# lf Canadians will not support me now, I am compelled to join the Taliban



## GAP (16 Sep 2008)

Father of children accidentally shot by Canadians faces Taliban threats
Article Link

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The father of two children accidentally killed by Canadian troops in Afghanistan says he's been forced to flee his home in the Panjwaii district after being threatened by the Taliban.

Ruzi Mohammed says he was threatened by insurgents for speaking with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Canadians from the Provincial Reconstruction Team about compensation for the mistaken shooting last July.

Now jobless and living in a small rented house in Kandahar city for 4,000 afghanis, or US$80 a month, the frustrated 31-year-old said he's still anxiously awaiting compensation.

"Karzai said 'Sorry' on behalf of Canadians and promised me that he will send me to pilgrimage and provide me a house in Kandahar city, but I'm still waiting for that," he said.

"Canadians promised me compensation but I'm not sure what the amount is."

Told it could take four weeks for the cash to flow, Mohammed said he needs it now.

"lf Canadians will not support me now, I am compelled to join the Taliban and to take revenge for my two innocent children," he said.
More on link


----------



## Greymatters (16 Sep 2008)

_Mohammed's four-year-old daughter Maraka and two-year-old son Tor Jan were gunned  down when the vehicle they were riding in failed to pull over for a passing Canadian military convoy_

Nice terminology. Makes it sound like the a mob hit...


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2008)

Canadian Press said:
			
		

> "lf Canadians will not support me now, I am compelled to join the Taliban and to take revenge for my two innocent children," he said.



I feel sorry for the man because he's lost his kids, but does this sound to anyone else like, I don't know, strong-arming just a bit ("extortion", after all, is such a harsh term)?


----------



## Snafu-Bar (16 Sep 2008)

The mere fact he spat out the last part to me is a slap in the face to CF and Canada as far i see it.

 I can understand his pain and even the animosity, but spitting it out and saying he will be "forced" to join the taliban makes me wish it was him that was killed while the kids lived.  If he was told or promised compensation then someone should be on that ball already, otherwise it sounds like this guy is looking for a handout or excuse to go jihading.


Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Sep 2008)

Here's one of the original stories on the incident:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080728.wafghandeaths0728/BNStory/Front



> The Canadian Press
> 
> July 28, 2008 at 10:31 AM EDT
> 
> ...



More on link, including:



> *The father, believed to have been driving the vehicle,* was being treated for lacerations but left the hospital without permission to attend his children's funeral.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2008)

The dickhead driving/commanding the car is the one that killed the kids, or atleast forced the situation resulting in their deaths.

Throwing a threat like that around, I say "make a decision and stick to it".  If he thinks he'll be better off at the wrong end of our troops' weapons, put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## TN2IC (16 Sep 2008)

Targets up... put your money where your mouth is. How much does a 5.56 cost?


----------



## Strike (16 Sep 2008)

How about we give the guy the money with the caveat that if he join the Taliban, we will return looking for a refund?   ;D


----------



## GAP (16 Sep 2008)

How about we not give the guy the money, let the guy join the Taliban.....This is nothing but basic economic blackmail, and Canada can't win either way....


----------



## Harley Sailor (16 Sep 2008)

What's to stop him from joining after he gets the money..  I say don't give him the money, let him join, then arrest him and put him in jail.. Problem solved..


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> The mere fact he spat out the last part to me is a slap in the face to CF and Canada as far i see it.
> 
> I can understand his pain and even the animosity, but spitting it out and saying he will be "forced" to join the taliban makes me wish it was him that was killed while the kids lived.  If he was told or promised compensation then someone should be on that ball already, otherwise it sounds like this guy is looking for a handout or excuse to go jihading.
> 
> ...



I think you're overlooking the concept of honour here- as much as honour as a guiding social force may have faded from western society since the 1800s, it's still a very powerful force within the code of Pashtunwali. I fully agree that it is the driver's fault that those children are dead, but nonetheless in a counterinsurgency we have to be sensitive to the perceptions of the population, and the father of those children now finds himself in a situation in which either compensation is expected or revenge will be sought.

Put it this way; from the standpoint of the overall mission is it better for us to generate good PR (or at least neutralize some bad PR) by compensating the man, or shall we make an enemy of him and likely some of his extended family?


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2008)

Globe & Mail said:
			
		

> The father, believed to have been driving the vehicle, was being treated for lacerations but left the hospital without permission to attend his children's funeral.



I had forgotten this part - thanks for the reminder.  While my sympathy is not zero for the guy, it's now LOADS less than when I posted earlier.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I fully agree that it is the driver's fault that those children are dead, but nonetheless in a counterinsurgency we have to be sensitive to the perceptions of the population, and the father of those children now finds himself in a situation in which either compensation is expected or revenge will be sought.  Put it this way; from the standpoint of the overall mission is it better for us to generate good PR (or at least neutralize some bad PR) by compensating the man, or shall we make an enemy of him and likely some of his extended family?



Given the longer-term optics, I have to agree with this bit - it's a damned if you do (what's stopping the guy from going over to the Taliban anyway?) and damned if you don't (picture the headlines if we didn't compensate).


----------



## George Wallace (16 Sep 2008)

Canadian Press said:
			
		

> "lf Canadians will not support me now, I am compelled to join the Taliban and to take revenge for my two innocent children," he said.




After that I would say that we would be compelled to kill him as a Taliban.

On the other hand, 25 mm may have been a bit of overkill on the car.


----------



## TheHead (16 Sep 2008)

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> Targets up... put your money where your mouth is. How much does a 5.56 cost?



I thought we were over there to fight the insurgency, not promote it.  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On the other hand, 25 mm may have been a bit of overkill on the car.



..and only those that were there could make that call.   I certainly won't quarterback from the comfort of ma maison and I don't think you should either George.


----------



## Gunnar (16 Sep 2008)

> "lf Canadians will not support me now, I am compelled to join the Taliban and to take revenge for my two innocent children," he said.



My immediate thought was..."Well then, looks like you made your choice.  We're here because we WON'T negotiate at the point of a gun.  What part don't you get?"

