The Bosnian Muslim community in St. Louis is doing fine

Wikipedia reports:

As of 2013 there were 70,000 Bosnians in St. Louis. This is the largest population of Bosnians in the United States and the largest Bosnian population outside of Europe. Most are Bosniak and Muslims.

It seems to be going fine.  Here is one local account from 2012:

It’s easy to depict the resettlement of Bosnians in St. Louis – predominantly Bosnian Muslims, called Bosniaks, but also Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs, all fleeing war – as a prototypical American success story. In less than two decades, refugees who arrived with proverbial pennies in their pockets have bought cars, then homes, seen their children graduate from American high schools, then colleges.

In less than a generation, Bosnian-St. Louisans have become doctors, lawyers, insurance agents, bankers, professors, tech specialists, entrepreneurs. They have buoyed the population of the city of St. Louis, improved the safety of their neighborhoods, built three mosques, formed a Chamber of Commerce, cracked the code of American capitalism, and plugged into an international network of Bosnian media and Bosnian culture in diaspora.

For a related pointer I thank John Bell.


No problems at all.

See? Not an episode of USA gun violence. I call it success.

so Tyler posts an entirely reasonable story, and MR comments descend immediately to innumeracy ànd prejudice? I hope these are parody comments.

Poe's Law, thou art a heartless bitch

I shall click upvote

I feel for the Bosnian victim and his family. Death by multiple hammer blows must be a terrible way to go.

Except for Zemir Begic, who was collateral damage of the Great and the Good's Ferguson jihad:

1) For the sake of speed, I quote from Wikipedia from the Robert Putnam page (he's the guy that wrote Bowling Alone): "His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups."

So of course we can take in a few refugees and most everything will be fine. Even Muslim ones. But to think that is "some is ok then more is better" is a fallacy. You can't extrapolate like that. I think that the fact that the USA was mostly a WASP country was a good thing, and I say this as a non-WASP son of immigrants.

2) I don't know where Tyler stands on this, but it seems that a lot of libertarians dislike military expenditure. But military expenditure could help us help Syrians in Syria, rather than the less efficient alternative of resettling Syrian refugees in the West. Wanting to resettle refugees in the West is a lack of an ability to defer gratification: taking in some thousands of refugees is a lot easier than making Syria into a livable place. And making Syria into a livable place requires the US to have a strong military (even if we only use our military as a threat rather than actually getting into combat).

less trust!! I found à measure that confirms my bias, however tenuous, and now I can be happy.

(1) Tyler is completely correct that St. Louis has been fortunate indeed to welcome the Bosnian community. A boon to the area. The availability of affordable real estate allowing the immigrants to settle and put down roots was essential to the success there. Not many comparable real estate markets like that in the US though and most in the central US. Fairfax, Virginia will not be seeing any of these potential immigrants so Tyler's generosity of spirit should be taken with a pinch of salt.
(2) MR is too pure and virtuous to have any sympathy for those fighting back in Syria: The Mason economic faculty couldn't defend their faculty lounge if their lives depended upon it.

And making Syria into a livable place requires the US to have a strong military (even if we only use our military as a threat rather than actually getting into combat).
Funny, the USA already have the strongest military, shouldn't Syria we paradise already? One of these days, pretty soon anyway. "Send those Jews back, one day America will make Nazi Germany livable again, no reason to worry about the Jews."

John, nobody's advocating the migrants be sent back to Syria. Maybe Bulgaria or Iran, or preferably Lebanon. Any migrant who stays in Turkey, Israel, or Jordan is a traitor to his country and should be killed, along with the rest of the Turks. Syria isn't paradise already because the U.S. is the Great Satan. If the U.S. was actually propping up the Nazis, wouldn't your argument change quite a bit?

Fixing Syria with our military has got to be somewhere between 10x and 100x as expensive as resettling 100k Syrians domestically. Assuming resettling them costs anything at all net

Yes, resettling costs something. We do offer welfare assistance to war refugees, from housing to checks.

Thanks to social media, supposedly there are photos of beaming Syrians with new TV's, phones, and checks on-line.

Its really unfortunate, but the reality is with any generous welfare system (America's is average for Europe, despite what you hear from progressives) you will get some people who really need it, some people who abuse it, and some in the middle.

