Chinese Netizens React To Drowned Syrian Refugee Family

Chinese Netizens React To Drowned Syrian Refugee Family
The ship of a family of Syrian refugees sank and drowned them all while illegally crossing country borders. A boy, his brother, and his mother have unfortunately perished leaving only the father alive. His body has washed up on a Turkish beach and has been brought back to his home country to be buried. This event has brought national attention to the refugee issue, as society is astonished. This year can be rated as Europe’s worst catastrophe after World War 2. Many Chinese people have said to this that it is all America’s fault.

Source: qq

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Andy Mc Crab

    Many Chinese people have said to this that it is all America’s fault.

    ??? translations available for any of those comments? Does not surprise me though

    • Alex Dương

      Depends on what their reasoning is. Do you think ISIS would exist if there were no War in Iraq?

      • Andy Mc Crab

        Fair point. That it is but i was expecting the old foreign devil. Even though the article is going on about national attention to the issue and they are astonished.
        We all know they dont give 2 hoots about brown people.

        Edit to say by brown people i mean people who are of a colour but not Chinese version of brown. If you get my drift.

        • Alex Dương

          It’d be nice to see what they said, I agree.

          • Andy Mc Crab

            I would ask my other half to find out but she is watching some reality singing baba TV crap voice of China. More chance of getting blood out of a stone.

      • Jahar

        It wouldn’t exist if not for Mohammad either. Or if people weren’t greedy and power hungry.

        • Alex Dương

          Well, Muhammad did exist. People can be greedy and power hungry. But the War in Iraq didn’t have to happen.

          • Jahar

            I didn’t say he didn’t. I said ISIS wouldn’t exist. Blaming the person/people who helped create the conditions for people to have the opportunity to do something wrong is ridiculous.

          • Alex Dương

            Blaming the person/people who helped create the conditions for people to have the opportunity to do something wrong is ridiculous.

            So then it’s ridiculous to blame Muhammad for ISIS. Great. How does this relate to my initial question?

          • Jahar

            No, i don’t think it would exist if it weren’t for the war in Iraq. I also don’t think it would exist if it weren’t for Mohammad. You are blaming the person/people who helped create the conditions for people to have the opportunity to do something wrong. This is the connection. Unless your original question was a genuine inquiry and not rhetorical.

          • Alex Dương

            So, you think ISIS would not exist had there been no War in Iraq, but you also think it’s ridiculous to blame the War in Iraq for the creation of ISIS?

          • Jahar

            Yeah. Just like it would be ridiculous blame Mohammad. Or the soldier who didn’t kill hitler in ww1 being blamed for ww2.

          • Alex Dương

            If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, then if the universe never existed, we wouldn’t have any problems. It’s a true statement, and it’s also a completely meaningless statement.

          • Jahar

            No, that’s the opposite of my argument.

          • Alex Dương

            Doesn’t seem like it to me. If you want to go all the way back to the 7th Century AD to blame Muhammad for ISIS, why stop there? Why not go further back in time to the creation of the universe?

          • Jahar

            I said it’s ridiculous to do that. Does saying something is ridiculous usually mean you agree with it? Jesus.

          • Alex Dương

            Usually not. In your case, however, I asked you

            you think ISIS would not exist had there been no War in Iraq, but you also think it’s ridiculous to blame the War in Iraq for the creation of ISIS?

            and you said, quote, “Yeah.”

          • Jahar

            ISIS would not exist if not for the iraq war.
            It would not exist if not for Mohammad. If not for his mother. Evolution. Gravity. Oxygen.
            But I think it’s RIDICULOUS(meaning I think It would be stupid and I dont agree) to blame these things.

          • Alex Dương

            See, you say “ISIS would not exist if not for the iraq war.” Your words. Then you also say “it’s RIDICULOUS to blame these things.” So yes, while “saying something is ridiculous usually doesn’t mean you agree with it,” here you clearly do.

          • Jahar

            jesus man. are you gonna say there’s no connection? Placing blame is an entirely different thing than saying something was a part of creating a situation.

            Again and again I said the Iraq war contributed to the formation of ISIS, perhaps to the point that without it it wouldn’t have formed, I DO NOT BLAME THE IRAQ WAR.

            I wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for my mom. So is she to blame for what I do? no. Are you gonna argue this too? Am I blaming her for my actions? It’s the exact same logic.

          • Alex Dương

            I really didn’t want to say this, but since you gave the example, of course you’re ultimately responsible for your actions. But it doesn’t end there. Your mother didn’t just give birth to you; she helped raise you too. So yes, she is partially responsible for what you do insofar as the lessons she taught you growing up influence your actions.

