Latif Nasser

$2,500 for a life, $1,500 for property damage.

And then eventually the property damage amount got raised to $2,500 as well.

And that didn't make any sense to me.

That somebody could get so much for a Toyota Corolla, but you were just going to get the same amount for a lost life.

Like I can't get over, I mean, $2,500 seems like just such a nominal amount.

And the practicality of that money of like if you were to kill someone who is the breadwinner of a family, that $2,500 would not be able to support this family in any way.

Right.

But we're not actually trying to pay full compensation, right?

Like we're not trying to say we think if this 20-year-old man had lived to be the average age in Afghanistan that he – that it would have been $60,843, right?

Like that's not the thing.

Do you ever – we had people who were killed here in an attack.

Do you notice that?

It is to a large degree comparing apples and oranges.

That's general gross again.

Because you're talking about a legal system.

Where a country is paying their own victims.

Versus condolences in an area where there's no legal obligation to make those payments in the first place.

Well, yes and no.

Essentially, it's a person's life.

I mean, I think there's an argument to be made that there's an empathy in the number that you come up with, in the amount that you pay for someone's life.