Forum menu
Turkish media identified the boy as three-year-old Aylan Kurdi and reported that his five-year-old brother had also met a similar death. Both had reportedly hailed from the northern Syrian town of Kobani, the site of fierce fighting between Islamic state insurgents and Kurdish forces earlier this year.
It's worth remembering that when the "Islamic state insurgents" were operating solely in Syria the UK government did not classify them as terrorists, it was only when they started operating in Iraq, and therefore against UK/Western interests, that Theresa May decided to classify them as terrorists.
We bear some of the responsibility for the situation in Syria today, we now bear some of the responsibility for helping to deal with the appalling consequences of ISIS's rise.
I've been trying to avoid seeing that picture all day. Not your fault richmtb, it was inevitable I'd see it eventually, and in a small way which I'm not yet appreciating, I'm glad I did. Now I have, I don't think I'll ever forget it.
I wonder how different the situation might be if the bodies of young refugee children were washing up on UK shores.
The images today brought me back to this thread having previously decided It would be best left to lie.
I previously used the word [b]naive[/b] to describe Germany's announcement it would accept ALL Syrians as refugees. It's not a limit or matter of 800,000 or 1,000,000 it's a commitment without limit. To do so with no provison or mechanism to facilitate their journey is wholly irresponsible. Their announcement creates a huge draw. They should be providing flights to Germany direct from Turkey. They should be providing trains and travel VISAs to all Syrians currently in Europe Having failed to do so they bear responsibility for Syrians desperate attempts to reach Germany via illegal and deadly means.
In support of a comment made above Turkey is a safe country and has been a safe home for 1.5 million refugees. It is a legitimate question to ask of Turkey is doing enough to prevent people setting off from its shores to the close lying Greek Islands in particular as Germany has said it will take all Syrians. It is legitimate to ask who is providing and/or selling boats.
On a somewhat related point of the 2000 migrants who arrived in Munich by train from Hungary 25% where placed in a special camp as they have no chance of being granted asylum or refugee status based upon their nationality.
jambalaya - MemberI previously used the word naive to describe Germany's announcement it would accept ALL Syrians as refugees.
Naive? And you say it as if it's something remarkable. All Germany has said is that any Syrian refugees fleeing war will be allowed to apply for asylum, there's nothing remarkable about that - it's the behaviour that you would from a civilized country. Do you propose that there is an alternative to that........that you can turn away people fleeing war?
And just to put a perspective on the situation, you talk about Turkey and although it has 1.8 million Syrian refugees, Lebanon which has a population of just 4 million, has 1 million Syrian refugees - 1 in 5 people in Lebanon are Syrian refugees, do you expect Lebanon to take another million refugees?
Instead of talking about being "naive" and "wholly irresponsible" you need to perhaps look at humanitarian obligations.
Although considering your views on the Palestinians I guess that's probably a tall order in your case.
richmtb - Member
Look at the bleeding heart lefty handwringers on here spouting **** bullshit, these people are the enemy and will change your country forever.The "Enemy" earlier
Attitudes like yours are a disgrace to simple decency
I know at some point someone is going to post a dreadful picture coz up until now there are only pictures of adults in the media ... not shocking enough.
Yes, it's shocking and yes it is sad but ask yourself these questions.
Who put the child's life in danger (the picture)? Other people or the parents? Did I/we force the parents to climb on the boat to risk the children's lives?
No doubt you will label me as lowest of the low but in other part of the world children are deliberately crippled (leg/hand amputated, some all four limbs and some blinded) so they can beg for money. Yes, they may still be alive but their condition is akin to a living dead. It would be better off if they died than to endure a life of suffering.
I feel sorry for the innocence child in that photo but with that sort of parents risking the innocence child's life, you don't need outsiders or others to create hardship and suffering. They are already capable of doing that themselves and your short term solution will merely create more troubles for all. i.e. now that they have found your soft spot it is time to push it home hard ...
Queue, get process or jump the queue and take the risk of dying. Their choice.
🙄
Did I/we force the parents to climb on the boat to risk the children's lives?
yes. we did both by bombing syria and also by arming the conflict. we enjoy this affluent society that is funded in part through the arms trade. so stop thinking like a zombie maggot
Some interesting thoughts from our retiring ambassador in Lebanon - [url= http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/tomfletcher/2015/03/12/tolerating-the-intolerable-syria-four-years-on/ ]here[/url]
Listening to Andrew Mitchell on Five Live this morning justifying the governments decision to continue to refuse to take any of the refugees was absolutely shameful.