And then I thought....

In cultures less governed by the rule of centralized government, the LAW (cultural tradition, whatever) would require payment of weregild for something which has been judged to be "wrongful death".  I agree with the principle if you really are concerned with your honour, loss of family & etc., but I have to wonder....where does such a slippery slope end?  Were the two children placed in danger on purpose (say, female and therefore worthless, i.e., useful only in perpetrating a scam on the rich westerners)?  What is to stop the uncaring from using their families for financial gain at our expense?  Especially when all our experience with Islamists indicates they are exactly that uncaring?

Seems to me, knee-jerk or not, that the first response is overall the correct one.  Especially when coupled with a clearly articulated threat.  They live in a war zone, surrounded by people with automatic weapons.  Anyone who doesn't tell their family to "stay the hell away from soldiers" is an idiot.  Anyone who plays tag with soldiers' vehicles is a criminal idiot, especially given the number of incidents where exactly this sort of thing happens due to the inherent stupidity of the tag-player.  I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, and reach an accomodation, I really would....but the circumstances and the clear language of his threat make no other response possible.

My appreciation and respect to those who made the hard choices, on the spot, with lives on the line.  Thank you.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Father of children accidentally shot by Canadians faces Taliban threats
> Article Link
> 
> "lf Canadians will not support me now, I am compelled to join the Taliban and to take revenge for my two innocent children," he said.
> More on link



Let us accomodate him, should he wish to sacrifice his life for their (Taliban) cause.

OWDU


----------



## derael (16 Sep 2008)

What is to stop him from taking his funds from the CF and then going to the Taliban anyways?


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Let us accomodate him, should he wish to sacrifice his life for their (Taliban) cause.
> 
> OWDU



I don't think he wants to, but the norms of his culture demand that he pursue the mandated revenge if we don't do our best to right a crappy situation.

We cannot look at this through our own cultural perspective and hope to understand his point of view. You need an understanding of the Pashtun code of honour, viewed through which sense his comments make a lot of sense.

I'm going to maintain that despite the ambiguity, it is probably in the interest of the CF and the mission to compensate him. Judging by Major Janzen's comments, it seems the commanders on the ground agree.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2008)

And a little more grist for the discussion mill, courtesy of Canadian Press and CanWest/National Post



> Canadian troops followed proper procedures when they opened fire on a civilian vehicle that failed to stop and accidentally killed two young Afghan children last July, an investigation into the incident has revealed.
> 
> *According to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the driver of the vehicle, which was transporting the children and their parents, failed to respond to warning signals as it approached the Canadian convoy.
> 
> ...



More on links.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I think you're overlooking the concept of honour here- as much as honour as a guiding social force may have faded from western society since the 1800s, it's still a very powerful force within the code of Pashtunwali. I fully agree that it is the driver's fault that those children are dead, but nonetheless in a counterinsurgency we have to be sensitive to the perceptions of the population, and the father of those children now finds himself in a situation in which either compensation is expected or revenge will be sought.
> 
> Put it this way; from the standpoint of the overall mission is it better for us to generate good PR (or at least neutralize some bad PR) by compensating the man, or shall we make an enemy of him and likely some of his extended family?



Why it is US making the enemy?  He is the dickhead that put himself into this situation to get his kids killed....now he wants to profit from it???

I say let the Taliban have him.  This is a BAD precedent to set.  "Just demand money and they will give us all kinds".

Who's to say the Taliban aren't the ones putting pressure on him to get money and have it ear marked for 'other uses', say buying the crap for an IED or two?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I don't think he wants to, *but the norms of his culture demand * that he pursue the mandated revenge if we don't do our best to right a crappy situation.



His culture, not ours...I don't think we should kiss everyone's *** just because we are Canada and Canada is nice.



> We cannot look at this through our own cultural perspective


 Why not?  I am not from his part of the world and if I was there, I wouldn't put my kids in a car and drive up to a convoy. 



> and hope to understand his point of view. You need an understanding of the Pashtun code of honour, viewed through which sense his comments make a lot of sense.



I see his point of view.  Its simple.  "Where's my money?"



> I'm going to maintain that despite the ambiguity, it is probably in the interest of the CF and the mission to compensate him.



 :  Ya let's fork over some taxpayers money everytime someone threathens to join the Taliban.  :


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

There is no ideal solution here, but I think you're trying to find one.

Bear in mind that the father was also a passenger. He was NOT driving the vehicle according to the article cited. He was as much a victim of this as anyone.

I'm not suggesting we fork over cash every time someone threatens to join the Taliban. I'm saying that given the circumstances of this aprticular case, it's not unreasonable for us to offer him some compensation for the loss of his children. The amount will be absolutely negligible by our standards but will go a great way towards restoring goodwill from this man and his extended family, plus whatever tribal/clan structure he belongs to. It will show that we DO value the lives of Afghan civilians.

I think also that you're losing the forest for the trees. We are fighting a counterinsurgency here; we need to get the locals on our side and keep them there. Maybe this is one of those rare military situations in which simply throwing money at a problem is actually the best and most cost effective way to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. At the end of the day the guy lost his two kids due to terrible circumstances that were not of his design. We were not a guilty or criminally responsible party to this, but we were nonetheless involved and it would be a very very minor imposition on us to provide compensation. That, in turn, would help generate good public relations among the locals, or at least mitigate bad PR generated as a result of the shooting, and would also show the locals that they do matter to us. There's no harm in this case in showing respect for how they do things and acting in accordance with those norms. Our government is certainly willing enough to hand out compensation to people here at home who are harmed even inadvertently by the government, so why not do the same thing there? If a LAV accidentally runs over some farmer's goat he can expect to receive at least a small sum to make up for it- what could possibly be the harm in providing some compensation for the loss of his kids? Hell, if you want to be really pragmatic about it they probably contributed to the family's economic activity- or certainly would have in the future.

The potential good vastly outweighs the potential harm in handling the situation this way. It also seems to me to simply be the right thing to do.


