Canadian being held by Taliban

[Bonam]

I have no idea how you can possibly equate the concepts. Its like comparing apples and oranges. For most people, in my experience, who are addicts and criminals, there is an underlying reason for them to have begun their ways in the first place. Most addicts and criminals don't do what they do because they want to, they do it because they feel a need to.

There is a big difference between wants and needs. I want a 50" HD TV, but I need food. People who do stupid things because they feel they want to do it are not the same as people who do stupid things because they feel they need to do it. And therefore, it is impossible to treat the two types in the same way.

Eh, they might "feel" that they need to but they clearly don't. Maybe this guy "felt" that he needed to travel to unusual and dangerous locations? Who's to say he didn't?

Either the government gets itself in the business of holding people's hands, giving them second chances, and paying for their mistakes, or it doesn't. Personally, I'd rather it didn't. But, if it is going to use taxpayer's money to look after people who make stupid decisions, I honestly have more sympathy for this guy than a criminal or a drug addict, a lot more (as in, very little instead of zero).

[pegasus]

Eh, they might "feel" that they need to but they clearly don't. Maybe this guy "felt" that he needed to travel to unusual and dangerous locations? Who's to say he didn't?

Why would somebody feel a need to go to Afghanistan? He'd have to have a reason to need to go to Afghanistan, and a vacation is not a need. The only way it would be a need would be if he really is a spy, and that was his job.

Either the government gets itself in the business of holding people's hands, giving them second chances, and paying for their mistakes, or it doesn't. Personally, I'd rather it didn't. But, if it is going to use taxpayer's money to look after people who make stupid decisions, I honestly have more sympathy for this guy than a criminal or a drug addict, a lot more (as in, very little instead of zero).

Hypothetical situation: You have a car to give away. Do you give it someone who doesn't want to take the bus to work or to someone who can't get to work without a car? Both don't have cars. If we have the services available to help people, who are the ones who are most deserving of those services?

[ninjandrew]

Come on. Wandering into the tribal lands of Taliban dominated Afghanistan and expecting sweetness and light?

Well, yeah. Its an adventure, like backpacking through South America.

I honestly have more sympathy for this guy than a criminal or a drug addict, a lot more (as in, very little instead of zero).

I more or less agree, though I dont think things are as black and white as drug addicts are scum and deserve nothing.

[RNG]

Eh, they might "feel" that they need to but they clearly don't. Maybe this guy "felt" that he needed to travel to unusual and dangerous locations? Who's to say he didn't?

Either the government gets itself in the business of holding people's hands, giving them second chances, and paying for their mistakes, or it doesn't. Personally, I'd rather it didn't. But, if it is going to use taxpayer's money to look after people who make stupid decisions, I honestly have more sympathy for this guy than a criminal or a drug addict, a lot more (as in, very little instead of zero).

And I thought I was a hard right a**hole.

Edited May 9, 2011 by RNG

[Bonam]

Why would somebody feel a need to go to Afghanistan? He'd have to have a reason to need to go to Afghanistan, and a vacation is not a need. The only way it would be a need would be if he really is a spy, and that was his job.

Why would somebody feel a need to go do drugs? He'd have to have a reason to need to do drugs, and wanting to be high is not a need. The only way it would be a need would be if he really is an undercover drug deal buster, and that was his job.

Hypothetical situation: You have a car to give away. Do you give it someone who doesn't want to take the bus to work or to someone who can't get to work without a car? Both don't have cars. If we have the services available to help people, who are the ones who are most deserving of those services?

I'd give it to the guy who I get along with better and would be better to have as a friend / owe me a favor down the road? Their level of "need" would not be the factor that I considered. From the government's point of view, this means investing in people who are likely to become productive members of society and contribute something back in the future. I'd say a young guy who makes one bad call on where to travel but otherwise has a bright future is a better investment than a drug addict or criminal who will quite likely be a drain on society for their whole life.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Bonam

[ninjandrew]

Why would somebody feel a need to go do drugs? He'd have to have a reason to need to do drugs, and wanting to be high is not a need. The only way it would be a need would be if he really is an undercover drug deal buster, and that was his job.

As far as I know the need to get high doesnt come until youve been using an addictive drug and become dependent on it. Other reasons might be peer pressure, poor parenting, naivety/immaturity regarding seriousness of the drug and being forced to do them.

[Guest American Woman]

Why do criminals, drug addicts, welfare bums, etc, all deserve government help and a second chance, but a guy who made one bad choice on where to travel does not?

