Would Muslim nations take in Western English refugees if roles were reversed?

I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about this, but weren't these Asians from colonised states? Rather than individuals fighting of their own accord?

Most were from our old colonies but all were volunteers, none were conscripts.

For goodness sake does it even matter!?

Europe as a 'geopolitical entity' didn't exist at this point in history so to call them European Jews is wrong

and it blames the whole of Europe for this rather then the actual countries involved

Stop being pedantic. It is completely reasonable to refer to geographical regions by what they are called in the modern day.



No it doesn't - you gigantic bell-end. Not to mention that I specified which countries they were fleeing from in that post.

No it's not it's dishonest

You are trying to say the Ottomans were better than the Europeans because they saved the 'European' Jews

I think they would. In spite of what people think, most Muslims are decent human beings and I think when it really comes down to most people help those in need regardless of their background. People tend to come together when they need to.

So they got paid to do the Job

Hardly altruistic

Clearly evidenced by the generosity of most of the Arab gulf states in letting in so many refugees.

Oh wait.

So blame the government, not individual Muslims.

So blame the government, not individual Muslims.

"Arab gulf states" being the keyword.

Nations let refugees in, not individual people.