----------



## TheHead (16 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> His culture, not ours...I don't think we should kiss everyone's *** just because we are Canada and Canada is nice.
> Why not?  I am not from his part of the world and if I was there, I wouldn't put my kids in a car and drive up to a convoy.
> 
> I see his point of view.  Its simple.  "Where's my money?"
> ...



Yet we're in HIS country and have to respect HIS culture.   You don't know this mans point of view, talking out of your *** and speculating.  I have nothing but sympathy for this man, his kids were killed in a tragic accident that he had no control over. Like the poster above me said he wasn't driving.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2008)

Its not out my ass.  Who put the kids in the car?  WHo didn't make the driver stop?  

Thats not my fault, its his.  His bad choices.  

AND the bigger picture is the *THREAT TO JOIN THE ENEMY*.

Shake your head.   :


----------



## TheHead (16 Sep 2008)

Did he know how the driver would re-act when presented in that situation? We could speculate all day.  If I drive my car into un-comming trafik and kill every person in the car is it their fault.  

Thinking like yours undermines EVERYTHING we're doing over there.


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Its not out my ***.  Who put the kids in the car?  WHo didn't make the driver stop?
> 
> Thats not my fault, its his.  His bad choices.
> 
> ...



A threat that we can very easily avoid. So why shouldn't we simply do so? Intransigence won't get us anywhere in this conflict.

Your point of view is fine for those who are already our enemy, but a much more conciliatory approach should be used towards those who are not. Particularly one whose kids we killed, even if by accident. A bit of human compassion wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Did he know how the driver would re-act when presented in that situation?



Irrelevant.  Did the CF put his kids in that spot?

No.

Is he threatening to join the Taliban?

Yes.

Is the threat basically coming across "give me my money or I will revenge my kids death".

Yes.

I can't and am not interested in looking at it thru his eyes;  if someone killed my daughter, no amount of money would pay me off.  Thats the way I am as a Canadian and I don't really care what he says, threatening to join the Taliban if he doesn't get his money...he lost any and all sympathy from me.


----------



## TheHead (16 Sep 2008)

We may have not put his kids in that situation BUT we did promise him compensation which he hasnt revieved. If he turns into an insurgent its our fault.


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Irrelevant.  Did the CF put his kids in that spot?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



You still insist that that issue is about money, when in fact the currency in question is this man's honour- something his society holds in much greater value.

We have said we will compensate him for his loss. As of yet he does not feel that that has been done. From his perspective, not only has he been hurt by the loss of his kids, but now we have insulted him.

Don't get me wrong- I'm fully convinced that he will receive what was promised, and I take the C.F.'s statements about this at face value. I'm just trying to offer what I feel is a fairly accurate interpretation about where this man is coming from.


----------



## TacticalW (16 Sep 2008)

If we deny these people compensation that's just going to be one more bit of propoganda used against us promoting others to join the Taliban and one more assured Taliban insurgent. I would say give the man his compensation and if that fails and he joins the Taliban, then solve the situation by other means. I can also see where this guy was coming from, it may have been his fault for getting his kids killed, but losing your children tends to make you act irrationally. I'm sure fathers here could relate to being a bit disgruntled over suffering a similar situation.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> if someone killed my daughter, no amount of money would pay me off.



Thats the difference between us and them. 

For someone to say, "give me money or I will kill you" is extortion at the least. he is at fault for the incident, and has only himself to blame.

Pay him in the form of HE, and forget about him. 

OWDU


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Thats the difference between us and them.
> 
> For someone to say, "give me money or I will kill you" is extortion at the least. he is at fault for the incident, and has only himself to blame.
> 
> ...



The driver is at fault, not him.

Kill him and his family joins our enemy, and then what has been accomplished? Nothing.

I won't profess to be an expert in counterinsurgency, but I can't think of any instances where brute force has been particularly successful. Pareticularly not in Afghanistan.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Sep 2008)

This is a tough call for me.......I originally thought "no way" but after listening to "The Head", who I know has been there.

Thinking....


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Sep 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The driver is at fault, not him.
> 
> Kill him and his family joins our enemy, and then what has been accomplished? Nothing.
> 
> I won't profess to be an expert in counterinsurgency, but I can't think of any instances where brute force has been particularly successful. Pareticularly not in Afghanistan.



This quote is from the G-M article, dated 28 Jul 08. "The father, believed to have been driving the vehicle, was being treated for lacerations but left the hospital without permission to attend his children's funeral".

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> This quote is from the G-M article, dated 28 Jul 08. "The father, believed to have been driving the vehicle, was being treated for lacerations but left the hospital without permission to attend his children's funeral".
> 
> Regards,
> 
> OWDU



Yup, there's conflict between some of the news stories. Other stories I've read have stated that the father and children were all passengers in a taxi. I've searched, but haven't been able to find anything concrete to clear up the ambiguity.

here's an older CBC story that identified the father, his wife and his two children all as passengers in a cab... In another news story the father says he had a job drilling (wells I guess?) to feed his family, so I take that to mean he was not a taxi driver.


----------



## TheHead (16 Sep 2008)

I'm done with this.  I have vested interest in that beautiful country and civilians that get killed deeply saddens me, it undermines everything we do.

Keep in mind to the cowboys who make stupid comments about killing this man in any form, what kind of impression are you giving civilians, Afghans, the media and others who read these boards. Think about it.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Pay him in the form of HE, and forget about him.



More like your above won't happen ... and that's the real difference between us and them.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (16 Sep 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> I'm done with this.  I have vested interest in that beautiful country and civilians that get killed deeply saddens me, it undermines everything we do.
> 
> Keep in mind to the cowboys who make stupid comments about killing this man in any form, what kind of impression are you giving civilians, Afghans, the media and others who read these boards. Think about it.



 Perhaps keeping in mind that the person piloting that vehicle was signalled to stop in many forms before the end result had presented itself...

 This man now seeks to either strike it rich or strike back, and although i can feel sympathy that he lost his children, i cannot however fathom the fact he is dictating we canadians are solely responsible and unless we grant him his immediately he will have to take action and jopin the taliban and seek revenge. THAT part is the part that leaves many of seeking to skip the middle and jump to the end, which we all know how will turn out if it comes down to it.


 Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Sep 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Keep in mind to the cowboys people who make stupid comments about killing this man Canadians in any form, what kind of impression are you they giving civilians, Afghans, the media and others who read these boards. Think about it.



Think about it.  Do we have to do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek all the time and let ourselves be walked over by people who have no respect for our society or way of life?  Frankly, people can only take so much, and eventually they will react.  That things are being said, does not necessarily mean that they will be done.  It is called venting.  I am sure there is no way in the world that we would ever locate this fellow at any time in the future to drop a Nuke, Napalm, JADAM or anything else that would be fatal on his retched person.  So, I really don't care if you have had enough.  So have we all.  A threat was made.  People are responding in kind.  Live with it.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> We may have not put his kids in that situation BUT we did promise him compensation which he hasnt revieved. If he turns into an insurgent its our fault.



It is the standard to pay "compensation" such as this; you're correct.

It is also in keeping with the religious and traditional beliefs of those of whom we are there to help.

Within their Muslim religious beliefs is the belief that compensation must be made for a wrongful death or that retaliation must occur.

Much like the family of a murder victim are invited to execute their loved ones killer(s) themselves; they may also choose to accept a payment of some form of compensation instead. That is their culture ... and has been for a millenia. Long before we arrived - so those of you who think this is a simple act to get rich off "us" need to think again. When one's religious beliefs see this as appropriate ... those of us who see it as inappropriate should ensure we go the proper route which is acceptable to our western standards --- and that is to pay the compensation.

That's normal. This isn't the first (and I'm quite sure it won't be the last) Muslim country where a "wrongful" death has been compensated in this manner by this Nation. This also occured in Somalia as an example. When we drop the ball on that --- it's us who have failed. We know what their culture and what their religion lays out for them as their alternative. That's why we choose to compensate and that's why we enter the agreements that we do. Don't blame the guy when we've not lived up to our end of it yet. 

Hearts and minds people. 

Some of you are picking the wrong poison.


----------



## TheHead (16 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Think about it.  Do we have to do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek all the time and let ourselves be walked over by people who have no respect for our society or way of life?  Frankly, people can only take so much, and eventually they will react.  That things are being said, does not necessarily mean that they will be done.  It is called venting.  I am sure there is no way in the world that we would ever locate this fellow at any time in the future to drop a Nuke, Napalm, JADAM or anything else that would be fatal on his retched person.  So, I really don't care if you have had enough.  So have we all.  A threat was made.  People are responding in kind.  Live with it.




I was always taught reciprocity and professionalism. This man lost his children and is venting, he's allowed to be pissed even though the driver is maybe to blame (I'm saying maybe because I don't know the situation that killed these kids). This man isn't walking over us, we promised him money after we killed his children in an accident and he never recieved it.  They may be responding it in kind but they are doing it in an unprofessional manner. This man lost his family, these board warriors didn't. That's my opinion, live with it.


Also Vern I thank you for elaborating more on a position I agree with. 

Take care.


----------



## Burrows (16 Sep 2008)

Well, he's lost his kids, his own home, and his means of generating income because the Taliban was rubbed the wrong way over his situation.

If he can't feed his family for all the red tape, I can definitely see his side of the story.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2008)

For what it's worth, a bit more CLIPINT re:  the driver and other issues, presented with the usual caveats about MSM coverage...

Globe & Mail, 29 Jul 08 (.pdf)


> ....Something hot seared his left ear, he said. Twisting around in the front passenger seat, (the father) saw the destroyed bodies of his son and daughter behind him. His wife remained sitting in the backseat, shocked but not hurt. The *hired driver* also escaped injury....



 National Post, 31 Jul 08


> *The father of two children accidentally killed by Canadian soldiers says he wants revenge.  "If I get a chance, I will kill Canadians,"* Rozi Muhammed said Thursday ....  Soldiers say the driver sped towards them without stopping. Rozi Muhammed said *the driver at first pulled over but inexplicably drove back onto the highway* after two armoured vehicles had passed when more were on the way.... When asked what he wants to happen now, *Muhammed twice said he wants to "kill Canadians."  However, after a few moments, he added: "I am a poor man, they should help me." * Canadian officials say they have talked to Muhammed and offered him their condolences. *They have also started the process of deciding whether to pay compensation which, in past accidental killings, has ranged from $2,000 to $9,000* ....



CBC.ca, 31 Jul 08


> .... "I got in taxi with my wife, daughter and son. The convoy was coming. *The taxi pulled out* after the second vehicle passed and the third vehicle fired on us," he said, speaking through an interpreter....



I haven't spotted any MSM coverage where they asked the driver why he didn't stop (although someone far wiser than me has suggested he'd be an intriguing person for ISAF to keep track of after the incident....)

More on links....

_- edited to highlight a few more salient points -_


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> More like your above won't happen ... and that's the real difference between us and them.



My thoughts were more collectively than on the individual,  that being any enemy force who attacks us and wants to kill us, if applicable, send it a fire mission to avoid sending in the lads.

During my time in Iraq, when we recieved IDF, it was often met with counter Bty fire, otherwords, paying back with HE and yes, forgetting about them.

Regret any confusion I may have expressed.


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Damn, thanks, I'd forgotten those details. I remember remarking on them when this story first broke.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> We may have not put his kids in that situation BUT we did promise him compensation which he hasnt revieved. If he turns into an insurgent its our fault.



You'll never convince me it is our fault for the choices he has and he alone will make.


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You'll never convince me it is our fault for the choices he has and he alone will make.



All he did was get in a taxi.

When the driver of the taxi tried to pull out into the convoy, buddy had exactly as much time to react as the LAV gunner did- maybe a second or two. It's not like he chose to put his kids at risk. He was trying to get form point A to point B and ended up picking a taxi driver from the shallow end of the gene pool.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You'll never convince me it is our fault for the choices he has and he alone will make.



Arguing whether or not his children's deaths were indeed "wrongful" is an entirely different matter.