            I agree that it’s ridiculous to blame Muhammad for ISIS. I disagree that it’s ridiculous to blame the War in Iraq for ISIS. To me, these aren’t the same argument. Saying your mother is partially responsible for your actions because she raised you is not the same thing as saying that if there were no universe, you wouldn’t exist, thus you wouldn’t perform any actions.

          • Jahar

            And of course the Iraq war has had a more direct effect on ISIS than Mohammad. But the only person I’m gonna blame a murder on are the people who conspired to make it happen. And the only people I’m gonna blame for what ISIS does are the people in the organization.

          • Alex Dương

            I think we agree on the basic issue; some things have more direct effects than others. We disagree on how blame is allocated, but I’m happy to agree to disagree on that.

          • David

            Isis is simply a manifestation of the problems in the Middle East. Even without the war in Iraq the problems would (and did) exist (it is like blaming Israeli for the killings at the Munich Olympics). You have no way of knowing if these same terrorists that make up ISIS would simply be AQ (which did exist before the war) or a different organization. The war was also responsible for the tossing of dictators in Libya, Iraq and Egypt (that dictator we actually liked). To say the U.S. is responsible for Isis is not logical. Where is the connection? Where is the link? You are missing a few steps in the jump from one to the other. Those steps were filled in by people who chose to do this to each other.

          • Alex Dương

            You have no way of knowing if these same terrorists that make up ISIS would simply be AQ (which did exist before the war) or a different organization.

            Let’s say they would be part of AQ instead. Saddam Hussein had zero ties to AQ. AQ never controlled and still doesn’t control the amount of territory that ISIS controls. If this is your counterfactual, that seems vastly preferable to what we have now.

            But let’s say that ISIS would try to emerge in its current form even if there were no Iraq War. Then they’d have to fight against a Husseini Iraqi Army. That would be none of our concern. Again, preferable to what we have now.

            The war was also responsible for the tossing of dictators in Libya, Iraq and Egypt (that dictator we actually liked). To say the U.S. is responsible for Isis is not logical.

            Hold on. You concede that the Iraq War was responsible for deposing Gaddafi and Mubarak. Yet, you say it is absolutely illogical to argue that it was responsible for ISIS. What makes the former so much more logically reasoned than the latter?

          • David

            To say a war ‘didn’t have to happen’ is absurd. Not only were you not privileged to any of the intelligence, you have no way of knowing how many would die (as many already did) if there had been no war. People are not washing up on shores of Turkey, Greece, Spain, Italy because of America, they are doing it by their choice. If you want to blame America for everything you can but it is a crap argument. How about blaming the terrorists who are beheading people and murdering thousands in SYRIA (which America has nto attacked) or Assad who IS killing his own people with weapons from Russia. Maybe THEY are to blame.

          • Alex Dương

            David, spare me the crap about “I wasn’t privileged to any of the intelligence.” I’m aware that you have an intelligence and military background, and I respect that. If you want to say I’m armchair quarterbacking or that I’m using hindsight bias, maybe that’s valid. But don’t play the intelligence card.

            How about blaming the terrorists who are beheading people and murdering thousands in SYRIA (which America has nto attacked) or Assad who IS killing his own people with weapons from Russia. Maybe THEY are to blame.

            Of course they are directly responsible. But you can’t wash your hands just like this. The War in Iraq destabilized the region.

          • David

            I am 20 years out of date, so I have no more intelligence than you do about this war (just a different perspective maybe). I was speaking as a historian. Perhaps I overplayed it. While as a lesson to learn it is important to look at the consequences of any complicated actions (like a terrorist attack and a war) that is different than saying, “however, if they had not done this, than this thing 1,000 actions later would not have happened.” Otherwise you will end up blaming the unification of Germany in the later 19th century for death of more than 50,000,000 people in WW II. To say this humanitarian crisis is the fault of the U.S. is much too removed. There were many intermediate actions between September 11, 2001 and now.

          • Alex Dương

            I acknowledge your point that it is difficult to establish cause and effect in cases like this. But 68 years separated the unification of Germany and the invasion of Poland; 13 years separated 9/11 and the ISIS Northern Iraq offensive. That’s not the same.

            Also, I hate to nitpick, but Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11.

          • David

            But if Germany had not unified, they could not have started the build up of troops at the end of the 19th century that lead to the secret alliances between world powers which eventually led to the domino effect of World War I. The aftermath of WW I led directly to the rise of Nazi Germany and into WW II. It is a connection but certainly not direct causation (in between there were many other events such as Germany gaining colonies in China only to lose them after WW I, that made all these events connected by only a few years). As for SH, yes, he was not responsible for 911 but the war in Afghanistan was a direct result of the Taliban shielding AQ and not giving them up. As for Iraq, SH picked the wrong time to bluff about having and being about to use Chemical weapons. There were many other events that had nothing to do with the U.S. between the start of the war and Syria’s civil war, including a great deal of international pressure two years ago for the U.S. to intervene with Assad committing mass murder on his own people. If you want to blame anybody blame Assad or the leaders of Isis who are committing atrocities.