I thought I was listening to the wrong programme, and it was 'Defend the Indefensible' on Fighting Talk on a Saturday morning.
We've sent the countries around the region, that the Syrian refugees are feeing into, some tents and blankets. So we've more than done our bit. And we shouldn't let anyone suggest that Germany offering to take a million refugees means that they're doing any more than us. Not a bit of it. A sort of big, happy episode of Carry on Camping, with British Tents and blankets, on the Turkish border is a perfectly adequate response from us.
Now for gods sake will you stop posting up those pictures of dead kids. I'm trying to eat my breakfast
a shitty government for a shitty little country.
Let's put into perspective how much we have given. We have given £800 million. I can't find recent figures for how much Germany has given but when we had given £600 million at the end of January this year, they had given £200. To be honest, the Germans were relatively generous, France had given only £30 million.
You can question whether this was the right strategy, but you can't say we have done nothing in comparison to our European neighbours.
Cameron looked so ashamed he could barely look at the camera as he gave his interview yesterday, explaining that taking in fefugees wouldn't help that it was fixing the problems in Syria etc. It's almost as if his spine had literally slid out of his arsehole on his limo ride over, and that was before the picture of the drowned child came out
Mitchell looked slightly more self assured on newsnight
As for how much we've donated, how does that compare to the profit we made selling Assad the helicopters he uses to drop barrel bombs on markets, or the money we made whilst Cameron was touring the middle East with UK arms dealers selling weapons as the Arab Spring started?
@ Jam Blaming Germany
Face Palm
People were dying trying to get to the EU before Germany made this announcement. If they say they wont accept any do you think all of this will cease?
To try to blame them, with such a ludicrously false argument, is , even by your standards, somewhat flawed.
you can't say we have done nothing in comparison to our European neighbours.
Why do we always have to measure everything in terms of money rather than actual help, decency, compassion and outcome?
We paid some money to try to stop them turning up on our doorstep asking for help.
It has not worked and we now see dead children in the sea
What do you want to do now?
And we shouldn't let anyone suggest that Germany offering to take a million refugees means that they're doing any more than us. Not a bit of it
Germany are just recognising reality. Unlike the UK they don't have border controls. Hence migrsnts are taking dangerous sea crossings and then going through other safe countries to reach there.
Unlike the UK Germany is facing a declining population and may benefit from increased immigration.
As for how much we've donated, how does that compare to the profit we made selling Assad the helicopters he uses to drop barrel bombs on markets,
Really. The Syrian airforce operates Russian French and Polish helicopters according to wikipaedia. A captured Syrian pilot says it's the Russian ones dropping barrel bombs. Maybe the Russians should take some miigrants?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Arab_Air_Force#Pre_Syrian_civil_war_aircraft_inventory
http://www.janes.com/article/52910/syrian-pilot-details-helicopter-operations
im sure i read that we had supplied helicopters to syria
certainly we sold plenty of arms to assad when we liked him
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/17/uk-britain-arms-exports-idUKBRE96G0Q620130717
Parts for bullet-proof vehicles and underwater listening devices were approved for export to Syria
o Syria for body armor, military helmets and cryptographic software.
http://www.rt.com/uk/243085-uk-arms-human-rights/
weve certainly helped flood the region with weapons and the russian state miltary exporter Rosboronexport, is still invited to ExCel every year for our famous arms fair
[img] 
[/img]
apparently were selling components to russia for the helicopters http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/arms-export-licences-russia-pm-embargo-report
Really. The Syrian airforce operates Russian French and Polish helicopters according to wikipaedia. A captured Syrian pilot says it's the Russian ones dropping barrel bombs. Maybe the Russians should take some miigrants?
No you're right - we only sold them the chemical weapons they have used against the civilian population, and armed the rebels (that turned into/turned out to be ISIS).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28212724
Oh, and sold military equipment to Russia and Iran that they then sold on to Assad. Oh and actually we still had contracts to directly supply Assad until very recently.
But other than that - great point - no blood on our hands at all.