This is an important point in several ways:

1) The dead child on the beach was a Kurd from Kobane. IIRC, we greatly assisted the Kurds there to repel ISIS and the Kurds have now secured that town. Its interesting to note that even success leads to migrants. As a side note, I read the story about the boat sinking with two children and a woman drowning, but two "people" managed to swim to shore in life jackets. Notice how these "people" don't have a gender or age attached? I bet they were the two adult males in the boat. They got life jackets. The women and kids didn't. I'd love the press to not try to obfuscate that....maybe I'll read some other stories where it was explained more.

2) The presence of so many migrants now suggests that our military strategy has been very poor, or that some other dynamic is taking place: refugees sick of waiting around without much hope of going home, Assad losing, Europe "opening", or nearby countries encouraging refugees to leave. I would probably go with "sick of waiting" but who knows.

3) I suppose our military strategy could be producing less refugees than no intervention at all, but it does suggest an alternative to spending blood and treasure: just admit them as immigrants and let Syria fall.

America hasn't been "mostly WASP" demographically for a century now. And it hasn't been culturally WASP for decades now.

The U.S. was majority Protestant until 2010 and majority white Protestant before about 1990.

Most states are still majority WASP.

The Southwest isn't and the North East has a lot of white Catholics but these folks often behave as WASPy as the previous inhabitants.

Did you forget about AS or just not know what they stand for?

Military expenditure is more efficient than settling refugees? That is truly insane. Settling refugees is very close to free. (There's an initial expenditure, but in the end you get higher GDP and hence tax revenues.) I don't know what it would cost to "make Syria a livable place" through the use of military force, but it would surely cost at least $100 billion. (The war in Iraq, a country about 50% larger, cost 20 times that amount -- and did not succeed.)

"There’s an initial expenditure, but in the end you get higher GDP and hence tax revenues."

-Not if they permanently mooch off the welfare system and do some chain migration, with all the retired relatives coming to Deutchland (as many do to the U.S.). And settling "refugees" is not "close to free" at all.

The War in Iraq was a success. You just haven't been told that by the Democrat media.

How much does the U.S. gov't spend on mestizos on welfare?

Why this mood affiliation when there is evidence. Remember that one only sees the tip of the iceberg because there is such enormous pressure to suppress the evidence. Suppressing evidence including the murder of such people as Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh and the expulsion of Ayaan Hirshi Ali, all because of bringing up this subject.

Bosnian Muslims are the first generation. The problems really start with the second generation, for example this Danish study shows that 2nd generation muslims are almost 3 times more likely to be criminals than first generation muslims.


In the Netherlands, > 68% of people in prison are allochtoon, code for muslims.

That is certainly evidence that Europe has trouble, but what if Muslems fit into big, diverse, multicultural America differently?

As I understand the numbers, our second generation Muslims are no more violent than the American baseline.

The gag of course being that if you put Americans and their guns into Europe you would harsh their mellow statistics.

If you are second generation, by definition you cannot be allocthonous.

It's code to say "non-white people, who may be Dutch/Belgian citizens, but who we do not wish to consider as such". Which is also how you can be a "second-generation immigrant" (i.e. someone who is not an immigrant at all, but must be seen and treated as such). Of course, such attitudes have *nothing* to do with how some people who are treated like that eventually react. It's all in their bad, non-white genes, let's ask SS.

It is almost as if second-generation means the generation after the first generation.

it is really a complicated concept. No wonder you have so much trouble understanding it.

Yes, and it's just a coincidence that, in Europe, it's only Muslims and black people who are ever described as nth generation immigrants, and never the children of, say, French or German immigrants.

It's not a complicated concept, just a nonsensical one that's unfortunately become commonplace. Explain to me how someone can be born in a country and still be an immigrant (i.e. "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country"). They didn't come to live in a foreign country, they were born there and, depending on the citizenship of their parents, may be natural born citizens. So-called second-generation immigrants are not immigrants, so why call them that?

Damien, you're making stuff up. Children of French and German immigrants are also described as 2nd generation. Just the fact someone was born in a country does not make him fully raised in that country's culture. Pretty much all Americans are some-generation immigrants; most people just don't think that far back.

Damien, stop embarrassing yourself. Look for "jus soli"in Wikipedia.