          • Alex Dương

            You are tying two events 68 years apart to argue against tying together two events 13 years apart. I don’t find this a very convincing argument, though as I said, I acknowledge the difficulties in attributing cause and effect in these cases.

            the war in Afghanistan was a direct result of the Taliban shielding AQ and not giving them up.

            I agree.

            As for Iraq, SH picked the wrong time to bluff about having and being about to use Chemical weapons.

            That is not true. Hussein did not bluff.

            If you want to blame anybody blame Assad or the leaders of Isis who are committing atrocities.

            No question that they are directly responsible. But as I said, the War in Iraq destabilized the region. Thus, we cannot simply say we have zero responsibility here.

  • Necrogodomega

    Look, there are major problems in the Middle East and have been since the UK thought it was a good plan to make a new map over there after the fall of the Ottoman empire. America isn’t “not to blame” but they are HARDLY the only reason there is a major problem over there.

    Also, the refugee problem is major for Europe. They have many newly made anti-immigration laws and what not. So, they are slightly making the problem worse by not helping these folks out. China could also help out with food, medicine, clothing, doctors, tents, clean water…..but they don’t really care about those kind of brown people.

    This is a major world problem. It’s going to take the whole world together to sort it out, not just USA (which people like to call the World Police, yet never want to step in to do much). It’s not going to get better until their home countries are fixed.

    • LostRambler

      I kinda agree and disagree all at the same time? Yes Britain was the main cause of the problem with the redrawing of the maps but subsequent interventions and then non interventions by the US has just increasingly made situations worse and worse and obviously there are other reasons but you have to admit america did have a large part in it.

      For the most part I think the west just honestly does not know how to sort shit out. The intervene when their not needed and don’t when they are. And honestly like you said for the most part the east + uae, qatar and sauldi just don’t give a flying figs. But most european countries aren’t really doing their part in agreements about refugees that they’ve signed hence why i think its more problematic than the east who for the most part havent signed anything.

      Germany seems to be doing the most in Europe but that nothing compared to what Turkey and Lebanon have done. Heck even Somalia thats a country that is literally considered a failed state tries to do its part. (Its accepted more than 100,000 yemeni refugees at this point) so nobody is really asking America to continue being the worlds policeman heck a lot of people would prefer it wasn’t. A lot of people just want the USA and Europe to stop renegeding on treaties they’ve signed and stop treating refugess like shit.

      • hess

        “nothing compared to what Turkey and Lebanon have done.” Yeah cause its so hard to spare land for UN funded camps, because thats all they’ve done. Meanwhile Germany has been accepting a shitload of refugees which they actually care for.

        • LostRambler

          Lebanon has accepted so many refuguees they literally make up 1/4 of their population and nothing about them is in the media but when Germany decides to go against the European grain of closing their borders their suddenly heros? Please

          • hess

            Again, theyre letting the UN use parts of their land to build tent camps, it doesnt cost them shit. Imagine the media storm if a european country decided to accept a million refugees and then put them in tents and asked for money from the UN. Please

          • David

            Lebanon has not accepted them, they over ran the borders. Just because they do not shoot them down in the street does not mean they are caring for them. Lebanon is close, many who crossed their border came with possessions. Something. Not that they don’t need help but by the time they get to a place like Hungary or Germany, these people have almost nothing (often spending what they had to get there).

          • LostRambler

            Honestly do you think even for a second the usa would accepted 1/4th of its population coming into the country irregardless of the reason without deploying its military?!?!

          • David

            NO. but we get millions every year and then get preached to by Europe for not having more open borders. Also, I admire Lebanon even though, as I said, they had little choice.

      • Necrogodomega

        Again, people keep saying they want USA to butt out and stop being the world police. Yet, NO ONE ELSE ever even steps up. Just look at that Libyan conflict back in the day. USA didn’t want to get involved, tried their best to stay out of it, but their allies pushed them into the conflict that they started.

        I am not disagreeing that the USA has made lots of problems in the Middle East, I’m only saying that they are not TOTALLY to blame for the current situation. None of the other world powers have really been doing jack (as you said). So it’s a major problem, that hasn’t been fixed, is getting drastically worse, if USA just bails now it will SURELY become a wholesale slaughter and who knows what would happen.

        • LostRambler

          I think i mentioned it before that that is literally because the usa has built itself as the worlds policeman? Esp because they’ve used it so many times when it benefits their own national interest that people wonder why they dont get involved when it doesn’t benefit them as in Libya.

