Why Gulf countries cannot accept migrants

[Madali]

By then Assad had killed 10,000 people. What "reforms" are you yapping about? Would you have liked "reforms" with the Shah? With Saddam? No. Neither will we.

Try to read about Iran's revolution before using it as a comparison.

 

[Full Moon]

Yes I am always correct

You bet.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Gulf countries were created by UK, France, Italy and other allies in WW1. Now the check is coming home to Europe for messing up the middle-east in WW1 for oil and gas. I mean at least UK and France companies have the rights to exploit Arab oil and gas fields. You can use those revenues to help the refugees.

With the majority of the refugees going to Germany and Sweden,
- What Revenues?

 

[Hack-Hook]

You were kind enough to send them some barrel bombs experts. That is enough generosity from you for now.

And you were kind enough to send them some suicide bomber.

By then Assad had killed 10,000 people. What "reforms" are you yapping about? Would you have liked "reforms" with the Shah? With Saddam? No. Neither will we.

And how many security force and police have been killed?

 

[Sky lord]

Because these "Gulf" States are not independent states. These are Western protectorates in the region whose foreign policy, defense and economies are managed and completely controlled by the West. They can not survive for three week on their own. Their governments are of the scope of mayor townships.

If the West wanted to resettle 15 million refugees in Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia, they could easily have done so by ordering their protectorates to take in those refugees. After all, West keeps military bases in these states, and these states are completely dependent on Western protection to survive from week to week.

Yeah yeah yeah, let's blame the west because they are the only adults here.

Somehow being a protectorate of the west never stopped these countries from financing wahabi madrasahs around the world, it's only when they have to help the refugees created in part by their own terror financing that they are become so helpless and only "protectorates". What bull !

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

• Disappointed in Gulf countries specially since during the war against Ottoman empire the slogan was we fight for all arabs unit and solidarity

 

[Dr.Thrax]

Try to read about Iran's revolution before using it as a comparison.

So you're basically telling me a popular revolution against a dictator doesn't define both scenarios? K den.

And you were kind enough to send them some suicide bomber.


And how many security force and police have been killed?

"Security forces" killed in the 4 months of peaceful protest? 0. "Security forces" killed by 2012 (where the conflict was already almost full-scale)? Barely 5,000 maybe. Why where they killed? Because they attacked protesters and civilians. Now go worship more dictators, it just reinforces my point.

 

[Madali]

So you're basically telling me a popular revolution against a dictator doesn't define both scenarios? K den.

The biggest difference was that foreign neighbouring powers weren't pouring in money and arms to our young people. If that was done, then a real revolution from a manufactured revolution would be hard to distinguish.

There are other differences to note. I'll point out a few examples.
As the opposition had widespread support, the Shah didn't have any strong bases to fall upon. Life is pretty much going on as normal day by day in places like Damascus. In Iran, the biggest protests were continuously in the capital so the Shah.
This also brings me to another difference. Iran did not fall into a civil war because everywhere and every kind of person joined in one cause (initially their goals were the same). In Syria, the oppositions fight against each other and various communities do not emphatize with the rebels. In Iran, this was not so, which as why it Shah kept getting weaker, he couldn't garner any support from any specific sect or community and his soldiers were leaving in huge numbers.

There are many other points but you usually simplify things usually to black and white which will make it hard for you to fully understand the complexities of geopolitical situations.

 

[KTOOOOM]

The biggest difference was that foreign neighbouring powers weren't pouring in money and arms to our young people. If that was done, then a real revolution from a manufactured revolution would be hard to distinguish.

There are other differences to note. I'll point out a few examples.
As the opposition had widespread support, the Shah didn't have any strong bases to fall upon. Life is pretty much going on as normal day by day in places like Damascus. In Iran, the biggest protests were continuously in the capital so the Shah.
This also brings me to another difference. Iran did not fall into a civil war because everywhere and every kind of person joined in one cause (initially their goals were the same). In Syria, the oppositions fight against each other and various communities do not emphatize with the rebels. In Iran, this was not so, which as why it Shah kept getting weaker, he couldn't garner any support from any specific sect or community and his soldiers were leaving in huge numbers.

There are many other points but you usually simplify things usually to black and white which will make it hard for you to fully understand the complexities of geopolitical situations.

BS khumeny stole the revolution and killed or prisoned the others and till this day there are millions who fled the country cause of that

 

[Madali]

BS khumeny stole the revolution and killed or prisoned the others and till this day there are millions who fled the country cause of that

Good political analysis. Looking forward to more in-depth commentary from you in the future.

 

[Hack-Hook]

So you're basically telling me a popular revolution against a dictator doesn't define both scenarios? K den.

"Security forces" killed in the 4 months of peaceful protest? 0. "Security forces" killed by 2012 (where the conflict was already almost full-scale)? Barely 5,000 maybe. Why where they killed? Because they attacked protesters and civilians. Now go worship more dictators, it just reinforces my point.

Well let inform you that when the casualty was less than 1000 for all around of 300 of them were security and police forces so please spare us the myth of peaceful protests.