JY Germany should have announced a complete plan including transport
It has emerged today that the Syrian family had applied to Canada as refugees and had been sponsored by a Canadian family (a "G5" application). This was rejected as the UN does not classify Syrian Kurds as refugees and the Turks will not give exit visas.
This crises is creating huge divisions in Europe and laid bare the EUs inability to manage the situation. The Austrians have made it clear they will not check people's papers. The Hungarians have said Europe's Christian roots are under threat and they will not allow their country to become a Caliphate. The Slovakians (a coup,e of weeks ago) said they will not take any Muslims as there are no Mosques in Slovakia. I don't support either of these statements, I repeat them to show the stresses being created.
On the channel 4 Labour leaders debate there where many words about doing more but oine would commit to a total figure of refugees despite being pressed repeatedly. For all the words here on STW Labour politicians are well aware that making such commitments do not play well with the electorate. Corbyn was repeatedly asked and had no number, not even a range
as they were fleeing to Canada and turkey wont give exit visas [ you need a passport] who could disagree that the lack of travel plans by the Germans caused this
Again your logic is a delight to see.
Evidence for the UN Position on Syrian Kurds please
Something credible from the UN not a paper or something you saw from your car
Labour politicians are well aware that making such commitments do not play well with the electorate. Corbyn was repeatedly asked and had no number, not even a range
Yvette Cooper floated a figure of 10,000 yesterday. A trifling, inconsequential amount compared to Germany's 800,000+, but a big improvement on the figure of none presently favoured by Dave and chums.
It seems that the UKIP-isation of UK politics has reached the point that even expressing the wish to help traumatised refugees, and stop small children drowning in the sea, is regarded as unsayable, as it doesn't fit with the bigotted Little Englander narrative dictated by Nige.
Have we ever been ruled by such political pygmies? From both sides of the political debate. When they won't stand up, and even try and make a case for common decency, and our moral obligation towards these people, for fear of tomorrows hysterical Daily Mail headlines
Pathetic!
For all the words here on STW Labour politicians are well aware that making such commitments do not play well with the electorate.
Is the UK electorate fundamentally different to the German electorate in that respect then?
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11824695/Violence-against-refugee-centres-in-Germany-increases-with-two-new-attacks.html ]Violence against refugee centres in Germany increases with two new attacks[/url]
Sometimes the views and opinions of bigots, including islamophobic zionists like you, should to be ignored.
weve certainly helped flood the region with weapons
I'm happy with that. If we didn't sell them military equipment it wouldn't turn the Middle East into an earthly paradise. They would buy elsewhere.
If foreign arms sale help fund our defence industry that's fine by me. It supports British jobs and retains expertise.
... 😯
Is the UK electorate fundamentally different to the German electorate in that respect then?
Yes, they haven't got an EU membership referendum looming 😆
Why do we always have to measure everything in terms of money rather than actual help, decency, compassion and outcome?
Because it is an exceedingly good indication that we have not been sitting on our hands doing nothing as suggested by many on here and elsewhere.
What do you want to do now?
If there was an easy answer we wouldn't have a problem, I don't really know. However, what I do know is that it is entirely unfair to suggest we have done nothing and I posted mainly to refute that.
I would also add while Germany's position is, on the face of it, noble, it is also fits in with their needs. First, they have a declining population so to maintain their present system they need to increase their workforce. Second, they have a political desire to maintain Schengen on which this crisis is putting significant pressure. This is not a criticism, it just makes the action they are taking easier - I am not convinced it is the best course as there are arguments that it creates pull factors. On the other hand, I imagine life in the camps is sufficiently awful that the grass doesn't need to be that green elsewhere to leave. As I said, really difficult and I really don't know.
I don't know why you think your completely irrelevant comment is funny ninfan, Germany will be facing plenty of elections in the future in which the electorate will have their say.
Still, I'm sure you've probably got your reason. Even though you regularly appear to laugh inanely at bizarre things.
I don't support either of these statements
Sure you don't.
I think a lot of people's concerns (and rightly too) are that mixed up with the genuine refugees, there are a whole hoard of people who are tagging along simply because they fancy a better life in a more prosperous country. Some of the young men being interviewed at the Calais camp unfortunately appeared to be firmly in the latter group. But how to tell the difference, that's the hard part?