My parents always told me they were second-generation *Americans*. It was perfectly obvious that meant that their own parents were immigrants and they were *not*.

Bosnian muslims...just how religious are these people? They grew up in a communist system. They live in Europe. They may be sufi Sunnis which are much milder than wahabi.

There's a huge difference between Bosnian muslims and muslims from tribal Pakistan. Massive difference.

Yeah, this. Bosnian Muslims were raised under a pluralistic secular government, where they weren't the majority. Bosnia is mixed Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Muslim. They are a plurality, but not a majority.

Because immigrants tend to commit less crime than the native population, and thus the 2nd generation is just regressing to the norm of the country.

Maybe you should do the world a favor and clean up your comment section. It's like a klan rally down here.

Sack up pal, the world gets a lot worse than a bunch of internet commenters skeptical of the benefits of a mass refugee influx.

I agree Tyler. These comments do not put your blog in a good light.

Oh no, fashionable urban leftists will be very NOT OK with your triggering blog comments!

You mean the kind of people that fund universities? Yes that might be a concern.

Kochs are fashionable? Urban? Leftists?

Last I checked NYC was an urban area.

Yeah, give to a university's endowment fund. That will ensure it will never get spent.

So wanting to preserve Bavarian culture is being a Klan member?

Anything but anecdotes?

BTW - there is a huge need for these qualified and hardworking people in Bosnia. Bosnia aint doing that great.
A refugees policy that makes things worse by braindraining the homeland.

At least you shoud stop calling them refugees. Bosnia is not a war and have not been for a very long time. They have had all posibilities for going back for almost 15-20 years of peaceful times in Bosnia. Try calling them immigrants instead. And then speculate if there is some sort of "selection" bias before you recommend open borders for millions of other people.

60.000 is not that many. And coming from a very non-religious background for a muslims population. And i guess they are not exactly a random group from bosnia.

I think there is a thing called "an argument from missing data." It might for instance be when you wave way 60000 immigrants and offer in opposition of vague idea of a hypothetical dataset

"60.000 is not that many."
Glad to hear it , how many times 60,000 Syrians are we going to welcome?

I'd recommend 2x and take the most promising. I assume that 2nd generation immigrants from the Middle East will integrate much better into the U.S. because there are tremendous opportunities for moderately intelligent, hard working folks with no connections in the U.S.- the exact opposite of EU.

It seems right.

We could take even more. I'd like some screening of the military age males to insure they aren't ex-fighters who may have committed war crimes, or some ISIS guy who's taking a break. If that's possible. If not, I'd like an orderly process where they are documented in case we later find out these guys have snuck in.

It will happen. Some refugee will see Ahmed the Butcher in line for shwarama in Detroit and say he killed her family.

60.000 syrians.

Thats problably more than the size of the IS's armed forces. Maybe the syrians should just stay home an fight this criminal group.

But you dont think they can or will, do you? They are brown, so you just no that they wont. . A bit racist, but Isn't that what youre trying to say?

60.000 is not a lot in terms of creating the same type of problems as they do in europe, where there are millions of muslims. But 60.000 is syrians are going to be expensive. The money could be better spend on the poor syrians in Syria. but then again, you seem so sure that there will never be any options for creating a society in Syrian due to the lack of white people.

Syrians are just as likely to be fleeing Assad, Iranian militias, or Gulf state backed militias as they are ISIS. It is a four cornered civil war.

Bosnia has the lowest labor force participation rate in Europe (~33%). Their economy is poor, because of the residual effects of the war in the '90s. Yeah, brain drain is part of the problem. But right now, Bosnia's main problems are bad public policies: they have their currency pegged to the Euro; they have onerous regulations; they have weak property rights; and they're very corrupt. Multiple layers of government stemming from the peace agreements from the war mean that businesses often face multiple layers of complex regulations. It's a mess. Did I mention that they have had an unemployment rate of about ~30% since the mid '90s? Young people there have no opportunities, unless you know somebody important/paid someone off to get a job.

People who came to this country in the '90s came here because of the war. They're refugees. And people from every section of society came here too. My fiancee's family is from a city and is well educated, but trust me, there are plenty of Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats who are "village people" (translation of the Serbo-Croatian, maybe better translated as hill billy or hick) that came here. Every family, no matter how poor, has family abroad (that can mean lots of places: United States, Austria, Italy, France, Germany, etc. My fiancee has family in all of those places).

