quote:

A 92-year-old armed forces veteran has offered up his spare room to house Syrian refugees after being moved by the plight of families fleeing war and persecution.

John Spicer said the images that emerged last week of Aylan Kurdi washed up on a beach in Turkey brought back difficult memories from his own past trying to help dying refugees in the Middle East.

He and his son Frank have registered with an online scheme to put up a refugee family in their three-bed house in Thanet, Kent.

Now he hopes his gesture may “inspire other people” to do the same.

Speaking exclusively to The Independent, Frank Spicer said he asked his father about it yesterday and that he was now “in the spare room – he’s started sorting it out already”.

John was in the reserves at the end of the Second World War but did not get the chance to fight, while his brothers and friends all did. Out of “embarrassment” he signed up as soon as the war finished – and was stationed in what was then British-administrated Palestine.

“Funnily enough, he was helping refugees at that time too,” Frank said.

“The horrible thing was that this same situation with drowning refugees was going on then.

“They had the Arabs attacking on one side because part of their land was being taken away, and on the other side they were so overwhelmed with Jewish refugees that they couldn’t let them all in.

“People were drowning in the sea just as they are now. They were picking up bodies off the beach there too.”

I just showed my Dad this picture of him and told him that he is getting a wee bit famous.He really doesn't understand...

Frank said his father was “a really humble, lovely man” who, when asked if they could take in a refugee family, said: “Yes, of course, that’s a good idea.”

After signing up to the Homes for Syrians website, Frank posted an image of John dressed up with his medals for last year’s Remembrance Day service on a Facebook group in support of refugees in Calais.

The image of his father struck a chord on the group – “went a little bit viral”, as he put it, and he said that’s a good thing.

“We’d like it to inspire other people. We want them to think that if a man of that age can bend over backwards to help people out, then why can’t they?”

quote:

Richard Moore, who set up the Homes for Syrians website, said John was quickly becoming the "poster boy" for his campaign.

He told The Independent he set up the website after seeing the sheer number of Syrian refugees on a visit to the Greek islands, at which point "the scale of the problem struck me".

"The site has only been live for a couple of days but so far, the response has been amazingly positive and makes me proud to be British. It's all a little overwhelming to be honest."

Mr Moore said he hoped evidence of a resource of free accomodation for Syrian refugees would encourage the Government to let more in, and said: "People want to help and many can afford to do so. Let them."

Homes for Syrians is one of a number of popular initiatives set up in recent days to provide support to refugees and put pressure on the Government to do more to help.

CommieGIR posted:

Gotta let em die, its too financially difficult. *cocks shotgun* Sorry son.

MaxxBot posted:

In your opinion is the only proper interpretation of that phrase to allow completely unlimited immigration into the US?

Canine Blues Arooo posted:

Between this 'argument' and the 'Borders dont exist/matter mannnnnnn', It hurts to read this thread.

Financial resources exist. Borders exists and they matter, whether or not they should. The world should be fair, but it isn't. Do you want to talk about developments, realistic solutions, and the costs, problems, and benefits of those solutions, or do you want live in the ponyverse where everyone gets along and every story ends with friendship?

Baron Porkface posted:

If a Syrian voilinist needs to be surgically attached to an Aryan woman is the Aryan obliged to provide him 9 months?

Volkerball posted:

Some extra details about Homes for Syrians, which seems to be an AirBNB for refugees seeking housing in the UK.


The Independent also has a fantastic article compiling a lot of different ways that you can get involved.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/5-practical-ways-you-can-help-refugees-trying-to-find-safety-in-europe-10482902.html

Volkerball posted:

MaxxBot posted:

So do you think that first world countries are obligated to just open their borders up and allow hundreds of millions of desperately poor people to flow in?

Humans Among Us posted:

Can someone be so kind to explain this because i read it elsewhere in a 'more you know' kind of magazine too, but i had a hangover and didn't really get it at that time, or maybe i forgot.

Arglebargle III posted:

I, too, believe that groups celebrated by society share my views.

quote:

So do you think that first world countries are obligated to just open their borders up and allow hundreds of millions of desperately poor people to flow in?

SedanChair posted:

Yes, without exception.