The problem I see with the government getting involved is related to what the demands might be other than money -- and questioning whether Canada should be giving the Taliban the money knowing what they will likely be doing with it.

I feel for the guy, as I said. I wish him the best, but he had to have known the risk he was taking, so is it right for Canada to put a large sum of money in the hands of those who could use it against other Canadians? Canada does have troops in Afghanistan, it's an international issue involving war, so I don't think putting out money to save him can be compared with putting out money in domestic situations such as the examples you have given.

It's a tough situation all the way around.

Edited May 9, 2011 by American Woman

[Bonam]

The problem I see with the government getting involved is related to what the demands might be other than money -- and questioning whether Canada should be giving the Taliban the money knowing what they will likely be doing with it.

I feel for the guy, as I said. I wish him the best, but he had to have known the risk he was taking, so is it right for Canada to put a large sum of money in the hands of those who could use it against other Canadians and/or allies? Canada does have troops in Afghanistan, it's an international issue involving war, so I don't think putting out money to save him can be compared with putting out money in domestic situations such as the examples you have given.

It's a tough situation all the way around.

I didn't say anything about paying money. I'm opposed to paying ransoms to terrorists of course. Sending in a squad of special forces to blow their brains out and bring him home, on the other hand, would be good policy.

[Guest American Woman]

I didn't say anything about paying money. I'm opposed to paying ransoms to terrorists of course. Sending in a squad of special forces to blow their brains out and bring him home, on the other hand, would be good policy.

I don't recall having read anything about that, so I appreciate the clarification. That raises another issue, though; should others be expected to risk their lives, very possibly lose their life, to attempt to bring him home? Again, that makes this situation very different from the other examples you gave.

[Bonam]

I don't recall having read anything about that, so I appreciate the clarification. That raises another issue, though; should others be expected to risk their lives, very possibly lose their life, to attempt to bring him home? Again, that makes this situation very different from the other examples you gave.

Our military personnel are expected to risk their lives all the time, and often for causes far less innately justifiable than trying to bring home a Canadian civilian. Anyway, it becomes less about him at that point, it becomes a matter of setting an example. If you kidnap a Canadian abroad, not only will you not get a ransom, you'll also be dead. Sadly, Canada doesn't have the guts for that.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

...it becomes less about him at that point, it becomes a matter of setting an example. If you kidnap a Canadian abroad, not only will you not get a ransom, you'll also be dead.

I can get behind that; that would be a good message to get out there.

[dre]

Why would somebody feel a need to go do drugs? He'd have to have a reason to need to do drugs, and wanting to be high is not a need. The only way it would be a need would be if he really is an undercover drug deal buster, and that was his job.

I'd give it to the guy who I get along with better and would be better to have as a friend / owe me a favor down the road? Their level of "need" would not be the factor that I considered. From the government's point of view, this means investing in people who are likely to become productive members of society and contribute something back in the future. I'd say a young guy who makes one bad call on where to travel but otherwise has a bright future is a better investment than a drug addict or criminal who will quite likely be a drain on society for their whole life.

drug addict or criminal who will quite likely be a drain on society for their whole life.

That sounds like bullshit to me. Most addicts are productive members of society, that just happened to get addicted to chemical compounds (weed, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, etc).

Also letting small time criminals or addicts out of jail isnt INVESTING in anything. It SAVES us money... it costs somewhere around a hundred thousand dollars per year to keep someone in jail. So your whole premise is ass backwards in the first place.

Having said that... Our government SHOULD help this guy (within reason), and do what they can to facilitate a release. If hes able to pay for some of the costs out of pocket thats great, but otherwise... oh well.

[pegasus]

For all we know, this guy may be an alcoholic. http://ring.uvic.ca/01feb02/barnes.html

[capricorn]

For all we know, this guy may be an alcoholic. http://ring.uvic.ca/01feb02/barnes.html

It's a bit premature to bring alcoholism into the equation pegasus.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against all travel to Afghanistan. Canadians undertaking travel despite this warning take serious risks. Canadians already in Afghanistan should leave. The security situation remains extremely volatile and unpredictable.

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=1000

We really don't know anything about this fellow. Is the guy just so stupid that he disregarded the Canadian government's caution against visiting Afghanistan? Or is he really a Canadian government operative as the Taliban alleges? Who the heck knows.