You know what one of the ones to get to the United States was during/after the war? If you had a mixed marriage (eg, Bosnian husband/Croatian wife, Croatian husband/Serbian wife, etc.). That took people from a broad and mixed swath of the population. They are doing well here, on the most part. Lots more Bosnians than just in St. Louis too, although, yeah, it's a big/biggest community (I live in St. Louis now, used to live in Chicago, which has more Serbians than any city other than Belgrade). Quarter of a million Serbs in Chicago. Lots of them are truck drivers (it's relatively low skill and requires no language skills, but it pays relatively well given those facts).

We've taken in hundreds of thousands of ex-Yugoslavian people since the early '90s; they're doing well. If they can do it, I don't see why the Syrians couldn't do well.

My wife employs a Bosnian Muslim lady as a mummy's helper two days a month. She and her husband are from an enclave in Western Bosnia that was ruled by Fikret Abdić, Alija Izetbegović's rival for the Bosnian presidency, and who himself attempted to secede from the Muslim Bosnian Republic with Serbian and Croatian help. Needless to say, when Sarajevo resumed control, there were reprisals and she told us harrowing stories of being turned back when trying to escape to Serbia on foot, and the Bosnian border guards telling them they would be shot if caught again.

She is the hardest-working person we know, as is her husband, a building contractor. They've done very well for themselves as they could afford to buy a house in San Francisco (given the timing, it wasn't at an early nineties discount either). She does go back to Bosnia on vacation so her teenage daughter, who dreams of someday working for Google, can connect with family and culture. From what she says, the only economic activity there is agriculture, and most of the younger people are unemployed.

So yes, from where I stand this is a perfect illustration of what's right with America, and with maintaining an open door to refugees.

By the time their teenage daughter graduates from college, there will be better employment options than Google. I hope she aims higher than that.

Not sure track-record of recent, forced converts to Islam (Bosnians, here) are a good proxy for much more ancient (forced) concpverts to Islam (Levantines like Syrians).

I am not sure you understand what "recent" means.

Bosniaks have been Muslim for centuries. They voluntarily converted in the ~16th century.



In totally unrelated news:

I don't know any Bosnians, but the Albanian muslims I know are culturally much more similar to other groups in eastern Europe than to middle eastern muslims.

The World Values Survey backs you up. They're a lot like other post-communist eastern europeans. Not that once can generalize across everyone in that category, like Chechens for example.

No shit. Do you wonder how expat Malaysian or Indonesian communities are doing? Me either, but I bet we could guess.

Question for Tyler or informed commenters: as a private citizen in the US, what's the most effective way to reduce the cost/increase the amount of immigration to the US? Is there even anything that can be done, or is it all purely limited by government-imposed quotas?

Typical elitist view. How are the immigrants doing, not how are the Americans on whom they were forcibly settled doing ... Screw the Americans who had to pay for their settlement, their welfare, their crime, who lost neighborhoods to people of foreign values and religion, who felt less at home in their own cities. I was hit by a Bosnian immigrant driver in St. Louis who ran a red light and had no insurance. He was doing unskilled labor for a rich contractor so the contractor profited. I have an injured back and a cause of action against someone with no assets. Thanks Cowen for supporting the elites that sold out my nation. Now my children get to grow up as minorities in the U.S. How is that going to work out? You do not know or care.

Great the immigrants are doing fine, but who cares about the Americans.

So now with a disability check securing your livelihood you spend your days ranting on the internet?

So, you'd be happy with an injured back?

And Bosniaks are part of the new majority? They have nothing in common with latinos or blacks.

That sucks. Sorry to hear you are suffering through that. There are a lot of stories like this in Los Angeles too.

So, being part of a minority it's not a desirable outcome. However, it's only a concern when you personally have the problem.

Any black or brown person in the planet could join that mass of humanity trudging through Europe and enter Germany, UK, Sweden. I’m fairly tempted to join them, considering anybody part of the caravan is almost assuredly getting German or Scandinavian citizenship, which is tempting even for only mildly brown Greek Russian Canadians like myself.

