went to high school with one, he was cool as shit, but use to bring the final call to school, especially at lunch on red beans and rice day, i hated that. But he was really mild mannered and a smart guy.
I think the larger part of the black muslim conversion came out of the civil rights era. A line was really drawn in the sand by those who adhered to the MLK philosophy and those who adhere to the Malcom X philosophy before he saw the light. If you listen to the rhetoric of black Muslims, its dates back to the civil rights era and they preach against the fact that racist whites (not all whites of course), used the bible and Jesus to justify slavery and jim crow in Corinthians and Romans. However, they rant relentlessly for re segregation of blacks, against Jews, against Christianity to an extent, etc. Its divisive, though they have a lot of self discipline, the message falls flat, because its racist and anti-Semitic. However, that message appealed to blacks who wanted action with violence or strength. But on the whole its not really growing. The 2nd question, is probably no. They dont want refugees, what black people dont realize is that arabs are even more racist than any white person I have ever seen. They treat darker skin people like shit. They dont accept them in Islam and are willing to kill them just the same as any other person.
I can read your mind, didn't you know that? You are quite transparent. Of course I have a opinion and it is lengthy and complex, but entirely pragmatic. Have another Coors Light. As you might expect, I have mixed feelings. We have national interests to protect, but we have humanitarian responsibilities as a Superpower as well. A refugee flees a war zone to escape the fighting, usually to an neighboring country where there is no fighting. Most just wish to go back to their homes. But if they keep on going 2000 miles to the richest country they can walk to, they become illegal immigrants. Many of these migrants are not even from Syria, the crowd is full of Pakistanis looking for jobs in Europe. So, the legitimate refugees must be assisted and accommodated as close as possible to their homelands. And the illegal immigrants must be weeded out and deported. The goddamn Turks are the problem. They openly supported ISIS originally and was their pipeline to foreign recruits, food, munitions, and Toyota pickups. Under pressure from their NATO partners and the EU, Turkey supposedly turned on them and joined the coalition against ISIS. But the Turkish border is still a sieve to supplies and people moving across. And Turkey has not done much militarily against ISIS, only attacking our allies the Kurds. Turkey is awash with Syrian refugees, over a million and a half of them. Understandably it is a problem. So they are shooing them all out to other countries as expediently as they can. That is the issue. The West doesn't need to take in a million muslim refugees in Europe and North America, we need to pressure and assist Turkey to handle the problem better. Sort out the refugees from the illegal immigrants right there. That is where the US can play a role. We can fund and help Turkey do that in Turkey and cut the numbers in half right there. It will help identify islamists among them for deportation. That is better and a lot cheaper than taking on 100,000 "refugees" that will never go back home. America and Europe, in their best national interests, must resist this spontaneous foreign migration. No one wants to see the Middle East's endless clusterfuck exported to our neighborhoods. We must pressure Turkey and help them with money to build accommodations for the refugees in Turkey and get them out of tent camps. Pay to put the refugees themselves to work building the facilities themselves, to earn a few coins and keep busy. When the war is over most have to return to their homes in Syria and yet be assured of a safe place for their families as they rebuild. We can help pay for that, too and buy some influence among them for the political future. This is far cheaper than assimilating a million and a half Syrians. Meanwhile those of them that want to immigrate to Europe or America can do it the right way and apply legally for permission. Germany and some other have already express willingness to take many thousands of them. Germany has a rapidly aging population and a need to fill many low-paying jobs needs and their population is large enough that they don't worry that their culture will be impacted like some of the smaller countries do. But they need control of the situation, as any country must. America will take a smaller number of them--and as usual, mostly skimming off the top scientists, businessmen, intellects, students, and artists. We have a better source for cheap immigrant labor. And Turkey will have a better incentive to get off their assess, invade Syria and quickly remove both Assad and ISIS assisted by US airpower, and send the grateful refugees back home.
If we intend to remain the Superpower we must behave like one. The dog that takes charge is the one in charge and all the other dogs know it. Europe is waiting to be led, as usual. Collectively , they have as much money and military assets as we do. It is time they play a bigger role in dealing with the middle east. This time a middle east war impacts them and it is a good time to get their attention, their money and their military involved in the bigger picture.