[GostHacked]

Why do I have a feeling we will see this guys fate on TV the same way we saw Daniel Pearl....???

[capricorn]

If you kidnap a Canadian abroad, not only will you not get a ransom, you'll also be dead. Sadly, Canada doesn't have the guts for that.

For some reason Bonam, your comment reminded me of the great Canadian-Lebanese rescue mission, where thousands of dual citizens were plucked from a war zone in spite of not having lived in Canada for a great number of years. The Canadian government is so afraid of appearing cold hearted it will spare no effort or expense to come to the aid of Canadians of convenience and Canadians blind to the perils of foreign travel to questionable destinations.

[capricorn]

Why do I have a feeling we will see this guys fate on TV the same way we saw Daniel Pearl....???

I doubt it GostHacked. We really don't know if the kidnappers are Taliban or just opportunistic pirates. Whoever is holding this guy probably knows the Canadian government will fold like a cheap suit and pay a ransom for his release.

[Smallc]

Whoever is holding this guy probably knows the Canadian government will fold like a cheap suit and pay a ransom for his release.

Based on what, exactly? It's far more likely that the location will be discovered inf communication happens. That will end up with dead terrorists at the hands of JTF2, not a ransom payment.

[Guest American Woman]

We really don't know anything about this fellow. Is the guy just so stupid that he disregarded the Canadian government's caution against visiting Afghanistan? Or is he really a Canadian government operative as the Taliban alleges? Who the heck knows.

People do sometimes, after contemplating the information, disregard their government's travel advisories. I know, because I did. It wasn't a war zone, I'd never do that for obvious reasons, but I went to Kenya when my government said not to. They didn't say to go with caution, they said not to go - and if there, leave. I questioned at the time what my expectations would be if something were to happen to my daughter and me while we were over there; I couldn't decide if I would expect the government to act or not under the circumstances, and finally just gave up thinking about it since I was going anyway.

At any rate, I'm sure some people do travel to Afghanistan safely. Tourism in Afghanistan? It is, however, obviously a risk, and it's a risk some people willingly take. For that reason, I didn't agree that others should risk their lives in rescue missions until Bonam made the point that Canada should stand up and show the Taliban that kidnapping Canadians will not be tolerated.

[bloodyminded]

That sounds like bullshit to me. Most addicts are productive members of society, that just happened to get addicted to chemical compounds (weed, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, etc).

Also letting small time criminals or addicts out of jail isnt INVESTING in anything. It SAVES us money... it costs somewhere around a hundred thousand dollars per year to keep someone in jail. So your whole premise is ass backwards in the first place.

Having said that... Our government SHOULD help this guy (within reason), and do what they can to facilitate a release. If hes able to pay for some of the costs out of pocket thats great, but otherwise... oh well.

37 posts and this is the first response that displays any compassion to both parts of the discussion (the young man and the addicts).

Scratch that; American Woman seems inclined this way as well.

Still. A pretty mean-spirited little thread overall.

Edited May 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[fellowtraveller]

And if his thrill seeking causes him injury or death, we, as Canadians, should not be held responsible for coming to his rescue without consequences.

just curious , but how do you feel about people like journalists who get kidnapped and ransomed by the govt.? They too voluntarily go into war zones where bad things happen.

[GostHacked]

just curious , but how do you feel about people like journalists who get kidnapped and ransomed by the govt.? They too voluntarily go into war zones where bad things happen.

I would assume that journalists kind of have an idea of what they are getting into and know the dangers. Many reporters get embedded with military units and kind of become part of the unit. Not sure if that makes them safer or not. One idiot who says 'HAY LET'S GO TO AFGHANISTAN FOR A TRIP!!!' .. is either a complete idiot, ... or a complete idiot.

[Guest American Woman]

just curious , but how do you feel about people like journalists who get kidnapped and ransomed by the govt.? They too voluntarily go into war zones where bad things happen.

Even though they of all people should be aware of the risks involved, and they are there for economic gain and/or notoriety, I think the idea that our countries should send the message that 'you can't do this to one of ours and get away with it' should apply.

[fellowtraveller]

I think the idea that our countries should send the message that 'you can't do this to one of ours and get away with it' should apply.

so you approve of the payment of ransoms, or military intervention in all circumstances to rescue a citizen?

[Bonam]

so you approve of the payment of ransoms, or military intervention in all circumstances to rescue a citizen?

I think it's fairly clear that the statement you quoted implies approval of military intervention but disapproval of ransom payments.