A matter which, at this point in time is moot, as he has already entered into agreement with this nation for compensation for those deaths --- and it's this nation who's apparently not anted up what they agreed to yet. 

We negotiated to compensate him. We came to an agreement with him. Ante up.

For the record: I believe his children are dead precisely because of the driver's actions. I do not believe there was any "wrongfulness" on the part of the Canadian soldier(s) involved. War is sometimes - hell.

But, someone agreed to compensate the father. It now needs to happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2008)

Give me money or I join the Taliban. Garbage.
But he's upset!
Ya, so? My heart goes out to him but that's not an excuse for being dumb.
What will the Taliban offer him?  A chance to set off an IED that will 'hopefully' take out a NATO soldier but most likely will just end up killing MORE Afghanistan citizens? Who's children will his IED kill? Any of his own family? Real bright.

Sorry this give me money or  join the other side comment is bullshit and in my opinion indicitive of people sitting on the fence who don't care what happens to the country. "Whatever whoever pays me more" Me me me

Why don't we hear stories about when the Taliban kill locals and then locals 'getting' revenge by helping us out?  

The flavor of that mans comments is I want my money or else.  That's it.

Local driviers in Afghanistan drive like maniacs. When they walk around they take their time and their relaxed. It's like watching someone move underwater. 
Once they get behind the wheel it's like the devil is chasing them.  Who's at fault? The taxi driver.  Canadians try and do the right thing and say 'you know what? We're going to try and help you anyways'.  But buddy wants the money "now". So he's going to join the group of people that threatened him for asking for compensation? 
Good luck with the Taliban I'm sure they will treat you like gold fella  :


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Sep 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> I'm done with this.  I have vested interest in that beautiful country and civilians that get killed deeply saddens me, it undermines everything we do.
> 
> Keep in mind to the cowboys who make stupid comments about killing this man in any form, what kind of impression are you giving civilians, Afghans, the media and others who read these boards. Think about it.



Dear kind Sir, I am sorry if I offended you.

I guess we should all drop our weapons, melt them down, turn them into plow shears, assist the locals in bringing the poppy crop off, and all have a big group hug with the Taliban and their supporters. We all can then hold hands merrily, and dance with glee accross the local mine field, while issuing out Canadianisms like pancake mix and maple syrup to boot. Yes, all this kindness to many who would rather dance in rejoice as you bled out from your throat being cut, with their free hand (the other is holding the pancake mix and maple syrup). Sorry for being cynical, but really...... 

But please Sir, you're missing my point. Compensation is one thing, but to demand that, or defect to the En, then threaten to kill us is another. With the shoe on the other foot, imagine how many Canadian citizens take to the above extortion threat, and what they think of the locals, and a supposed 'good guy' at that.' With all the publicity, if he accepts the money, thats collaboration with the 'Great Satan', in our Enemy's eyes, and no doubt will get him 'despatched' by Timmy and Co.

If we cut a deal to shut him up, them pay him the pittance he is entitled to, and lets move on. Summing up, the 'pay up or I'll kill you' attitude does not wash with me.

The deaths in question are not the fault of the CF. 110% blame goes to the driver of the car. Personally, my thoughts are with the Lads who opened fire, and I stand behind their decison even in hindsight.  Back in Jan 07 in Iraq, we shot and KILLED a US garbage truck operator because he would not stop at our checkpoint. I seen him on many occasions, and I will never forget his face. He was from Texas, and had just returned from a trip home. That even made The Stars and Stripes middle east addition.

Oh, and I am far from a cowboy, it could have been worse though, you could have referred to me as a gay cowboy  ;D . Fear naught, I am just a simple Veteran, who has earned his opinion by being at the coalface, just like you have according to your profile.

Thank you Sir, for taking the time to read my response to your post.

Happy days, peace, love, and of course harmony, but most importantly Serenity Now,

OWDU.


----------



## karl28 (17 Sep 2008)

People please remember that this man is grieving right now . People do and say allot of foolish things when there grieving. What I understand from reading the article that all he did was get  into a taxi .   Its just a bad situation all around  the poor guy manning the gun has like two seconds to decide weather this is a suicide bomber or a dumb ass sadly here it was just a dumb ass Taxi Driver.         
           I do think that because the father apparently didn't due anything wrong that the Canadian Government should help him out what that help should be I would leave up to the professionals .


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Think about it.  Do we have to do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek all the time and let ourselves be walked over by people who have no respect for our society or way of life?


A bit OT, or perhaps even ON Topic: "turning the other cheek" is a very mis-understood lesson.  Normally it's taken to mean just as you say above: get walked over, and allow others to have their way.  That's not the message.  The message is to FORCE the other person to have their way, but on YOUR terms.  A subtle difference, perhaps, but allow me to put into context.

At the time of Jesus, if a slave owner were to slap his slave, he would hit him on the back hand, a sort of way to show the "servant" who was boss.  Jesus said "turn the other cheek", in effect, allowing the slave owner (or whoever) to still slap you, but to slap you as he would a social equal: with his forehand.  You still got slapped, but the other person got the message: you are demanding, and getting, better treatment.

Anyway, back to the topic in hand...


----------



## armyvern (17 Sep 2008)

_Peace, love, serenity, apologies_ my ass.

Enough with that horseshit already. It's really fucking old now. Hypocrit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2008)

For every warning shot that results in a death which we read about there are well over a hundred warning shots that stop drivers from getting too close saving their lives.


----------



## armyvern (17 Sep 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> For every warning shot that results in a death which we read about there are well over a hundred warning shots that stop drivers from getting too close saving their lives.



Absolutely agreed.

No one is arguing that the driver wasn't at fault here. But, the father wasn't the driver. Neither were the two kids. War is hell.
_______________________________________________________________________

This nation entered into an agreement with the father to pay him compensation for his loss despite the fact it was the driver's fault. We haven't held up our end yet.

How the heck does it becomes dad's fault that Canada isn't holding up her end? Bet that's going over really well amongst the local populace in instilling the "trustworthiness" of the troops they're dealing with eh?