Canine Blues Arooo posted:

Financial resources exist. Borders exists and they matter, whether or not they should. The world should be fair, but it isn't. Do you want to talk about developments, realistic solutions, and the costs, problems, and benefits of those solutions, or do you want live in the ponyverse where everyone gets along and every story ends with friendship?

Saros posted:

So... what? USA admitted 70,000 refugee's in 2014. Germany alone is set to take in 12x as many to a country not even 1/5 as populous.

Arglebargle III posted:

This is a nice explanation of Iran, but how would you explain the failure of the secular Pan-Arab autocracies/limited democracies to deliver prosperity or real democracy? I'm just asking because you stated the case so well here.

Saros posted:

Possibly both!

Dilkington posted:

Also, secular nationalism is not a panacea. All WANA modernizers have to contend with political Islam. Most have chosen wrongly to suppress or control it. This worked for Kemal and Nasser, barely. But eventually the things you suppress will rebound on you, and you are forced to bow to it, and attempt to direct it outward (Ghaddafi, KSA). If you don't manage to do either both those things you will lose your country (Sadat, Pahlavi).

MaxxBot posted:

In your opinion is the only proper interpretation of that phrase to allow completely unlimited immigration into the US?

gradenko_2000 posted:

No, the proper interpretation of that phrase is that tired people, poor people, and people yearning to breathe free should be allowed to immigrate into the US.

PerpetualSelf posted:

Do you believe in overpopulation?

PerpetualSelf posted:

Do you believe in overpopulation?

PerpetualSelf posted:

Do you believe in overpopulation?

PerpetualSelf posted:

Do you believe in overpopulation?

CommieGIR posted:

Its one or the other: Either you keep complaining about the financial hardship and accept that rejecting refugees will most likely result in preventable deaths, or you bite the bullet, save some lives, and in the end probably make it out okay financially.

Tesseraction posted:

I admit I've lapsed on my history of GA Nasser's premiership, but was his method to suppress/control religion or merely to focus on Pan-Arabism as a shared 'brotherhood of man' - which makes sense in the context of the Ummah. I don't think he was being manipulative in this regard...

amuayse posted:

I think it's better to save Syria than to just bring in their refugees and do nothing about their home country

murphyslaw posted:

It's a good thing, then, that we're trying to do both. European (and other) countries are sending money and personnel to areas affected by the crisis. It just isn't enough to focus just on that, so we also have to accept refugees coming in to put the pressure off of resources in the region.

gradenko_2000 posted:

No, the proper interpretation of that phrase is that tired people, poor people, and people yearning to breathe free should be allowed to immigrate into the US.

Dilkington posted:

Nasser's government imprisoned ulema, outlawed religious courts, and put Al-Azhar under state control- that's what I mean when I say he chose to "suppress or control" religion.

Regarding the ummah: an Islamist critique of Pan-Arabism would point out that it's ethnocentric and so it gives preference to Arab heretics (Shia, Alawites) over Muslim non-Arabs (Kurds, Turks), i.e. the secular ethno-state over the ummah.

Ernie Muppari posted:

really there just isn't nearly enough foreign intervention in the world today

SedanChair posted:

Do you believe that children can be considered "over" or "surplus" population when they are standing on one part of the Earth, but not when they are standing on a different part?

MaxxBot posted:

That could describe billions of people though. I just find it funny that a bunch of people who all want a high living wage, GMI, generous social safety nets, etc also are ok with bringing in massive quantities of very poor people. Those two things are simply not compatible.

MaxxBot posted:

That could describe billions of people though. I just find it funny that a bunch of people who all want a high living wage, GMI, generous social safety nets, etc also are ok with bringing in massive quantities of very poor people. Those two things are simply not compatible.

Zodium posted:

Of course. For example, if there are more people in an area than that area can feed, for whatever reason, then there is a surplus population, and we should move that surplus population (or facilitate/allow them to move autonomously) to somewhere with more resources, especially children.

Bedshaped posted:

I can buy fresh produce and stuff from as far away as Israel while living in almost the furthest tip of Europe (Ireland). This isn't the 19th century; if you increase the demand, the supply will increase.