Also what do we do with the refugees when they get to the UK? Should we house them in big tented camps or ex military facilities and keep them there until it's safe to return? Should they be distributed among families willing to put them up but also run the risk that when it's time for them to return home, they simply vanish into the UK's illegal immigrant population?
Or should the UK be funding and building safe camps (with schools, medical facilities etc) protected by military peacekeepers in Syria or surrounding countries to guarantee the safety of citizens within their country of origin? Might be a good and ethical way to use our military for once?
We have to help in some way, don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, it's just whats the best way to help for both the benefit of the refugees but also the rest of us who actually live in the UK?
Just to add, there's a lot of people on here (plus Facebook etc) saying and writing (probably from a comfy sofa whilst drinking a latte) how terrible this crisis is and that we should take action, but would anyone on here themselves actually be willing to open their doors to hosting a Syrian refugee family in their own house for an extended period, say 2-3 years?
well theres 250 bedrooms in buckingham palace...
I think a lot of people's concerns (and rightly too) are that mixed up with the genuine refugees, there are a whole hoard of people who are tagging along simply because they fancy a better life in a more prosperous country. Some of the young men being interviewed at the Calais camp unfortunately appeared to be firmly in the latter group. But how to tell the difference, that's the hard part?
So in order to stop a few or even a lot of economic migrants are you willing to let countless genuine refugees die/suffer? That's the policy we are pursuing at the moment.
Just to add, there's a lot of people on here (plus Facebook etc) saying and writing (probably from a comfy sofa whilst drinking a latte) how terrible this crisis is and that we should take action, but would anyone on here themselves actually be willing to open their doors to hosting a Syrian refugee family in their own house for an extended period, say 2-3 years?
Several of us on here have already said that we would. I'm looking into organisations that can help facilitate this. So there's that attempt at justifying your own lack of compassion out the window.
And there's what was it, 600,000 empty properties in this country (but also a 'housing crisis')?
We have to help in some way, don't think anyone is disagreeing with that
I'm pretty sure they are.
I'm happy with that. If we didn't sell them military equipment it wouldn't turn the Middle East into an earthly paradise. They would buy elsewhere.If foreign arms sale help fund our defence industry that's fine by me. It supports British jobs and retains expertise.
You're happy that British companies supplied the ingredients to make the Sarin being used against civilians in Syria. Wow. And to think people say that right-wingers lack compassion eh?
Because it is an exceedingly good indication that we have not been sitting on our hands doing nothing as suggested by many on here and elsewhere.
I think folk have suggested we have not done enough. The fact we paid some money doe snot disprove this as we may need to measure the outcome in something like say less dead babies in the sea.
Several of us on here have already said that we would. I'm looking into organisations that can help facilitate this. So there's that attempt at justifying your own lack of compassion out the window.
Good on you, don't think I would to be honest (apart from the fact we don't have a big house with a spare room). Which organizations have you approached and how have you got on - is this possible?
And there's what was it, 600,000 empty properties in this country (but also a 'housing crisis')?
This is all well and good and I'd be more than happy to see empty housing stock brought back into use, but what would you say to all those UK families who are currently in temporary B and B accommodation who've been on the housing lists for years waiting for an available social house to become free?
@agent007 - Member
"Just to add, there's a lot of people on here (plus Facebook etc) saying and writing (probably from a comfy sofa whilst drinking a latte) how terrible this crisis is and that we should take action, but would anyone on here themselves actually be willing to open their doors to hosting a Syrian refugee family in their own house for an extended period, say 2-3 years? "
This really is completely spurious, I could equally claim that there are many folk on here who support the UK's current policy on refugees who claim to be distressed by the death toll, but it would be wrong to help those in need as it would not end the conflict that caused many of the refugees to leave their homes in the first place. Utterly ridiculous and callous
There are many people concerned about crime
None of them are dressing up in customers and patrolling the streets at night catching criminals
People can support wars without having to join the army
I can support the NHS and think we should do more without having to go and perform operations on folk in my spare time
FWIW I would gladly house some and I am sure some other people would be willing to do this as well
No doubt you will label me as lowest of the low
Nah, you were pretty much already there from my point of view. Still, you've got your nice safe job in a nice safe country, why should you give a **** about anyone else?
I don't want to go over old ground and regurgitate what has already been said, but one thought has been toiling in my mind.
