No Help from Islamic Nations. - page 5.

zuyfg888

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Quote from: beafheart on February 01, 2017, 07:49:15 AM

Quote from: Xester on February 01, 2017, 07:40:02 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

It is not mandatory for the United States of America to take in refugees from other states like Syria. But since the United States of America is a member of the United Nations who promote humanitarian causes then they are somehow obliged to take in refugees in their country as a model for other allied countries.

The reason why refugees are not taking refuge in Arab countries due to poor welfare programs for the immigrants and the government is very strict. The United States of America and the European Union has good welfare and humanitarian programs for the immigrants thus they keep coming like ants into this parts of the world.

It seems to me that the reason is not only large benefits. It seems to me that the government is not engaged in order to force the refugees to work and not live on welfare. What prevents to get people receiving benefits to build the same wall?

Yes, I think that local governments must know what are the refugees to work and not live. Local governments must know the benefits, all the benefits from local government can issue what are the main benefits, and what are the benefits what we are need. We need to know what are the benefits for us, and what government's benefits will they give to us.

beafheart

full member

Activity: 197

Merit: 100

Quote from: Xester on February 01, 2017, 07:40:02 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

It is not mandatory for the United States of America to take in refugees from other states like Syria. But since the United States of America is a member of the United Nations who promote humanitarian causes then they are somehow obliged to take in refugees in their country as a model for other allied countries.

The reason why refugees are not taking refuge in Arab countries due to poor welfare programs for the immigrants and the government is very strict. The United States of America and the European Union has good welfare and humanitarian programs for the immigrants thus they keep coming like ants into this parts of the world.

It seems to me that the reason is not only large benefits. It seems to me that the government is not engaged in order to force the refugees to work and not live on welfare. What prevents to get people receiving benefits to build the same wall?

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

It is not mandatory for the United States of America to take in refugees from other states like Syria. But since the United States of America is a member of the United Nations who promote humanitarian causes then they are somehow obliged to take in refugees in their country as a model for other allied countries.

The reason why refugees are not taking refuge in Arab countries due to poor welfare programs for the immigrants and the government is very strict. The United States of America and the European Union has good welfare and humanitarian programs for the immigrants thus they keep coming like ants into this parts of the world.

pseexh

sr. member

Activity: 301

Merit: 250

Quote from: Spendulus on February 01, 2017, 06:53:09 AM

Quote from: Dizaster2015 on February 01, 2017, 06:23:42 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

I think that is the strategy of Muslim States intended to spread Islam to the whole world. Remember how to operate the Chinese authorities? I think it's the same thing. Only the Chinese are less aggressive behave

Yep. That's what it's about. Plus Saudi doesn't want the percentage of terrorists in those so called "Refugees."

Then over at the side there's the warped twisted sickface of George Soros, manipulating puppets of the world on "open borders."

Saudi Arabia sponsors as Islamist groups and preachers of Islam. Who wants to destroy the country sponsor? I am sure that Saudi Arabia does not threaten terrorist acts. They are just spreading Islam around the world.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Dizaster2015 on February 01, 2017, 06:23:42 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

I think that is the strategy of Muslim States intended to spread Islam to the whole world. Remember how to operate the Chinese authorities? I think it's the same thing. Only the Chinese are less aggressive behave

Yep. That's what it's about. Plus Saudi doesn't want the percentage of terrorists in those so called "Refugees."

Then over at the side there's the warped twisted sickface of George Soros, manipulating puppets of the world on "open borders."

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

Quote from: gabmen on February 01, 2017, 06:16:57 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

Well you have a good point there as i think everyone has the responsibility to help each other. Though i think the reason why the us is being given a bigger responsibility is because if the previous administration hadn't bombed these middle eastern countries, we wouldn't have all these refugees at all. I mean i admire obama but i think he didnt do well in the issue in the middle east. And as much as i dont agree with this policy by trump, i cant really blame the man if this is what he seems right

People are literally raping, killing and destroying each other's lives, only thing we need for them to stop doing that, we don't need anyone's help.
ISIS intentionally caused terror and panic to force people to leave their homeland why? because they need an empty country to establish their so called Islamic state.
I have a great idea, US just needs to nuke Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and get on with it, why torturing millions of innocent women and children?

