Saudi Arabia Refuses Syrian Refugees

[Taco]

If Saudi Arabia won’t take in Syrian refugees, why should the United States?

Saudi Arabia Refuses Syrian Refugees
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archiv ... an-refugee

Thousands Of Syrian Refugees Being Resettled By Obama Could End Up In 48 Out Of 50 U.S. States
http://themostimportantnews.com/archive ... u-s-states

[Yohan]

The United States should NOT accept such huge groups of refugees without screening them carefully one by one.

The biggest mistake is however to give such people within a rather short waiting time long-stay permits and citizenship and it is very difficult in case of criminality to deport them.

Another big mistake is to offer them too much support, many refugees are demanding the host countries care about their well-being, but they are unwilling to work anything productive, even unwilling to learn English in return.

Some are even insisting to import their own culture and expect halal food, prayer rooms, religious schools paid by public money and so on. Absolutely not acceptable. If you cannot integrate in Western communities, then leave, go home.

I think only a small group of people are really refugees, maybe some Christian groups from Northern Africa, but not more than 1 out of 10 or even only 1 out of 20.

[Blue Murder]

I'm not a racist, however I'm not for these refugees. And I have intelligent, non-Cornfed-like reasons. They shouldn't be allowed in OR heavily regulated (right word?) because they have other Arabic/Muslim nations, for starters. Why not Turkey? Saudi Arabia? The UAE? The last two of the countries listed are super rich. Super rich, with the compatible culture to fit right in! Saudi Arabia is America's ally so no worry of western aggression there. Next would be the whole religious bit. Are they not leaving Syria because their religion isn't working too well for them? Why would you leave a place to go somewhere that you want to be just like the place you left? Lastly -- and this is the kicker -- them not appreciating what they were already given. I've seen a video of the (mostly male) refugees throwing away food and water given to them by Austrians. Um, is that not what you say you don't have in Syria? Obviously the crisis isn't that big of a deal if you're throwing away free nourishment. AND they were doing it knowing they had kids. Of course, my leftist idiot relatives were supporting that shit. "They're making themselves more destitute because HELP THEM!"

Another note, when I was in the military I had the chance to chat up some of the foreign translators. The women? Nice and sweet. One was a total MILF. But the men? Rude and crass. It's always the freaking men from that part of the world. I've rarely had issues with any Muslim/Middle Eastern women. It's always those bumbaclot men showing their arses. I'm sorry, but Syrians in the west?

[Yohan]

I fully agree with Blue Murder, there are some super-rich Muslim countries and there is plenty of open space in these countries to take in Muslim refugees.
There is no reason for the West to accept such immigrants. There are not only some super-rich Muslim countries, but also a significant number of super-rich Arabs, most of them Muslims living in Western countries - they only show up as playboys or enjoying shopping sprees, but they do not offer anything to their Muslim brothers and sisters. What about them? Why should the infidel pay for everything?

[Ghost]

.

[Wolfeye]

What's the difference if they're screened or not? The people that get vetted as trustworthy turn out to not know what they're talking about. The people that get a "thumbs up" & are given weapons are outright terrorists. The people that are certified HERE are frequently not as advertised. So the certifiers aren't necessarily doing anything other than affirming a particular thing. That's it.

Besides, the idea that these people should be transported across the planet instead of somewhere close by that seems to have the same culture (which seems to be much more suitable to the migrants) and is rich. They even have living space that's already set up, the tent city of Mina (where the people on pilgrimage stay).

[IraqVet2003]

I fully agree with Blue Murder, there are some super-rich Muslim countries and there is plenty of open space in these countries to take in Muslim refugees.
There is no reason for the West to accept such immigrants. There are not only some super-rich Muslim countries, but also a significant number of super-rich Arabs, most of them Muslims living in Western countries - they only show up as playboys or enjoying shopping sprees, but they do not offer anything to their Muslim brothers and sisters. What about them? Why should the infidel pay for everything?

Great point Yohan!!!! I agree with you guys 100%!!! I believe there is no reason why Saudi Arabia as well as they other wealthy Persian Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, or Oman could not take in these Syrian/Muslim refugees. After all they are fellow Muslims and most of them speak Arabic which would help them blend into those areas. Not to mention Saudi Arabia by itself with it's huge land mass and resources can absorb most of these Islamic refugees. In fact at one time I have read some where Saudi Arabia was going to build an ENTIRE CITY just for women. Which won't surprise me because Saudi society is segregated by gender. And I too think neither Europe nor the U.S. (or Western nations) with it's mostly Protestant, Catholic, and Atheist populations such be pressured to take in these folks. However, the only people that I think should receive refugee or asylum status in the West ought
to be the Arab Christians, Druze, Atheist, or other non-Muslims that are being persecuted by ISIS radical extremists.

[IraqVet2003]

I fully agree with Blue Murder, there are some super-rich Muslim countries and there is plenty of open space in these countries to take in Muslim refugees.
There is no reason for the West to accept such immigrants. There are not only some super-rich Muslim countries, but also a significant number of super-rich Arabs, most of them Muslims living in Western countries - they only show up as playboys or enjoying shopping sprees, but they do not offer anything to their Muslim brothers and sisters. What about them? Why should the infidel pay for everything?