Something I learned yesterday reading De Spiegel's english site. Anyone who goes to Germany and claims asylum is entitled to 143 euros per month (and other benefits like housing) while their application is processed. If you fail, you don't have to pay it back, so many people from non-EU Eastern European countries like Bosnia go to Germany, collect the money, then take the free trip home. 40+% of German asylum applicants are European.

Bosnian Muslims aren't very religious. I travelled through the region shortly after the war - my father in law was with the UNHCR.

Most drink alcohol and see themselves as Europeans. Their identity is more cultural than religious.

Some thoughts from a St. Louisan (St. Louis County anyways):

1) I think the Bosnian community is concentrated in/near south St. Louis City. Housing is fairly cheap there - crime there (in general, not Bosnian-specific) is hit and miss.

2) I don't live super close to this area, so my observations are mainly 2nd hand.

3) I've eaten at one Bosnian restaurant - Grbic. Decent, but not mindblowing. Tyler would probably approve.

4) I haven't noticed many reports of integration problems, outsized crime figures, religious conflicts, or the like. There was one attack on a Bosnian that got some publicity (mentioned higher in the comments), but it seems to have been an outlier.

5) If 70K is the # of Bosnians, that's a fairly small % of the area. The overall area has a population of about 2.8 million ( So 70K would be about 2.5% of that. Things might be different if it was 10% or more. In certain neighborhoods, Bosnian concentration is obviously going to be higher, but that's true of pretty much every first generation immigrant community.

6) I haven't noticed the Bosnian community standing out, by, say unusual dress/headwear. Yes, occasionally one can spot an outlier (and also occasional Amish/Pennsylvania Dutch clothing), but it's rare. And, for what it's worth, I think most Bosnians look racially European/Slavic, so it's not as if they stand out much in that way.

I'm in soco now with south city roots (picture Ted Drewes on Grand). This all matches my experience pretty well. Bosnian presence seems like a plus from my angle. Those from Bosnia I know personally (all escaped from the 90's war) are great people, though I suppose they are from a subset who've done well enough to make it to the more affluent county, if that matters. Of coarse, I'm an open boarders guy, so maybe I just see the positives.

I’m an open boarders guy.
one wonders if this is parody,,,or not,

By/with "Amish/Pennsylvania Dutch" I should include Mennonite too, I think.

Bosnian Muslims are White.

Does that mean they are welcome at your rallies? Can they become Grand Wizards?

I think the rule is white but still not allowed at rallies. I am pretty sure one of our in house experts may know.

Has anyone claimed to be a member of the Klan here?

So are Syrians de jure:

There are tons of them in Chelsea and east Cambridge in MA as well. All do quite well. I'd think people would be more open to getting some extra white immigrants around here.

Diversity is good, builds trust, increases GDP. Evidence? Based on how far you must travel before meeting somebody from another country and the number of such encounters and countries, a study found the DC area is the most ethnically diverse city in the USA (beating out even NYC).

And look how well things are working out in DC. Case closed.

Here, too, Ray:

Case closed.

It's actually quite hilarious that, faced with strong objection to the importation of Syrian Muslims, Tyler turns to the fringe example (from the perspective of the Islamic world) of -- wait for it -- White, European, forced converts to Islam not being too bad. Uh-huh. Great example of culture and religion being irrelevant! Oh, the irony!!

He could've just gone with Muslim Arabs. They're doing really well here! I even know a few who have become atheists too, and a girl who wears a headscarf and talks with a valley accent. They're totally Americanized. Our system works people, just admit it!

Wauv - do you really know three muslims. Well, then no reason to worry.
Youre anecdotes are really interesting.

It is strange that basically all muslims majority countries are shitty places - they wont even help there muslims brothers.
But as soon as muslims are coming to america, they are nothing but hardworking democrates. Why is it that they always seem to need a white man to build the basic institutions?

BTW - the number of muslims in america are rather low, compared to Europe. And those muslims that do make it their, are not the same kind of people that make it to europe. Think selection bias.

Cherry picking. How about the Sihk immigrant community in Vancouver. Journalists murdered, the worst terrorist act in Canadian history.

Please don't try to sugar coat it. This is an ugly situation that will not have a hippy ending. That doesn't mean turning people away, it means having your eyes open to a few real possibilities.