Either they are the roots and sponsors for terrorism or they are not, if they are then why hesitate to vanquish the bad and evil?

Dizaster2015

sr. member

Activity: 258

Merit: 250

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

I think that is the strategy of Muslim States intended to spread Islam to the whole world. Remember how to operate the Chinese authorities? I think it's the same thing. Only the Chinese are less aggressive behave

_nur

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

because the other islamic nations are not as wealthy or as developed as the western civilization

also they watch too many hollywood

gabmen

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 529

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

Well you have a good point there as i think everyone has the responsibility to help each other. Though i think the reason why the us is being given a bigger responsibility is because if the previous administration hadn't bombed these middle eastern countries, we wouldn't have all these refugees at all. I mean i admire obama but i think he didnt do well in the issue in the middle east. And as much as i dont agree with this policy by trump, i cant really blame the man if this is what he seems right

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: SyGambler on January 31, 2017, 07:20:37 AM

Quote from: GreenBits on January 31, 2017, 06:25:55 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

Im think they planning it but according to my research about this topic Qatar donated over $1.6bn for humanitarian purposes.And the Saudi Arabia also claim that they receive 2.5 million Syrian refugees since 2011.

nope and nope , Qatar and SA are the seed of the so called syrian revolution so they only pay money for weapons and more bombing in Syria
Qatar and Saudi Arabia didn't receive a single refugee , they claim that they are paying millions for refugees in other countries but that's BS
if they really care they would had received some refugees

I guess paying for and encouraging terrorists is one form, sort of, of paying millions for refugees, in some twisted sick minds.

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3346

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: GreenBits on January 31, 2017, 06:25:55 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

Im think they planning it but according to my research about this topic Qatar donated over $1.6bn for humanitarian purposes.And the Saudi Arabia also claim that they receive 2.5 million Syrian refugees since 2011.

Saudi Arabia has given refugee status to less than 100 individuals during the last 50 years. And only 3 or 4 are from Syria. But it is true that they are importing slave labor from Syria. They have given work permits to a few hundred thousand Syrians (usually for 3 months).

novemberwoah

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 500

There are several reasons for many refugees who choose to Europe rather than to Middle Eastern. I've discussed this with few of my friends on a trip and I think this reasonable.

- Islamic countries want war in Syria quickly completed so that refugees scattered around the world can get together and rebuild their country. Provide the same settlement only stalling for time so that the war continues
- Islamic countries have spent huge amounts of money to finance the lives of the refugees, while other countries only build settlements while funding will be sucked from Islamic countries as well.
- Islamic countries protested against Russia, China and Iran, which does not help Syrian refugees directly, whereas these three countries known to be close as a traditional ally of Syria.

Besides Middle East countries are also not ready to accommodate the large number of refugees that reached almost 4 million, because residents there are very few and not the usual accommodate many refugees. For example in 1991, when a Kuwait people fleeing from conflict with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia only accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees.

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

On the Euro-American el-Dorado, I'm more concern about the irresponsibility of some political leaders. So eager to look good in the picture, many engaged in invitation propaganda that resumes to disaster as their capacity falls too short of their good will.
In the end many of them will find themselves stuck in the middle of frozen land as poor as they arrive, totally neglected in a strange land with a weather they aren't used to.
There's nothing worse than feed expectations and not fulfill them!

SyGambler

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1804

guess who's back

Quote from: GreenBits on January 31, 2017, 06:25:55 AM

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

Im think they planning it but according to my research about this topic Qatar donated over $1.6bn for humanitarian purposes.And the Saudi Arabia also claim that they receive 2.5 million Syrian refugees since 2011.

nope and nope , Qatar and SA are the seed of the so called syrian revolution so they only pay money for weapons and more bombing in Syria
Qatar and Saudi Arabia didn't receive a single refugee , they claim that they are paying millions for refugees in other countries but that's BS
if they really care they would had received some refugees

8ouch

newbie

Activity: 32

Merit: 0

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

USA taking in Islams? haven't you heard what Trump said about Islam or Muslims?
Trump is not willing to accept them.