Many of the images I have seen have contained people holding babies and extremely young children, why on earth are they reproducing in a place they don't deem safe enough for themselves to live in?
This in no way is related to my view on what we should be doing as a nation regarding the overall issue.
why on earth are they reproducing in a place they don't deem safe enough for themselves to live in?
Have a word with your mum and dad about it. In the meantime I hope this helps....
why on earth are they reproducing in a place they don't deem safe enough for themselves to live in?
Lack of education of women, lack of healthcare, lack of contraception, lack of knowledge about conception [or false information]..... oh and lack of social provisions such as pensions and other Social Securities.
You know, the usual stuff.
What gofasterstripes said +
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9296135/Syria-using-rape-as-weapon-against-opposition-women-and-men.html
and why might people want to move on from "safe" countries http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/26/syria-women-rape_n_4166185.html
You're happy that Britsh companies supplied the ingredients to make the Sarin being used against civilians in Syria. Wow. And to think people say that right-wingers lack compassion eh?
It's possible to sell arms while setting limits on what is sold. Right wingers? It was Lasbour in govt when Syria bought the chemicals.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/17/sarin-deadly-history-nerve-agent-syria-un
The Conservative govt wanted to take action against Assad because of the chemical weapons threat. Labour wouldn't support them.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/30/cameron-mps-syria
It's possible to sell arms while setting limits on what is sold. Right wingers? It was Lasbour in govt when Syria bought the chemicals.
'Britain sold chemicals and components to Syria that ended up being used in the manufacture of the deadly nerve agent sarin, BBC Newsnight can reveal.
[b]A leaked Foreign Office document says they were supplied in the mid-1980s.[/b]
Foreign Secretary William Hague said UK firms provided the materials and that Syria has admitted they played a role in its chemical weapons programme.'
Irrelevant whataboutery anyway, I wasn't talking about the actions of our government, which under both parties has been disgraceful. The point is that you are perfectly comfortable with us 'flooding the region with arms' including chemical weapons as long as the money keeps flowing into UK coffers. Typical right-wing attitude of money over morals. The new tactic we've seen here of actually slagging others off for not being as amoral as them is particularly galling.
As I already pointed out we were also still suppling military equipment to the Syrian regime recently even while discussing arming the rebels/ISIS, and still selling military equipment to Iran and Russia knowing it would probably be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes including supply to the Syrian regime. But I'm sure you're perfectly comfortable with all this, and don't see how we possibly have any responsibility to the Syrian people.
George Osborne* has said he is "very distressed" at the images of dead children washed up on beaches. But not distressed enough to do anything about it. Its all the fault of ISIS apparently. Which we of course had nothing to do with establishing in the region.
* have you noticed he's getting in plenty of practice at being Dave? Where is Dave, anyway?
The point is that you are perfectly comfortable with us 'flooding the region with arms' including chemical weapons
Did he mention chemical weapons ?
Did he mention chemical weapons ?
Well after I pointed out that we had supplied chemical weapons to the Syrian regime he said 'If foreign arms sale help fund our defence industry that's fine by me. It supports British jobs and retains expertise.'
If he's really outraged by it he has a funny way of showing it.
Chemical weapons or no - anyone who supports the idea that we should be arming both sides in a unimaginably brutal civil war is frankly a despicable person (most polite way I can come up with for saying that).
I'm sorry to bring party politics into this but I do think the Tory party are really showing their true colours here. Yet another thing for Tory voters to be proud of.
The Labour leadership front-runner said Britain was being "shamed by our European neighbours" by refusing to take in more than just a few hundred Syrian refugees and said we were failing in our duty under international law and "as human beings" to offer those fleeing conflict a place of safety....
Britain has granted asylum to less than 300 Syrian refugees since the start of 2014 - an embarrassing number compared to Germany, where up to 800,000 refugees are expected to be registered this year alone.
Jeremy Corbyn accused David Cameron of being 'shamed' by his European counterparts over his refusal to accept more than just a few hundred Syrian refugees into the UK Jeremy Corbyn accused David Cameron of being 'shamed' by his European counterparts over his refusal to accept more than just a few hundred Syrian refugees into the UK Even smaller nations such as Norway, Sweden, Ireland and Finland have offered more places to Syrians fleeing their war-ravaged country than Britain has.
vs
“I don’t think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees.”
By more and more presumably he means more than 300.