1. Isis strategy to cause an overwhelming flood of refugees that overwhelm and weaken the security and societal arrangements as they arrive, leaving those places vulnerable. Isis loves holes.

2. Essentially establishing a safe beachhead from which the civil war can be waged effectively. That is what characterized the Sihk problems in Vancouver.

3. A very sweet conduit to introduce Isis bad guys into the heart of the west. The US especially as well as other western is very vulnerable to Isis style single actor attacks. But even worse would make this whole humanitarian enterprise collapse and create serious divisions. Which of course is a brilliant strategy it that is your thing.

4. Going along with this ratifies the Clinton/Obama policy of knocking over structures, leaving an utter disaster and humanitarian crisis followed by moral preening. The Libyan policy was unbelievably stupid, makes Bush look like a genius, and the Syrian policy was worse again in design and execution. Call me a meanie for not wanting to clean up your bloody mess and I will beat your head in.

On the positive side? The majority of these people are desperate. They need somewhere to go.

So stop the moral preening bullshit. Describe the really difficult choices, and the awful consequences that both decisions would bring about. There is no wonderful end to this story. If you think that way, I suggest you recluse yourself from the decisions.

Hippy endings are my favorite. See Mad Men.

"Going along with this ratifies the Clinton/Obama policy of knocking over structures."
Maybe we can say Assad is getting the Bomb and invade. We will be welcome as liberators... again. We are still trying to escape from below the rubbles of the last two structures we knocked over.

Name ONE time when American "liberated" a country and they were actually welcomed as liberators.

Taking out Gadaffi was about as stupid as taking out Saddam. He was a very, very bad man, but he managed to keep those on the mouth frothing extremes in line. I was in Mali when Gadaffi was taken out, and it was extraordinarily obvious to most people there that war would spread to Mali as a result (because of the militants who Gadaffi employed, and who would return to Mali once they were out of a job).

Italy '44.

I assume you won't accept France, Belgium etc...

Very fair point, although it was very much a joint effort. I lot of countries spilt a lot of blood to secure those liberations.

I should have specified post-WWII.

70K is too small a sample size. If it was in the millions or the hundreds of thousands, the sample size might be more representative.

Let's get another 70,000 then. It is a buyer's market, we can get as much as we want.

Tyler and Alex continually wave their open borders pom poms and get blown away in the comments section by a margin of four to one. I don't think any other issue is so one sided here and I 've been reading for years.

As someone with connections in Detroit, anecdotally, Middle East immigration in the area has worked out very well. Would like to get some numbers on it.

2/3 of Arab Americans are Christian. Less than 1/4 are Muslims.

Of those Muslims, many are secular professional class people.

I know plenty of Arab Anericans. They're great people.

However, the current subset of Arabs who live here are not a random sample. A massive refugee resettlement program would be a random subset. That is going to cause problems...

There are apparently a lot of immigrant success stories backing up that article from 2012. But the article also contains evidence that the US government failed to adequately screen these immigrants before letting them in:

“I know for sure there are some war criminals here,” Kundalic says, people “who have killed family members of people who live here.”

I'm sorry, but that's really bad.

If the US government wants immigration skeptics to gain confidence in its ability to actually manage and regulate immigrants, it would be helpful if it could demonstrate a higher rate of war criminal exclusion.

Maybe ICE can put up a sign in its headquarters: "23 days without admitting a murderer."

In other news, this LA Times article actually spins this kind of government agency incompetence as a happy success story:

There are a lot of war criminals in the US army as well.

But then again, that's why Bush refused to sign on to the International Criminal Court after Clinton was active in supporting the Court.

If there are war criminals in the US army, they should be brought to justice.

If there are war criminals from Bosnia living in the US, they too should be brought to justice. (But, IMHO, it would have been better to deny them the freedom to live in the US in the first place.)

If all the people incapable of maintaining a viable civil order are just going to end up in the West, then we need to bring back imperialism.

Or, we could stop toppling leaders we don't like, a major cause of instability in countries around the world.

40 CIA-instigated civil wars and military coups later .... and we wonder a) why there is instability and b) why some people hate America.

