From Blacklistednews:

If Saudi Arabia won’t take in Syrian refugees, why should the United States?  In recent weeks, we have heard a whole lot from Barack Obama about our “moral obligation” to take in refugees from Syria.  Well, if there is a “moral obligation” to help these refugees, then why aren’t more wealthy Islamic nations stepping up to the plate?  According to Amnesty International, since the beginning of the Syrian civil war Saudi Arabia has not accepted a single Syrian refugee.  Neither has Kuwait.  Neither has Qatar.  Neither has the United Arab Emirates.  These nations are absolutely swimming in money, and yet they have slammed the door on these desperately needy Islamic refugees.  So what precisely does that tell us?

When I first learned about this, I was quite upset.  So much pressure is being put on the U.S, Europe and other wealthy nations to take in vast numbers of Syrian refugees, and yet the wealthiest Islamic nations in the Middle East are completely shunning them.  The following comes from TruNews

While the United States and Europe argue over how many Syrian refugees to allow in, the richest Persian Gulf states have accepted exactly zero.

The Muslim countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council that include Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and United Arab Emirates steadfastly refuse to accept any Syrian refugees. Amnesty International, USA (AIUSA) tells The Daily Caller News Foundation they have not accepted a single refugee since the armed Syrian conflict erupted years ago.

“The Gulf States have accepted zero refugees registered with the United…

Continue Reading