 

[KTOOOOM]

Saudi Arabia hosted half a million Syrians since 2011

Since the start of the revolution in Syria five years ago, more than half a million Syrians entered Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities granted Syrians the right of residency and work, and provided them with education and health services for free and live in proper houses not small shacks

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/web...entered-Saudi-since-the-start-of-the-war.html

GCC don't call them a Syrian refugees they call them “Arab brothers and sisters in distress”" in official documentation. so the idiot who claim otherwise is an idiot
GCC paid almost £2.000.000.000 which count more than almost what all countries combined paid.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

But Saudia can make a new city call SAUDI-Syria City in north , with funds with proper houses

Why make refugees live in desert tents


The problem my Saudi collegue is that right now SAUDIA is being portrayed and Gulf countries as well , as non caring by Western Media

According to Western Media , Gulf states have shut doors to Refugees and and Western countries are only countries caring for Refugees

Saudia needs a Major Public relations Officer to , do a press confrence with all major newspress

So the word gets out

This is the news western media is stating every day world wide

The video you posted claims 500,000 Syrian folks are given work / residential presence in Saudia and use of hospitals and schools which is tremendous news

Hower this word needs to get out at Government Level to major News channels becasue out here in West ... word is Gulf countries are not caring and they have kicked out all the refugees to Germany and europe


However the video you posted did state Saudi government has not documented the entrance of syrians as "Refugees". They have been given access to facilities

Note Problem is not one listens to Arabia news channel in Arabic , unless the news is distributed via international English channels , the news will not circulate properly
The video is in Arabic language

 

[monitor]

Here's why rich Arab Gulf states won't welcome Syrian refugees

• Charles Recknagel, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

• Sep. 4, 2015, 4:16 PM
• 116,487
• 40

Read more: Why rich Arab Gulf states won't take Syrian refugees - Business Insider


It's hard not to notice how almost all Syrian refugees flee westward rather than seek a safe haven in the rich Arab Persian Gulf states.

Now, social-media users worldwide are increasingly raising the question of why.

On Twitter, the Arabic-language hashtag #Hosting_Syria's_refugees_is_a_Gulf_duty has become a forum for expressing the indignation many Arabs feel at seeing European states like Germany taking in thousands of refugees while the Gulf states host almost none.

A recent message showed a photo of a drowned refugee with the comment: "It is shameful that they have to roam all about God's earth and drown in the seas while fleeing death when we are supposed to be closer to them than the West."


Another Arabic-language hashtag #People_demand_admission_of_refugees has called for a sustained campaign to welcome refugees to the Gulf states.

"The interactions with this campaign are promising," a recent message urged. "Do not be shy about your demands and tweets. You are the loudest voice here."


In Europe, too, internet users are calling out the Gulf states. A Facebook community of Syrians in Denmark recently demanded, "How did we flee from the region of our Muslim brethren, which should take more responsibility for us than a country they describe as infidels?"

The vast majority of the 4 million or so people who have fled conflict and hardship in Syria have gone to neighboring Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, where they live in crowded refugee camps.

Thousands have sought to go on to Europe, particularly this year, as the 4-year-old Syrian war shows no sign of winding down. They are attracted to Europe by the opportunity to apply for asylum or refugee status and, if accepted, to get jobs and begin rebuilding their lives.

But if social media are bristling over the fact the rich Arab Gulf states do not offer the same welcome, there seems little likelihood the situation will change. The reason is the Gulf Arab states' aversion to granting refugee status, not just to Syrians but to anybody.

REUTERS/Ali Jarekji Rich states like Saudi Arabia could likely afford to take on some of the migrants.

"There are some Syrians who have found refuge in the Gulf, especially in Qatar, but they would all generally be on some kind of temporary visas," says Jane Kinninmont, deputy head of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House in London. "The Gulf countries are not signatories to the international conventions on refugee rights that Western countries and indeed most world countries have signed up to."

She says their position appears to be motivated by the presence of so many migrant workers in the Gulf states, including from countries like Pakistan, where there is political unrest and repression.

"Their concern would be that if they started recognizing political asylum it could potentially open the doors for a multitude of their temporary workers to stay permanently, and that would raise a lot of quite complex issues."

The number of migrant workers exceeds the native population in every Gulf country except Saudi Arabia and Oman. In all of the Gulf countries, the vast majority of the workforce is foreign, ranging from 88.5% in Oman to 99.5% in the United Arab Emirates.

Shutterstock / S-FSurely Dubai, a city that flaunts wealth to the point of putting their police in supercars, could afford to house some of the migrants.

But if the Gulf states look unlikely to change their own position on political asylum, it would be unfair to say that they have turned a blind eye to the plight of Syrian refugees in other countries.

Kinninmont notes that Kuwait is the single largest Arab donor to Syrian refugees, and the fourth-largest internationally, following the US, UK, and Germany. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also among the top 10 international donors.

Below: tweet text: “#Hosting_Syria_refugees_is_a_Gulf_duty
[The difference] between the present and history (when Muslims had [some genuine] men).”

Cartoon: "Formerly: conquerors. Now: refugees."


Read the original article on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Reprinted with the permission of RFE/RL, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 400, Washington DC 20036. Copyright 2015. Follow Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on Twitter.

More from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:

• Ecological Activists in North Ossetia Sound Alarm Over Toxic Emissions
• Ukrainian Separatist Leader Released By Rebels After Four-Day Detention
• Sea Breeze Military Drills Bring U.S., NATO To Ukrainian Shores
• Book Review: Piles Of Bones And Pools Of Blood
• 'Have You Been To Church Today?' Or How To Avoid A Traffic Ticket In Ukraine

Read more: Why rich Arab Gulf states won't take Syrian refugees - Business Insider

 

[KTOOOOM]

Saudi Arabia hosted half a million Syrians since 2011

Since the start of the revolution in Syria five years ago, more than half a million Syrians entered Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities granted Syrians the right of residency and work, and provided them with education and health services for free and live in proper houses not small shacks

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/web...entered-Saudi-since-the-start-of-the-war.html

GCC don't call them a Syrian refugees they call them “Arab brothers and sisters in distress”" in official documentation. so the idiot who claim otherwise is an idiot
GCC paid almost £2.000.000.000 which count more than almost what all countries combined paid.