Hearts and minds people. The reprecussions of stuff like this are much bigger than this one grieving father. Things like this are done with "mission" in mind --- not your own personal beliefs.

The custom over there (and we know it - ergo the agreement "WE" entered - like it or not) is to be compensated or to retaliate ... which do you really prefer? You know that the later only increases the risk to our troops and decreases the 'credibility' of what we tell them yes?


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2008)

Nice pic Vern  ;D

'





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> This nation entered into an agreement with the father to pay him compensation for his loss despite the fact it was the driver's fault. We haven't held up our end yet.



Oh I agree. Compensate the man. Win the hearts and minds etc..
Right now I'm looking at/ hearing about projects that are just coming around. Some of them are just beginning. Some are set to commence in the near future.
These are projects I remember being told were supposed to start "months ago" when I got to Afghanistan in 2006. 
I'm out of my lane here but from what I DO know about the CF, we're a little slow at times.  (How long ago did we start the tacvest and rucksack project?)
Sometimes things take time.  I'm curious how long it has taken us to compensate other cases such as this. If he's being screwed around or treated like everyone else.



> How the heck does it becomes dad's fault that Canada isn't holding up her end? bet


Its not.


> that's going over really well amongst the local populace in instilling the "trustworthiness" of the troops they're dealing with eh?


It's a two way street and accounts for both Canadians and Afghans. Some Afghans will go kilometers out of their way to warn us that shit's about to go down. Some of them are just awesome dudes.
Others will take your 'hearts and mind' money then turn around and take the Talibans. 
Greedy.

We do need to compensate buddy, I'm not sure why we haven't. It's not like were telling this guy to fuck off, they said it can take up to 4 weeks. Ya well 4 weeks may be a long time. It takes me 4 weeks to get a unit patch sewn up by the tailors. Things are slow in Afghanistan.  It's not that were not paying this guy, it's that he wants it *NOW*

When you're directing traffic over there and you have a guy who's revving his engine, blaring his horn and making hand gestures you make that guy wait. Why? Because if you don't it sets a precedence and EVERY other driver will start doing the same. You'll get rushed and run over.  They all want to be fist. They wanna go *NOW.*

What happens when Canada rolls over and says "Oh Shit, please don't join the Taliban, we'll get you your money ASAP okay?".
Every single local who has a beef with Canada from the sad death of a family member to not being paid as much as they thought they would for whatever will end up useing that same threat.

Make me happy or I will join the Taliban.
That's a precedence we can't afford to entertain IMO.

Me I would make this guy wait an extra week just to say hey don't threaten us.


----------



## armyvern (17 Sep 2008)

Why is it blackmail on his part when it's us who hasn't lived up to our part?

And regarding the "greed" ... I'm on way different wavelength on this one. This custom/tradition that is in keeping with their religion has been practiced by generations in Afghanistan. They aren't doing this for greed (I'm sure buddy would much rather have his kids back just as most of us would) ... it's their way of life. They haven't begun this since we got there --- they were doing it long before we got there.

Each and every time that I have deployed - without exception - the CF has taught me that while I am deployed into another's country that I will respect the traditions and culture of that nation. That it is THEIR nation - not ours. In Afghanistan, a huge part of life is all about the hand that you shake. They (and you) have nothing BUT your word, your honour and your integrity there. It's Canada's ability to adapt, and to be respective of "HN" culture and tradition while deployed that makes this nation the success that it is with that "Hearts & Mind" business. It is what makes our troops respected.

It's all about the much bigger picture.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Sep 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Oh I agree. Compensate the man. Win the hearts and minds etc..
> Right now I'm looking at/ hearing about projects that are just coming around. Some of them are just beginning. Some are set to commence in the near future.
> These are projects I remember being told were supposed to start "months ago" when I got to Afghanistan in 2006.
> I'm out of my lane here but from what I DO know about the CF, we're a little slow at times.  (How long ago did we start the tacvest and rucksack project?)
> ...



I had one hell of a time getting the locals to meet their deadlines on projects. Everything always ran days\weeks late. Never mind trying to get the thing started on time. 'Please Sir, Insha'Allah' was always the excuse.



> Usage of Insha'Allah derives from Islamic scripture, Surat Al Kahf (18):24 : "And never say of anything, 'I shall do such and such thing tomorrow. Except (with the saying): 'If God wills!' And remember your lord when you forget..."



Once you understand and accept that concept, heart rate and blood pressure drop, life becomes much simpler, etc.   Perhaps we should start playing the same card with them. Following the first golden rule of CIMIC 'Never promise anything' probably wouldn't hurt either.

Meh. Give it to him. We've paid out a lot more for less reason and return.


----------



## helpup (17 Sep 2008)

I agree with Vern, differant culture and for them as crass as it is to Western Standards compensation is a time honoured tradition that either your paid in ( insert re-compsense here ) for a slight-up to major family loss.  Or expect that man or family to feel obligated to do something to get his honour back.  I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.  Regardless of the situation that led to his loss ( not commenting on that ) he feels he is at this point now.  

For Canadians or Western Nations in general we are sitting on the double edge sword of prompt payment ( see new industry in some of the locals minds ) or possible alienation for ensuring that payment is made only in cases we feel we were at fault. (

My 2cents


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> _Peace, love, serenity, apologies_ my ass.
> 
> Enough with that horseshit already. It's really fucking old now. Hypocrit.



Dear Vern

First, I thought you were kidding, but after re-reading, I see no emotocons or other hints to suggest this.

So Ma'am, not wishing to offend you, just wanting to clarify a few points before I go off to work, its early in the morning here.

I would have thought such a rude comment and a personal attack would have come across via PM, and not on a public forum. If I want to be sworn at and hear name calling, I'll ring my ex-wife.

Please refrain from personal attacks, 10,000 posts does not make you above the law.

Thank-you and enjoy your day.

OWDU


----------



## Infanteer (17 Sep 2008)

Enough.  Wes, you don't have to play the Ned Flanders post game anymore.  It's silly and comes off as condescending at times.

