics. That statistic you presented was of one, albeit outliar in nearly all areas country. We need better/more data.

I don't think that parent is saying ban poor people, but rather take steps to avoid making slums and disillusionment amongst entire populations.

The mastermind (if you can call him that) of the November attacks last year, Salah Abdeslam, was also a petty criminal and was radicalized only recently before the attacks were carried out. At least one of the gunmen also had prior convictions for petty crime.

3 out of 5 of the attackers in Brussels this year also had prior convictions for non-religious crime (I wouldn't consider robbing a bank to be petty).

It's the same mechanism that makes Bloods and Crips.

Please don't feed this abusive and offensive troll.

You're probably downvoted because of the difficulty some people have when the facts might possibly contradict their ideological motivations. It's a problem across the political spectrum. Nobody wants to know the truth. They want to push their narrative.

It probably is a part of it but it's most likely because such heavily sarcastic comments that do not add to the discussion are usually down-voted, regardless of whether they should be taken seriously or not. Such is the standard on HN. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume since they are a newer user they don't know this.

Well I don't think it's a sarcastic comment, and it's a perfectly valid inquisition.

Hey appeal to tone guys, real stats? I for real do not have them.

You're probably one of those racists like that Sam Harris guy!

In all seriousness this kind of thing should be discussed more openly. I'm afraid that political correctness leads to nothing more than repressed bigotry. Better than open bigotry but less better than actually trying to solve the problem.