Mometaskers

hero member

Activity: 1764

Merit: 584

Quote from: BCEmporium on January 31, 2017, 07:00:29 AM

Quote from: GreenBits on January 31, 2017, 06:25:55 AM

... Saudi Arabia also claim that they receive 2.5 million Syrian refugees since 2011.

Sum all countries that claim to had receive Syrian refugees and you get the oddity of know those countries already received 3 or 4x the whole Syrian population in Syrian refugees... Roll Eyes

Still, they've a good reason, despite for an outsider it's "Islam", they're way too fractionated, they're aren't quite "the same Islam" and have internal conflicts that may cause severe social unrest. In short a Syrian running from ISIS to Saudi Arabia would be running to ISIS' bosses home, as ISIS aligns more to Wahhabbis than to any other flavor of Islam.

Haha! Maybe they just don't like those people in their countries, just as those people want to go to Europe instead. Those people are actually luckier than the other Muslims in transit, Rohingyas. ASEAN countries ping-ponged the Rohingyas at sea and they don't have the luxury of going to something similar to the EU.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

It's a tricky one, because many people who are displaced and end up in countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and UAE aren't always classed as "refugees". The numbers end up skewed as a result.

Quote

The reason it’s difficult to establish just how many refugees are being hosted by countries in the GCC is because they do not officially recognize incoming asylum-seekers as refugees. Since the GCC is not a signatory of the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention, they are not bound by law to provide these people with the standard treatment and rights typically afforded those seeking refuge in a new country.

Admittedly, while the Arab states of the GCC might not have officially resettled any of the Syrian refugees, it would be incorrect to say that Arab states have not received any of the millions of Syrians who have been displaced since the civil war began.

The problem is that being an official refugee and being a guest of a GCC work-sponsorship program are not one and the same. The most significant difference is that official refugees in countries that have agreed to the 1951 Refugee Convention are eligible to become citizens after a certain period of time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chaker-khazaal/no-arab-gulf-countries-ar_b_8280448.html

But yes, the general impression is that places like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt are taking a higher percentage of refugees than others. Certainly more than most western nations and definitely far more than the US. But in those countries they may potentially experience lower standards of life, which is why many choose to take the more dangerous risk of crossing the Mediterranean in a dinghy to reach Europe. Or, in a smaller number of cases, managing to secure passage to North America.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/14/the-real-refugee-crisis-is-in-the-middle-east-not-europe/?utm_term=.ff68fbc16d0a

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Quote from: GreenBits on January 31, 2017, 06:25:55 AM

... Saudi Arabia also claim that they receive 2.5 million Syrian refugees since 2011.

Sum all countries that claim to had receive Syrian refugees and you get the oddity of know those countries already received 3 or 4x the whole Syrian population in Syrian refugees... Roll Eyes

Still, they've a good reason, despite for an outsider it's "Islam", they're way too fractionated, they're aren't quite "the same Islam" and have internal conflicts that may cause severe social unrest. In short a Syrian running from ISIS to Saudi Arabia would be running to ISIS' bosses home, as ISIS aligns more to Wahhabbis than to any other flavor of Islam.

GreenBits

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1048

Quote from: bra4our on January 31, 2017, 06:17:49 AM

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

Im think they planning it but according to my research about this topic Qatar donated over $1.6bn for humanitarian purposes.And the Saudi Arabia also claim that they receive 2.5 million Syrian refugees since 2011.

bra4our

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

I dont see any Islamic nations taking in the refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are more than capable to take in and feed these refugees. Is it mandatory that the USA should take them in, why dont they want to go to other Islamic States?

Topic: No Help from Islamic Nations. - page 5. (Read 4170 times)