Vern seems to have called you on your "us" and "them" remark.  Keep in mind that "them" happens to be some of my family members, or does that make them "us" now?


----------



## Greymatters (17 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It is the standard to pay "compensation" such as this; you're correct.
> 
> It is also in keeping with the religious and traditional beliefs of those of whom we are there to help.
> 
> Within their Muslim religious beliefs is the belief that compensation must be made for a wrongful death or that retaliation must occur.



A bit late, but I would point out that financial compensation for wrongful death is a tradition still going strong in Europe and North America - why is it being referrred to as only a Middle East/Muslim practice?


----------



## armyvern (17 Sep 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> A bit late, but I would point out that financial compensation for wrongful death is a tradition still going strong in Europe and North America - why is it being referrred to as only a Middle East/Muslim practice?



No, in Western Nations they need to sue for that compensation (and, _sometimes_ they win) - it's not a standard "shake hands and agree" item like it is in the culture we happen to be speaking of - that being Afghanistan - in this particular thread.

Big difference when one takes a court and/or jury decision (Western society, including most of Europe) ... and, last time I checked in Europe and North America the family of a murder victim, for example, couldn't say "I'll choose the compensation rather than hold the murderer of my wife/father accountable for the death sentence the court gave him (or even opt to kill the murderer with their own hands)."

Simply NOT comparable cultures at all.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, in Western Nations they need to sue for that compensation (and, _sometimes_ they win) - it's not a standard "shake hands and agree" item like it is in the culture we happen to be speaking of - that being Afghanistan - in this particular thread.
> 
> Big difference when one takes a court and/or jury decision (Western society, including most of Europe) ... and, last time I checked in Europe and North America the family of a murder victim, for example, couldn't say "I'll choose the compensation rather than hold the murderer of my wife/father accountable for the death sentence the court gave him (or even opt to kill the murderer with their own hands)."
> 
> Simply NOT comparable cultures at all.



Thats a matter of opinion.  The difference you cite is based on infrastructure, and the reason it is done in person, as you say, is because there is no system to administer the process formally.  But the concepts for compensation we use today are based on English common law, which once had a specific formula for loss of life and or limbs, as well as a scale based on their level of society of the person injured/killed...  

And if you think no one has asked for compensation in this country rather than hold the offender accountable, you need to read some more court cases.  Ive read more than a few where the case was settled 'out of court' which usually means money changes hands...


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Thats a matter of opinion.  The difference you cite is based on infrastructure, and the reason it is done in person, as you say, is because there is no system to administer the process formally.  But the concepts for compensation we use today are based on English common law, which once had a specific formula for loss of life and or limbs, as well as a scale based on their level of society of the person injured/killed...
> 
> And if you think no one has asked for compensation in this country rather than hold the offender accountable, you need to read some more court cases.  Ive read more than a few where the case was settled 'out of court' which usually means money changes hands...



Yes indeed, that *western democratic system* and way of doing business is such a wonderful difference. I'll take it ... any day!  

I say again: NOT comparable.


----------



## MG34 (18 Sep 2008)

In this case awarding of the "Saz" or blood money is not called for as seen here:

"SAZ:  The word Saz is used for blood money or compensation in lieu of killing. Under the custom of Saz a person who feels penitent after committing a deliberate murder, approaches the deceased's family through a Jirga and offers to make payment of blood money to end enmity between them. All hostilities come to an end between the parties after acceptance of Saz. Sometimes the payment of compensation takes the form of giving a girl in marriage to the aggrieved party. It is also called Swarah, which binds together the two parties in blood relations and thus helps in eradicating ill will and feelings of enmity."

http://www.afghanland.com/culture/pashtunwali.html

IMHO,The Canadian Forces has no reason to be penitent in this case nor have the forces involved committed murder, the offer is made from a misguided interpretation of the Pastunwali. Every resident of  the AOR knows the deal, you do not interfere or disobey a Coalition Forces convoy or road movement, it is broadcasted daily on the civilian radio/TV stations and the word is distributed by word of mouth in the outlying areas. Canadians have been operating in the region for several years and Coalition Forces  even longer.
  The fact that any agreement was offered at at is simply the goodwill of the CF, perhaps it may be long in coming but it is definitely not required in this case.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes indeed, that *western democratic system* and way of doing business is such a wonderful difference. I'll take it ... any day!



That is so true.  I never let anyone get away with saying we are a bad country to live in - they usually have no frgiggin idea how horrible it is in other parts of the world and should count their lucky stars they are lucky enough to live here...


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> The fact that any agreement was offered at at is simply the goodwill of the CF, perhaps it may be long in coming but it is definitely not required in this case.



Fully agree. Hearts & Minds. Mission. It's all about the bigger picture.


----------



## gun runner (18 Sep 2008)

I say 'Pays your money,takes your chances'. There is nothing stopping this rather distraught father from taking our condolence offering and in turn offering it to Timmie et al, and getting his pound of flesh. Ubique


----------



## MG34 (19 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> I say 'Pays your money,takes your chances'. There is nothing stopping this rather distraught father from taking our condolence offering and in turn offering it to Timmie et al, and getting his pound of flesh. Ubique



Then he will get a chance to visit his kids. When the payment is made it will make a good photo op for the Afghan news,winning of hearts and minds type stuff. If he goes over to theTimmies well then we get the chance to have his ass as well as his heart and mind, either way it is win win.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Sep 2008)

...and 'Timmy' has a lot more rich supporters in a certain "friendly" country that I would care about.


----------



## Greymatters (19 Sep 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and 'Timmy' has a lot more rich supporters in a certain "friendly" country that I would care about.



... 'countries' ...


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

Oh really...hmmm.Intriguing.  Ubique


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Sep 2008)

I think it's important when it comes to winning their hearts and minds we realize the difference between winning them over to our side and just opening our pocket books and trying to 'pay more' than the Taliban.

The Taliban will pay hundreds of dollars just for joe blow to give them a call when a convoy passes by a certain area. COunt how many vehicles, what kind they are. Whatever.
We can't match that.
It's very important we make good on our promises and not make them [promises] and leave it for the next roto to made good on (Bosnia) but in doing so I think we need to make sure we don't just come across as a cash cow.