In a very select and generic situation, this is not one. The big dog who takes in refugees that have had terrorist enemies inserted into their midst will soon find his doghouse in ashes
The US has already demonstrated good faith in taking prior immigrants. Southern California has the largest Syrian population in the US. Right next to Disneyland is a place informally known as Little Arabia or Little Gaza. There are well more than 30,000 Egyptians, Syrians, and Palestinians. It's full of halal butchers, bakers who don't do gay wedding cakes, hooka bars, and mosques. I have no doubt that Obama will use his usual connections out here to ensure any new immigrants have a place to go. No effing thank you. If you want some, then please sign up to host a family. Another great reason to say no....5 of the wealthiest gulf states aren't doing diddly. SA, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain never signed the Refugee Convention allowing them to deny refugees but still claim they are taking people in. Of course anyone wanting in has to apply for a tourist visa or work permit but it is very expensive and ....not very speedy. They have a combined military budget of over $65B. They have given somewhere in the neighborhood of $589M in aid....4x less than the US. Let them take in the refugees. It will allow a much easier process for Syrians who want to return home after the current unrest. Because once they get stateside, they aren't going anywhere. And what of the long term consequences of allowing so many to leave? There are plenty, including terrorists, who are fleeing among the crowds just to get out undetected. Syria won't have much left to rebuild and families are being separated. Syrians don't want wholesale departures. "efforts also should be made to prevent refugees from fleeing the country, said Hussam Ayloush, national chairman of the Syrian American Council. “We’re working with President (Barack) Obama and the Congress to establish no-fly zones in liberated parts of Syria, to protect civilians from airstrikes,” said Ayloush, who is also director of the Los Angeles branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, based in Anaheim. “That is one of the main reasons millions of refugees are fleeing the country.“ So IMO, establishing no-fly zones is humanitarian enough. No refuge, no more government aid. What does all our hard work and good intentions get us anyway? As is typical, we do the most and get an equal amount of criticism..... "If he ever got the chance, he’d settle in the United States, Rzgar Abdul said. But for now, he lives in this spare, barracks-style refugee camp, placing much of the blame for his squalid existence on the United States. After all, the Islamic State proliferated when U.S. forces pulled out of an unstable country. And that proliferation forced him to leave his home, said Abdul, 28, who is from the Iraqi city of Kirkuk. “Iraq’s problem is America’s problem,” said Abdul, who said he was a translator for the United States during the Iraq war, making him a target. “This crisis is America’s problem. In Iraq, Syria, all over, the U.S. did not do enough.” ]] Squalid existence, eh? Nice outfit phucker. Must be tough. This right here is squalid.... Let the gulf states cough up some of their military budget.
The problem for all of those countries is that their native populations are so tiny, that they already are a minority. Malaysians and Pakistanis do all of the manual labor and service jobs and constitute huge foreign populations in place. The Arabs worry about their stability because of this. There aren't enough jobs to absorb the refugees. I think we will have more luck getting their money to Turkey than getting any refugees to go south. They don't want to go to those countries and couldn't cross the desert if they did. Well the non-combatants have already left Syria, that is the problem. Well that is a thinly-disguised effort by Syrian-Americans to get American support for Syrian rebels, many of whom are non-ISIS jihadists and most of whom are anti-American. They wanted the same thing before the refugee crisis. The problem with a no-fly zone is that, unlike ISIS, Syria has Russian SAM's that are very effective and the Russians have troops on the ground training and maintaining them. Such a no-fly zone would require us to first take down the Syrian air defense system, which will be a major military action that it may be difficult to withdraw from. It would mean US casualties, Russian casualties, and potential POWS. it would be trading a annoyance (refugees) for a serious problem (another endless middle eastern war). It ain't our fight! Our enemies are all fighting each other there. Why in our right minds would we take casualties and spend billions to try to stop it? If we did, we would have to stay forever (like in Korea) or leave it to them and watch them just go back to fighting (as in Iraq and Afghanistan). Let them fight it out and we will deal with the winner, who will be weaker and perhaps more accommodating. We can spend a lot less building Quonset huts in muslim Turkey with Saudi Arab money to accommodate the Arab civilian refugees and just let the radical arabs all kill each other in Syria. Works out a lot better for us. Well, their military budgets are small, but I agree . . . their GDP is very big and they can certainly afford to pour money in to keep refugees alive and out of the war zone. Time for Europe to use its economic influence for once.
