The Uzbek people, being Muslims, welcomed millions of refugees from all over the world in World War 2 and didn't do anything bad to them until now. Why can't European people welcome refugees from the Middle East who are running away from war?
Because during the late 90’s, bin Laden declared war on the West and started a series of spectacular terrorist attacks, that went on until 2001, when in response, the US invaded Afghanistan.Since, there have been more terrorist attacks and an even more ruthless group, ISIS, who has committed attacks in the West, threatened more attacks and many members that are not self radicalized keep posing as refugees.It's not that the West doesn't care or that there is a consensus, but when you have active groups constantly threatening and following through with they threats, it makes it much harder for security to verify a person applying as a refugee as legitimate and politicans use this issue to score points with “low information voters” and people who believe every Muslim believes in what they've been told is Sharia law and that groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS want to spread it and all Muslims believe in it, so it causes more panic and people back opportunistic politicians who campaign on the issue that all refugees and criminals and terrorists. Stirring up nationalist fears.And most Western counties have welcomed tens of thousands and more refugees as is. When Europe doesn't like is that they keep coming illegally over borders and by sea without any way of vetting them. Although the populists and nationalists have framed it as a threat to national security and identity.
Why aren't European countries trying everything to help the refugees?
First and foremost, I am quite shocked to read such a question.I also have to agree to some extent with Fabio Lessi.The current situation is very much dramatic. It is not easy to create and find accommodations for such a massive wave of Refugees & asylum seekers. Every person needs to be taken account and care off. The last number i've heard from Germany was that they took almost $1M people. That's one country alone! And there are more to come.People who have to fear for there life in there home country need to be prioritised. Everyone who is taken in and is allowed to stay has to learn the local language in order to be able to find work etc. That's a massive undertaking. Not to mention Medical support.I don't want to judge the situation too much and I do believe that all countries combined can do more but it is extremely hard to do so. Keep in mind that, even though we have the European Union, every country has still there own policies and challenges. Look at Greece. They just don't have the financial means to support so many new people.I think you should reconsider your question and statements a bit and look at what is really happening. How would you manage the situation ? Would you be able to create accommodation, food, education and especially medical support for millions of people right away ? It is tough and only if we are all trying to approach this issue constructive on a GLOBAL SCALE (not just Europe OR US OR Australia OR....) can we solve the issues.And just to be very clear: I don't want to see anyone to be send back, no matter where they are coming from but not everyone can go to the country they want to go to and some might have to settle somewhere else.
Why don't Eastern European countries accept immigrants?
It’s not at all clear that “Eastern European countries” do not accept immigrants. Many, in fact, do.Even ignoring countries which make provision for the resettlement and naturalization of co-ethnics, like Hungary does for Magyars outside of its frontiers, and population movements which occurred between states now independent but once part of a common state, like migration from the rest of Yugoslavia to Slovenia, substantial cross-frontier migration is a real phenomenon. In the Czech Republic, for instance, 5% of the population is of post-1991 immigrant background, with Ukrainians and Vietnamese featuring prominently in a cosmopolitan mix. In neighbouring Poland, meanwhile, a recent surge in Ukrainian numbers bringing totals up to around one million people has played a critical role in helping to alleviate labor shortages. Immigration is less significant but still real in other countries, with relatively well-off countries generally receiving in-flows from worse-off countries often mediated by historical ties: Macedonians have taken up Bulgarian citizenship by the tens of thousands, for instance, while Moldovans have done the same in Romania in even larger numbers, and net migration from Russia to the Baltic States is positive.Post-Communist Europe is not especially different from southern Europe, in that both regions have only recently become relatively wealthy and have only recently started to be destinations as well as sources of migrants. In both cases, the first immigrants have come from countries that the region has close ties to: Latin Americans are particularly numerous in Iberia but are common throughout the region, joined by Romanians and Moroccans. In eastern Europe, meanwhile, old ties of geography have facilitated similar flows, with poorer Yugoslav successor states being sources of migrants for Slovenia and Croatia, Ukrainians becoming common in central Europe, and old Communist-era ties facilitating Vietnamese settlement across the region.Particular sorts of immigration are unpopular. The resettlement of refugees entering the European Union—most famously, Syrian refugees—has been famously unpopular with central Europe. In this, post-Communist Europe does not actually stand out from the rest of Europe in its skepticism of Muslim refugees. (Christian refugees from Syria, in contrast, have sometimes been given welcome.) In this as in other sentiments, both positive and negative, eastern Europe is finally normal.
Why are muslim arab countries so backward?
The West has invented quite a lot of senseless names for the dominant version of islam, like "radical islam", extermist islam" ,"islamofacism" and so on; all in order not to offend muslims who are so sensitive...The most popular "brand" is Islamism. But the truth is that the dominant, mainstream islam is that same radical islam that was taught by muhammad. So, islamism=islam. And one of the dogmas of the muhammad´s islam was NO CRITICAL THINKING. All must be as the wise forefathers said some 1,300 years ago, up to the letter. Anyone who expresses doubts is labelled an apostate, "mushrik" - and faces very serious consequences up to hte death sentence. Not to think became in muslim countries the synonym of to stay alive. As a result, generation after generation grew without the habit of thinking rationally and critically. and what´s worse; nobody was too much worried about this. Muslims today reap what they had sown centirues ago.
Is it Haram to live in the west as a Muslim?
I also have a question: How would Islam spread if it truly is haram to live in a country that doesn't follow the sharia law?
Which religion, throughout it's history, has killed more people: Christianity or Islam?
It has to be islam hands down if anyone says the contrary the person is either daft or is mentally unfit hence he is not capable of thinking.This faith was violent from it's very inception. Their jihad goes on till today, they also plundered many countries like Egypt, Constantinople, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,Turkey,Palestine the list is endless. The crusades were there because these robbers came to rob Spain, Portugal etc what's wrong about fighting for your land? I don't think you would allow someone to rob your house, and then say it is theirs like they have done to Constantinople now Istanbul. Don't be such a hypocrite! As for the inquisitions, pink roses and porquemoi have written a lovely post. I have read the quran I think you are trying a bit too hard to cover up what islam really is. The second one in line is Judaism, with its stealing Palestine, killing witches, adulterers, killing Christians and other people who they considered as pagans.