      • David

        What fucking refugees is America treating like shit? You sound like you are stoned when you type this. There are so many historical and logic based mistakes in what you just wrote I honestly do not know where to begin.

    • David

      Because when we don’t step in we get blamed, when we step in, we get blamed. People still blame us for not entering the two EUROPEAN World Wars sooner. You just want to call us the police so you can hate the police. People need to get their head out of their ass.

      • LostRambler

        People don’t really blame the usa for not entering the wws sooner?!?! (Well for the most part) The main blame they get is that fact that despite entering both wars late and not nearly suffering as much as the rest they try to control the negotiations afterwards? And also they fact that they seem to think they single handedly somehow changed the outcome of both?!?!

        • David

          We probably did change the outcomes of both wars (certainly the second one and probably the first also, although that one might have simply been more drawn out and devastating to both sides). I did not say we WON both wars, that was done by everybody involved, but to pretend like we did not change the events dramatically in BOTH wars is not being realistic. As far as blaming the U.S. for joining too late, maybe today young people don’t think like that but you will STILL hear anybody over in Europe say it.

          • LostRambler

            The US helped end both quicker I admit but once again specifically for its own gain. Had Europe ended ww1 on its own (which although damaging they were capable of) it would have become more closed off and thus less open to america. Wilson despite not wanting to go to war understood that and wanted a hand in the end negotiations. Although they did a large part in ww2 they suffered way less damage than the rest of europe and honestly the world could have done without the atomic bomb.
            That being said I’d say the main part that america had in both wars was mainly just limiting the damage and helping with recovery from the wars which they were exceptionally good at (especially the recovery part)
            I wouldn’t consider myself European but I have lived here for a long time and haven’t really heard people say that? Mainly we just joke about americans skewed views on wars and their inability to realise that the majority of the time they are at war and yet are unable to comprehend why people have negative views of them. (This is not to say that all american are this way but the amount of times i’ve met a we are number one!!! With freedoms and everything blah blah time of american is insane.)

      • Necrogodomega

        Umm, what bub? I’m American. I was saying PEOPLE (not me, the masses and masses of netizens worldwide) call the USA the World Police.

        I AGREE with you that if the USA steps in, we get blamed, don’t step in we get blamed. Try to stay out of a conflict (Libya) cause we’ve been in a major war fora decade and people still complain and but still complain that we haven’t won the war in the Middle East single handily. People just love to hate on the USA. I guess England had similar international feelings when they were the “world leaders” too.

  • Michael Minkoff

    Meanwhile, China ignores the mass killings in Sudan where they are selling the Type 56 assault rifles to both sides of the conflict for the past decade.

    • James

      I see you have made an account just to write this idiotic comment that is a whole different subject all together. Is the war a direct or indirect cause of chinese meddling? they would get the guns anyways or kill each other with spears.

      • Michael Minkoff

        Getting guns from some where else.. reasonable counter argument.

        However, doesn’t explain them blocking UN action to settle the conflict. For a whole decade.

        Yet they feel bad about one family … in another civil war … stepping over the fact they defended the civil war in Sudan.

        • Alex Dương

          Though China is frequently criticized for its arms shipments to Sudan, Russia has more quietly become Khartoum’s major arms supplier, an activity in which it has been joined by former Soviet states such as Belarus and Ukraine. A SIPRI report based on its Arms Transfers Database stated that Russia had accounted for 87 percent of Sudan’s major conventional weapons purchases in the period 2003-2007, while China was responsible for only eight percent.

          http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34494#.VeuqftNViko

          Yet they feel bad about one family … in another civil war … stepping over the fact they defended the civil war in Sudan.

          Chinese netizens don’t necessarily equal the Chinese government.

          • scarybirdman

            I sure wish we could actually see the netizen reactions. This site used to be so good.

          • Jahar

            Their leader got a nice position at the parade though.

          • David

            We can both agree to that.

        • James

          sorry, i didn’t realize “they” are all the same entity

    • David

      I don’t think you can say they are ignoring it, when they are selling the weapons to make a profit. They just are making it worse for a profit, not the same as ignoring it.

  • Foreign Devil

    Impossible to say for sure what would have happened had the US not de-stabilized the area and left a big power vaccum. Reasonable to say they are partially responsible for the shit show going on now. Very reasonable.

    • David

      Because it was stable before and nobody was committing genocide? I think the Kurds in Iraq and Syria (and Turkey, while we are at it) as well as a whole lot of others who were not getting press 15 years ago would disagree with you

  • Karze

    Its now reported that the father of the drowned boy was the refugees smuggler and he sailed the boat from start to the end. This was reported by two families who lost their family member in that boat tragedy.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»