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

If there were only a better way to inform these regular people of the checkpoints in their areas, this would all be a moot discussion. How can we make these checkpoints a lot more safe for both our troops, and the general populace... that is a question that should be asked. I am not saying broadcast these locales for the whole region to know about, that is just leaving the coop open for the fox, but posting perimeter signage that could give a few hundred meters of notice to oncoming traffic of what lays ahead for them.Ubique


----------



## Snafu-Bar (19 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> If there were only a better way to inform these regular people of the checkpoints in their areas, this would all be a moot discussion. How can we make these checkpoints a lot more safe for both our troops, and the general populace... that is a question that should be asked. I am not saying broadcast these locales for the whole region to know about, that is just leaving the coop open for the fox, but posting perimeter signage that could give a few hundred meters of notice to oncoming traffic of what lays ahead for them.Ubique




 Broadcasting through thier media in thier language that checkpoints and convoys are area's better avoided or what to do in the event you have no other choice but be near or in contact with them . Leaflets and posters and such are another. Other than that it's pretty much drastic measures.

Cheers.


----------



## Rodahn (19 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Broadcasting through thier media in thier language that checkpoints and convoys are area's better avoided or what to do in the event you have no other choice but be near or in contact with them . Leaflets and posters and such are another. Other than that it's pretty much drastic measures.
> 
> Cheers.



I believe that leaflets and posters are distributed to the populace on what actions are to be taken when approaching an ISAF convoy. Announcing where check points are being set up prior to doing so would not IMO be prudent, as that is akin to telling the Taliban "Here we are come shoot at us".


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

Ok, SNAFU-BAR, so tell me would that be better than having non-combatants rushing at you? I for one would rather have the enemy show up looking for a fight,and finally be at the position of preparedness, than have the latter happen again and again. Wouldn't you? Ubique


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> How can we make these checkpoints a lot more safe for both our troops, and the general populace...



IMHO from being on the ground, I would say education, mostly by word of mouth works. In Baghdad, everyone knew, those that failed to stop, well, were fired upon, for reasons of just plain stupidity mostly.

At the end of ther day, vehicles are so marked with signage ,and all know the rules, Its been years since Coaltion Forces have been on the ground in both theatres.

Why some won't listen, well thats taken to grave I guess by many.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## MG34 (22 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Ok, SNAFU-BAR, so tell me would that be better than having non-combatants rushing at you? I for one would rather have the enemy show up looking for a fight,and finally be at the position of preparedness, than have the latter happen again and again. Wouldn't you? Ubique



All the locals know the drill, the main reason they disobey is the misguided thought that "they don't have to obey the infidels in my country" which is an almost direct quote from the 2 survivors I enountered after engaging a hostile vehicle with deadly force in seperate incidents. Too bad for them that they refuse to obey as if rarely ends up well on their side, I certainly didn't lose any sleep over it and congratulated my soldiers for doing the proper drill at the proper time.
  There is no way to tell a friendly veh from an enemy one, espescially when it is speeding towards you despite being warned off.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Sep 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> All the locals know the drill, the main reason they disobey is the misguided thought that "they don't have to obey the infidels in my country" which is an almost direct quote from the 2 survivors I enountered after engaging a hostile vehicle with deadly force in seperate incidents.



Thanks for sharing that - I'm sure this, as well as other good info from in theatre, is being considered by those making and communicating the rules.

I agree with all who say, "if we agreed to pay, we have to pay" - hearts, minds, optics, call it what you like.  A deal has to be a deal, lest our credibility suffer.  

Meanwhile, adding to the CLIPINT here, here's a bit more information:  why there's a process in place, as well as a bit more info of the father's situation, courtesy of Canadian Press as of 16 Sept 08 - usual disclaimer and MSM caveats apply:


> .... In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, the children's father Ruzi Mohammed said he has spoken with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Canadian officials from the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team about financial compensation for the mistake.  Doing so, however, drew the attention of the Taliban. Insurgent threats have since driven Ruzi and his wife out of their home in Panjwaii.  Now forced to rent a small house in Kandahar City for 4,000 afghanis, or $90 Cdn a month, Ruzi expressed frustration with the amount of time it's taking to get full compensation.  *The military has said it takes time because handing over a pile of cash would have put his life in danger. Instead, a representative from the PRT helped him open a bank account and the money is being deposited in four instalments.  The military wouldn't reveal the amount of the settlement.*


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2008)

And, according to at least one blogger, Canada is not paying quite enough for these incidents:


> As we saw the other day, the Canadian Forces recently released data on the number of civilians killed and injured by our troops: 10 killed (now 11) and 30 injured. The same article relates how military officials are authorized to give up to $2,000 in compensation to families of those killed or injured.  Two thousand dollars is also the amount which US military officials are authorized to give out to Afghans as compensation. The problem is, this is an insultingly low figure....




Guess he missed these bits from the Globe & Mail:


> *Afghan families got up to $9,000 each for losing a family member*....



or the National Post:


> .... They have also started the process of deciding whether to pay compensation *which, in past accidental killings, has ranged from $2,000 to $9,000* ....


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2008)

It is a matter of perspective, isn't it.  $2,000, or even $9,000, would seem a pittance in "Canadian" dollars for a payment here in the West, but what does it really equate to in Afghanistan where annual incomes are only in the two figure range?


----------



## gun runner (23 Sep 2008)

I wonder if that amount stated is in Afghan currency, or CDN $? It would be a fortune in afghan currency..no? Ubique


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2008)

If you believe CP's statement re:  rent for Mr. Mohammed's house, then the range of compensation would be (to use one very rough indicator) between 22 and 100 months of rent.

If there's a $ sign in front, it'll be Canadian dollars.


----------



## TN2IC (23 Sep 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> I thought we were over there to fight the insurgency, not promote it.  :



Sorry if it came off the wrong way. I"m just dying to get to the box.   :cdnsalute:


----------

