Monday, March 20, 2006

I don't know about this...

The family of the slain Afghani man who was accidentally shot by the Canadian Troops in Afghanistan wants to come to Canada.

Thank you for the sheep. But can we come to Canada?

That was the response today from the family of Nasrat Ali, the Afghan father of six who was killed by a Canadian soldier on patrol here last week. Semen Gul, Ali’s widow, had said earlier that the family would be asking for $30,000 (US) in compensation from Canada for the loss of their main breadwinner, a man who allegedly had 15 dependants in close kin, including a daughter-in-law and toddler grandson.

But today, Ali’s oldest son, Nisar Ahmed, 22, told the Star through an intermediary that what his family would like most is temporary relocation to Canada, so that the younger children in the family can get a good education.


Look I can certainly sympathize with their loss. Loosing the breadwinner in the family is a major setback in many parts of the Muslim world. But I have some reservations about this request, for two reasons.

  • How can I say this without sounding like an insensitive jerk? But to accept that request would imply that we consider the whole incident was our fault. When in fact it can be argued at worst that it was just a tragic case of miscommunication on both sides.

  • It would send a dangerous signal: If we accept this demand, we will definatly not see the end of this. You have no idea how far some people are willing to go to get their families out of places like Afghanistan, so if word gets out that all that needs to happen is you getting killed by Canadian soldiers and your family gets a one-way ticket to Canada to start a new life with new opportunities, you can bet the house that tomorrow we'll be seeing hundreds of desperate men running towards the Canadian base hoping to get shot in hopes of martyring themselves for the well-being of they're families.



That doesn't mean I don't think other arrangements should be considered.

(H.T. Nealenews)

14 Comments:

At Monday, 20 March, 2006, Anonymous Fred said...

The simple answer is no, firmly, politely no.

Patriots such as this man are needed to help rebuild Afghanistan.

Some money, sure . give him $25k or whatever. It's like winning the 649.

 
At Monday, 20 March, 2006, Anonymous Anne (happier in Ontario) said...

I was thinking the same thing Arabian, it just shouldn't be done.

I wouldn't just attribute a family member willing to die for the rest of the family to Muslims though. Put in the right circumstances many people would sacrifice themselves to get their loved ones out of deplorable conditions, myself included. It's human nature to protect and want better for your family.

Surely something else can be arranged for his family?

 
At Monday, 20 March, 2006, Blogger Jack's Newswatch said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Monday, 20 March, 2006, Blogger Jack's Newswatch said...

I had to remove the post because it threw the template out of line.

You can check on my site for the Globe article that went up today and you'll find that it was a request - not a demand.

It seems little enough to do for the family if we made a mistake. Especially when you consider how people enter this country every day and what kinds of backgrounds some of them have.

 
At Monday, 20 March, 2006, Blogger doug said...

Reaction to Ali Hassan's death on the streets of Kandahar has been somewhat muted by the fact that he was a minority Shi'a.-- National Post

I think it would be a great idea to investigate the possibilities of bringing his widow and her children here. As one relative said, her chances in Afghansitan are almost non-existent.

My guess is she and her children would be ENTHUSIASTIC Canadians who truly appreciated this country.

We could and have done much worse.

We killed her sole support. It's not Canada guys. There is no welfare for her. She is done unless we help out.

We can't help everyone this way but we KILLED her SOLE SUPPORT in a tragic accident. We don't need to condemn her as well.

It's cheap; it's effective; it wins friends and influences people.

In this case it's the RIGHT thing to do.

 
At Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the clarification. Its been fixed.

Like I said, I'm not exactly sure what we should do about this. We want what's best for the family, but we don't want to send out the message that all you have to do to guarantee your family a one way trip to safety, good education, healthcare, equality and most importantly freedom, is get shot accidently by Canadian troops.

Cause believe you me, ALOT of Afghani men would'nt hessitate doing this for their families. And the last thing we need is our troops facing many male residents of Khandahar who aim for the "suicide by cop" method.

But...considering the cirumstances in this case, I think we should take them in. But make it VERY CLEAR that this is an exception.

 
At Tuesday, 21 March, 2006, Anonymous Ibn said...

....Hi all,

Arabian,

And so what if the entire country decides to come in? I disagree with two points you make. The first one (implicitly):

That if you let his family come in, you will get hordes and hordes of Afghans clamoring to get shot at. That is, really, a ridiculous assumption to make. Its not like "I want to get in, so ill get shot and die". Its "Oh my god, he got shot, I have no chances here, I need to survive with a job etc, may I please immigrate?" Thats the issue.

People arent willing to lose a breadwinner to come. But they are willing to come if they lose a breadwinner. See the difference?

You have taken the latter statement, and applied the converse, which does not follow.

Second issue:

EVEN if hordes and hordes come in.

So what? A group of people is asking if they can move from one un-free environment, to one that is free. (free-er). And you are saying "NO" to that?? The whole reason why the North American continent today has millions upon millions of people is because at some point, their ancestors said "F*** dat" in their own native languages, and set on out here.

When people immigrate to free-er nations, or when they ask if they can, they are effectively asking if you would assist in removing their shackles and chains.

Who are you to deny them this freedom?

Thank you

-Ibn

 
At Wednesday, 22 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

"That is, really, a ridiculous assumption to make. Its not like "I want to get in, so ill get shot and die". Its "Oh my god, he got shot, I have no chances here, I need to survive with a job etc, may I please immigrate?" Thats the issue."

Oh sure its easy to dissmiss this as insane from where your sitting, but once you actually see the conditions and the poverty which many of these families live through, you'd be surprised just how far some people are willing to go to get out of there hell hole.

I was not suggesting that this guy got shot on purpose, not by a long shot. But the fear that I have was that should we offer his family amnesty, then you bet the house that people will be other family men will take notice.