There was possibly one CIA-instigated coup in Guatamala. Even that is arguable. Elsewhere? Not so much. There isn't even any evidence that the CIA caused the Iranian coup against Mossadegh.

People don't mind coups. They are a natural feature of some cultures.

The only reason people hate the US is their own deep seated psychological problems. America has been an incredible boon to the world. The irrational roots of anti-Americanism can be seen in the fact the Left hates on the US, which has made the world richer, healthier and more populous than every before, and ignores the Soviet Union which armed trained and funded people to murder their way to power in virtually every country in the world.

About 40 instances, throughout Africa, Latin America and Middle East. Sorry that I'm too lazy to look up one of the more reliable lists, even though the lack of doing so undermines my point.

It is quite well known outside of America. If you really want to know, you can easily find it yourself, but I suspect you would rather not know.

Don't worry, when people over-emphasize the evils of America in the world, I am perfectly capable of taking on the other side of the argument (which you have made very poorly, and which I am also too lazy to make right now.)

Don't mind SMFS... he is just a troll here..

About 40 instances, throughout Africa, Latin America and Middle East. Sorry that I’m too lazy to look up one of the more reliable lists,

There are no such lists. There are nonsense lists published in loci like Harper's, some citing dubious characters like John Prados as sources.

Nathan W September 6, 2015 at 11:21 am

About 40 instances, throughout Africa, Latin America and Middle East. Sorry that I’m too lazy to look up one of the more reliable lists, even though the lack of doing so undermines my point.

Any idiot can draw up a list. The question is whether or not it is true. That is much harder to determine. From what we can see, the CIA was and is an incredibly incompetent organization that has not been able to organize more than a single coup. It claims otherwise. It's detractors claim otherwise. But the evidence is very weak.

Even in Iran it does not look like they played a significant role.

America's main effort has been to stop coups and they have been fairly good at that.

It is quite well known outside of America. If you really want to know, you can easily find it yourself, but I suspect you would rather not know.

It is quite well known that there is an alien ship at Roswell. I feel sorry for that sort of person.

Don’t worry, when people over-emphasize the evils of America in the world, I am perfectly capable of taking on the other side of the argument (which you have made very poorly, and which I am also too lazy to make right now.)

That should be amusing to see. No doubt it is important that you think this is true.

As I said, you clearly don't want to know.

You have already pre-denied any evidence I might come up with, so why should I bother?

I bet you really ate up Bush's line that "they hate us for our freedoms". Maybe they are tired with unwanted American interference in their domestic politics?

Instead of denying what is widely known, here ... I'll feed you your best defense: it was the Cold War and the numerous coups and civil wars instigated by the CIA were to prevent the evil communists from taking over the world.

You can live in your little bubble where America always does good and lovely things, and where evidence I could dredge up is proof of nothing but fabricated propaganda. I truly believe there is no point in trying to convince you.

Oh, and world surveys find that the USA is the greatest threat to world peace (this one is so easy to find that I will happily discredit myself by not even posting links to the survey). I attribute it to the personal experience of American interference, but you will conclude that they are brainwashed by anti-American propaganda.

If you really wanted to know, you could find out.

You don't WANT to know. That's your problem.

Have a nice day, head-in-sand bubble man.

Nathan W September 7, 2015 at 12:37 am

As I said, you clearly don’t want to know.

You can say it but that doesn't make it true. I have seen the evidence. You show no signs you have. You simply believe the same fashionable nonsense everyone else does.

Maybe they are tired with unwanted American interference in their domestic politics?

American, by and large, does not interfere in other people's domestic politics and where they do it is usually for the better. But then every country in the world meddles in each other's internal politics. They are just a lot more hypocritical about it. People don't hate the Soviet Union for meddling in everyone's domestic politics - people like you anyway. That alone proves your claim is untrue.

There simply were no coups instigated by the CIA. With the possible exception of Guatamala. Coups are part of the political culture in the Middle East and Latin America. They would have happened with or without America. Indeed they are usually more common without them.

You need to believe you cannot convince me because it excuses you from looking at your own prejudices. The fact is you have no evidence of anything. And that the US has provided the science, finance and conditions for a massive improvement in the condition of mankind - especially the poorest - is undeniable. Billions of people are alive today because of America.

Surveys are irrelevant.

I would be interested in a survey of people who read your comment.