Great point Yohan!!!! I agree with you guys 100%!!! I believe there is no reason why Saudi Arabia as well as they other wealthy Persian Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, or Oman could not take in these Syrian/Muslim refugees. After all they are fellow Muslims and most of them speak Arabic which would help them blend into those areas. Not to mention Saudi Arabia by itself with it's huge land mass and resources can absorb most of these Islamic refugees. In fact at one time I have read some where Saudi Arabia was going to build an ENTIRE CITY just for women. Which won't surprise me because Saudi society is segregated by gender. And I too think neither Europe nor the U.S. (or Western nations) with it's mostly Protestant, Catholic, and Atheist populations such be pressured to take in these folks. However, the only people that I think should receive refugee or asylum status in the West ought
to be the Arab Christians, Druze, Atheist, or other non-Muslims that are being persecuted by ISIS radical extremists.

[IraqVet2003]

I fully agree with Blue Murder, there are some super-rich Muslim countries and there is plenty of open space in these countries to take in Muslim refugees.
There is no reason for the West to accept such immigrants. There are not only some super-rich Muslim countries, but also a significant number of super-rich Arabs, most of them Muslims living in Western countries - they only show up as playboys or enjoying shopping sprees, but they do not offer anything to their Muslim brothers and sisters. What about them? Why should the infidel pay for everything?

Great points Yohan!!!! I agree with you guys 100%!!! I believe there is no reason why Saudi Arabia as well as they other wealthy Persian Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, or Oman could not take in these Syrian/Muslim refugees. After all they are fellow Muslims and most of them speak Arabic which would help them blend into those areas. Not to mention Saudi Arabia by itself with it's huge land mass and resources can absorb most of these Islamic refugees. In fact at one time I have read some where Saudi Arabia was going to build an ENTIRE CITY just for women. Which won't surprise me because Saudi society is segregated by gender. And I too think neither Europe nor the U.S. (or Western nations) with it's mostly Protestant, Catholic, and Atheist populations such be pressured to take in these folks. However, the only people that I think should receive refugee or asylum status in the West ought to be the Arab Christians, Druze, Atheist, or other non-Muslims that are being persecuted by ISIS radical extremists.

[Adama]

So an unmarried man who sleeps with a married woman only gets 100 lashes if caught, but they would put the woman to death? Shouldnt they both be put to death? Why does being single make adultery less of a crime? Where did they get this idea to chop off hands or feet? Theft should be penalized by paying back four times what was stolen. Just like the Police State puts people in prison for it.

It's ironic that this American ally will not take refugees but the USA is. Why is it they can keep their states free of outsiders, but the US can not?

Can you guys actually believe that thousands of refugees literally just walked their way into northern Europe, AND They were accepted with open arms by multiple countries? That is mind blowing.

[Adama]

I fully agree with Blue Murder, there are some super-rich Muslim countries and there is plenty of open space in these countries to take in Muslim refugees.
There is no reason for the West to accept such immigrants. There are not only some super-rich Muslim countries, but also a significant number of super-rich Arabs, most of them Muslims living in Western countries - they only show up as playboys or enjoying shopping sprees, but they do not offer anything to their Muslim brothers and sisters. What about them? Why should the infidel pay for everything?

Great point Yohan!!!! I agree with you guys 100%!!! I believe there is no reason why Saudi Arabia as well as they other wealthy Persian Gulf states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, or Oman could not take in these Syrian/Muslim refugees. After all they are fellow Muslims and most of them speak Arabic which would help them blend into those areas. Not to mention Saudi Arabia by itself with it's huge land mass and resources can absorb most of these Islamic refugees. In fact at one time I have read some where Saudi Arabia was going to build an ENTIRE CITY just for women. Which won't surprise me because Saudi society is segregated by gender. And I too think neither Europe nor the U.S. (or Western nations) with it's mostly Protestant, Catholic, and Atheist populations such be pressured to take in these folks. However, the only people that I think should receive refugee or asylum status in the West ought
to be the Arab Christians, Druze, Atheist, or other non-Muslims that are being persecuted by ISIS radical extremists.

See, but isn't there another poster here who informs us that they are different races, although they both speak Arab. That may be one reason. Another reason may simply be that these people completely lack empathy for any and everyone there is. None of them seem to care about the Palestinians either. So I do not think Muslims care that much about one another. Besides, although there is lots of disagreement between prostestants and catholics, most would not resort to murder of the other due to differences in doctrine. At least outside of Ireland they don't.

[Wolfeye]

Not for nothing, but why not just take all this "refugees" & leave them just outside of Saudi Arabia? Put them in boats at least 12 miles out & leave them only enough fuel to get to Saudi Arabia or wherever else & just leave. It's not drowning them, it's not putting them in these countries, and the reaction would make a number of interesting points.
(1) If they don't take them in, there's the FACT that they didn't take them in.
(2) If they DO take them in, there's the fact that they didn't before AND that now they get to deal with them & Europe doesn't.
(3) If they complain about it & start saying that they were functionally dumped on their country even though they weren't specifically placed there, then there's the point that these people came on a subtle jihad to Europe even though they didn't say so- it was functionally what happened. They were moved to another country & they started being that way- no orders, necessarily.
(4) If they make the point that these people could have drowned, then that same thing applies to them when these people were coming to Europe.

[pro100pk2]

They're making themselves more destitute because HELP THEM

[Wolfeye]

pro100pk2: What do you mean? They're deliberately making themselves destitute because it'll draw support from some of Europe & America? Like cutting themselves to lose blood so someone else will give them a transfusion & bleed themselves dry in the process?