2. I have nothing against immigration. Heck...I was an immigrant at one time! I just don't believe in Open Border "Let anybody in" policy.

 
At Wednesday, 22 March, 2006, Anonymous Ibn said...

Arabian,

"you'd be surprised just how far some people are willing to go to get out of there hell hole. "

That is not being contested.

What I AM contesting, is you applying the converse of this:

"People arent willing to lose a breadwinner to come. But they are willing to come if they lose a breadwinner."

In other words, just because someone has lost a breadwinner and can come, does NOT correlate to someone killing a breadwinner to come!

See, the "immigration" is the "next bast thing" on the totem pole to come AFTER a "breadwinner is killed". Your argument assumes you can go in the opposite direction - to lose something of higher value for lower value. Doesnt happen.

That is a LONG false chain link you have made there. Actually I think this is a logical fallacy of sorts. Yet that is the essense of your argument.

-----------------
"But the fear that I have was that should we offer his family amnesty, then you bet the house that people will be other family men will take notice. "

Again, so what? Why do you FEAR it? Is it a rational fear? (If so, what is the reason?). Or is it an irrational fear, like a phobia, that you just cant explain?

This ties into the last point you made of:

" I have nothing against immigration. Heck...I was an immigrant at one time! I just don't believe in Open Border "Let anybody in" policy."

Question: You are not against immigration. (good!) But if you arent willing people who pretty much have nothing left to live for, who live in a much un-freer country, and even belong to a family unit to come in, then just what type of immigrants ARE you for letting come on in?

In other words, with these people being bottom of the barrell, as with the millions who had come in here in the past, whats the issue? If we arent willing to let the "poor and tired" come in, then who is?

-Ibn

 
At Friday, 24 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

Easy there Dr. Phil.

What I am implying is that you look at it not from the family's perspective but the actual Breadwinner. Say you live in their conditions, violence, no democarcy, poor economy, third world living, etc, etc.

And the only way to improve your family's condition is you getting shot and killed...many many men in Afghanistan would'nt even hesitate.

The link is pretty short thank you very much.

"Question: You are not against immigration. (good!) But if you arent willing people who pretty much have nothing left to live for, who live in a much un-freer country, and even belong to a family unit to come in, then just what type of immigrants ARE you for letting come on in?

In other words, with these people being bottom of the barrell, as with the millions who had come in here in the past, whats the issue? If we arent willing to let the "poor and tired" come in, then who is? "


?????????
Ummmmmmm...okay...let me explain this as clearly as I can. I have no problem with immigration whatsoever, and I do believe we should allow some people who are living at "the bottom of the barrell" as you describe them.

But opening our borders completely to anyone who wishes to come here I believe is a mistake. It has enormous economic consequences, it can have cultural consequences if done in large volume, security can be a factor, no I'm sorry open immigration is not a seller with me.

 
At Friday, 24 March, 2006, Anonymous Ibn said...

"But opening our borders completely to anyone who wishes to come here I believe is a mistake."

Strawman. Thats not the subject.

"no I'm sorry open immigration is not a seller with me. "

And Im not selling it to you.

Look. Here is your train of thought:

1) Maybe family should come here because their breadwinner got shot.
2) But then people will shoot their breadwinners to come.
3) But then everybody comes!
4) Therefore that is open borders.
5) I am against open borders.
6) Therefore I am not sure about allowing (1) to happen.

So to re-itterate, I have no problem with (5). (Thats why your last statement is a strawman). However I do have a problem with how you GET to (5), FROM (1).
See the difference? Your train of thought is what I am calling VERY flawed.

And that flaw rests in getting (2) from (1). As I said before, saying:

"They will want to come here after their breadwinner dies"

is VERY different than saying:

"therefore they will kill their breadwinners to come".

As I said before, the converse of the first statement does NOT follow from itself. (See the totem-pole argument I made last post). You still have not addressed that.

Why that link is ridiculous to make, is because you are not taking into account the values people place on those commodities: "Bread-winners", in this case (human beings who are usually fathers, brothers), as well as "Immigration to Canada". (a new area of living in an alien culture). One has a higher VALUE than the other, to a family. Guess which one? The commodity "coming to canada" is a LOWER value to "my dad the bread-winner". However, it is the NEXT BEST THING on the list, should the "bread-winner" decease. Heirarchy. Value. See it?

That is why your link is simply ludicrous to say the least. In hard times, family units actually come closer together. It is therefore ridiculous to assume that on average people under those close conditions would simply start to stab their mothers after dinner simply because some western embassy gave them an incentive to do so. Its laughable.

This is why your chain is wrong.

-Ibn

 
At Monday, 27 March, 2006, Blogger The Arabian Knight said...

Wow. Look I'm talking apples, your talking oranges.

Lte me just clear a few things up...

You asked why I was exactly against "open immigration" allowing anyone who's at the "bottom" of the barrel to come in...I answred, you reply that its a strawman argument....no offense but
?????????????????

Second of all, I'm not saying that its the actual families who will shoot the breadwinner...but the breadwinner himslef who will go on a "suicide by cop" mission just to get his family out of the hell hole their in. My arguemt isn't as comp[licated as your trying to paint it.

That's all.

 
At Monday, 27 March, 2006, Blogger Leap Frog said...

I agree with you Arabian Knight, it's more than just a childish argument to say let the hords in en mass.

He needs to take a basic economic class at his local community college.

What's wrong with learning to survive and come together as a people to build a country instead of quickly moving on to another country, and bringing the 'frame of mind' that allowed their country to sink into dispair and strife to foster in the new land.

Time to face reality. The Islamic countries need to reform.

 
At Thursday, 15 July, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

票貼 借貸 借錢

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home