I propose the following question:

"Is there any point in reasoning with this guy?"

You claim to have "seen the evidence", yet claim there is none (no evidence), and moreover pre-deny anything I might come up with.

There is no reasoning with this guy.

I even gave you the number one legitimate excuse for all those CIA-backed coups and civil wars (we were fighting Russian influence), yet you conclude that I am pro-Russian. THAT is how pointless it is to try to reason with you.

You don't want to know the truth.

You claim that the USA doesn't interfere, but then almost in the same breath say that everyone does it.

China's foreign policy of non-interference in the internal matters of foreign countries goes over fantastically well for precisely the reason that much of the world is more accustomed to dealing with the USA, which in every interaction abroad tries to tell countries how to run their business (especially when it disqualifies anyone who is insufficiently pro-American from participating in the political process).

There is a big difference between capacity building for analyzing the economy in order to improve the ability to make sound policy (this is very common of the USA in the last decade or so, and I applaud it very strongly, having been personally linked to some of these efforts - as a translator) compared to sending teams of American/IMF economists who tried to "teach" developing countries that the best strategy for development is to specialize in farming and resource extraction and NOT to try to industrialize.

Why don't we simply let them fix their own country?

They messed up let's have them come to ours and ruin it too! Great plan.

America ought to be for Americans, not for Syrians who don't care about us at all and just want free shit.

I have nothing but contempt for so called Americans who have more consideration and empathy for foreigners than they do for their own neighbors.

I think you are mixing up the groups.

The people who are in favour of accepting refugees are probably also very concerned about their neighbours.

I very much expect that the staunch anti-refugee camp isn't very concerned about their neighbours either.

Religious beliefs of Muslims of the eastern Mediterranean is quite different in some ways from eastern European beliefs and similar in others.
The recent polls published by PewResearchCenter on Muslim beliefs on Religion and Public Life show stark contrasts in their ethnic differences.
These beliefs do not mesh well with 21st century western culture.

While Pew researchers did not poll Syrians, they did poll Jordan and Iraq, two countries that Syria shares a majority of its border.

Regarding the role of women, 92% of Muslim Bosnians say women should decide if they wear a veil, while 55% and 55% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.
Fifty five percent of of Muslim Bosnians say a wife must always obey her husband, while 80% and 92% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.
Ninety four percent of Muslim Bosnians say a wife should have the right to divorce her husband, while 22% and 14% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.

Regarding morality, only 4% of Muslim Bosnians say polygamy is morally acceptable while 41% and 46% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.
Five percent of Muslim Bosnians say homosexuality is moral while 2% and 1% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.
Twenty one percent of Muslim Bosnian men say honor killing is justified while 11% and 67% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.

Regarding religion and politics, 51% of Muslim Bosnians prefer a strong leader over democracy, while 41% and 54% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.
Five percent of Muslim Bosnians say religious leaders should have a large influence on public life, while 37% and 24% of Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.
Three percent of Muslim Bosnians say suicide bombing is justified, while 15% and 7% Muslim Jordanians and Iraqis do.

However, the belief that may have the greatest affect on behavior of refugees fleeing toward Europe today is that religion is central to the identity of European Muslims with majorities of western European Muslims considering themselves Muslims first and foremost.

Thank you. It`s really too bad, especially given the very specific interest in Syria, that the poll did not include Syria. It still leaves the question quite open, but very clearly makes the point that one group of Muslims is not the same as another.

70k isn't going to get it done in this situation.


If they're going to resettle refugees can they at least have enough sense not to resettle them next to African-Americans?

"Selihovic, a Bosniak who lost her father in the war when she was 7, recalls having seen only one black man prior to spending her first year in St. Louis attending Roosevelt High, a predominantly African-American public school. It’s a year she describes as the worst experience she’s had here. The first day was “shock after shock,” she says, starting with the metal detectors at the door, and ending with a stolen purse. "- See more at:!/content/24077/bosnia_anniversary_040612

Everything is very open with a precise description of the issues.
It was definitely informative. Your site is extremely helpful.

Many thanks for sharing!

I am student still but proud to say I am earning really well. Trading is the best thing that ever happened to me. If you are interested in how I do it, google Superior Trading System to find out.

Comments for this post are closed