The people we should "understand"

[The Evil Genius]

All I want to know is how this post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art said

I guess I'm just so open-minded as you to equate Klan members with the forcible rape of a woman because her brother walked with a girl from a higher tribe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do know what the Klan did to minorities, especially the women of minorities in the US - when they got their hands on them right?

Better yet - you know about the slave owners who raped their slaves right? One of which, it appears, was either a former President or his brother (Jefferson).

Or is this more revisionist right wing history that we are gonna learn about?

became to mean that I was saying that it was okay for anyone to rape anyone or that we shouldn't judge others because we have committed the same crimes.

Since it is so hard for you to understand plain english - I will try to spell it out for you.

You posted an article for the sole purpose of IMPLYING that all Pakistani's are for the raping of women who commit such a "crime" (it was not really a crime though).

I replied with a comment that perhaps you should post the articles that talk about the KKK. My thought was that they (the articles) would incorrectly IMPLY that all Americans are like this group (the KKK).

Then you said, "I guess I'm just so open-minded as you to equate Klan members with the forcible rape of a woman because her brother walked with a girl from a higher tribe."

I replied that the same thing can be said about the KKK actions on black women, and slave owners treatment of slave women, and apparently either Thomas Jefferson or his brother.

I guess I thought you would have seen the error of you ways in posting such a blanket generalization. Guess I was wrong.

[The Evil Genius]

I ask you Art - what was the purpose of this article?

[Brave]

Wow! When I posted this morning this thread was about terrorism and war and now it's evolved into an argument about gay rights and same sex marriages!?! Never know where we'll end up, do we?

Go figure.

[Skins24]

Always happens Brave.

By like the end of the second page and begining of third, the original post is long forgotten. (except for babe alert of course )

[fansince62]

GBear....i think you're off on the marriage contract. as i have always understood it, marriage has received the imprimatur of the state (in the tax code, etc) due to a social policy of supporting the so-called nuclear family. now, you may disagree as to whether the policy carries validity - that heterosexual, nuclear families are the best environment for raising children - but that is how i believe the policy evolved (possibly from the apparently detested judaeo-christian foundations of this country).

[Burgold]

Beware of the regularity argument. It would not be hard for another person to look at statistically how often homicide occurs in this country (don't know the stat offhand, but I seem to remember something like a person is killed every 5 minutes or some truly disturbing number like that) or the frequency of rape or other violence and attribute it to our cultural identity. I think that despite its prevalence, violent crime is not accepted or approved of in the US. If one is analyzing a trend, sometimes a frequency chart or average is not the best means of analyzing data which is why understanding a culture is important and also as was suggested, trying to understand the subcultures which impact the main culture can be useful to. Useful as a defense mechanism, useful as a way of proferring dialogue, trade, or diplomacy.

Also, beware of the history argument. We judge a people through a historical lens. Rightly or wrongly. It takes a long time to switch glasses too. Much of how we view the Arab world is derrived from our historical knowledge and we project off that baseline. I personally think that's fair, however, if it is fair, it's not unfair to expect others may look at us through the same historical lens and see a culture of great intent and achievement, but with a couple of warts too. I also think it is important to understand the past of a people as a component in how their belief systems came to be shaped.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

I could have just as well used South American cannabalism as an example -- should we then conclude that cannabalism is endemic to South America and drives their geopolitical relations? I think not.

Actually, if one is dealing with a culture that practices and encourages cannibalism, it seems sensible to me that one could easily presume that such a practice would have an indelible effect on their worldview. However, since South American cannibals were not the ones who flew airplanes into our skyscrapers on Sept. 11th, I'd say that bringing them up in this debate would be rather tangential and, ultimately, pointless.

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

Pakistan is too culturally diverse

RD, please define “culturally diverse” for me.

And, EG, since you seem to be such a big fan of non sequiturs involving former presidents and alleged cases of rape, try this one for size: According to journalist Christopher Hitchens’ research, which served as the basis for his book No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family, there is ample evidence to support Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that Bill Clinton, while Attorney General of Arkansas in the late 1970s, raped her.

(Who exactly is Christopher Hitchens? Is he a part of The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy against Bill Clinton? Nope. He’s the very liberal writer for the very liberal Nation magazine.)

So maybe that’s why those terrorists attacked us on Sept. 11th, eh, EG? They were just so incensed over Clinton’s (alleged) brutalization of Juanita Broaddrick, right?

[gbear]

Fan since 62,

I'm not argueing for how the marriage contract came to be, though I suspect you are right that it was from theJudeo Christian standpoint to promote the nuclear family. I'm saying that it is the Christian right that keeps it that way so that only heterosexuals may have the legal benefits that come from marriage. There is a significant portion of the population that is for giving gays an option with thesame legal rights as heterosexual marriages. It's even starting to show up in laws and practices of large organizations. Art, mentioned Vermont. Here in MD, the University of MD extended insurance benefits to gay partners.

Lest anyone think that taxes are the only legal benefits to marriage, also remember:

1) making medical decisions for incapacitated loved ones & visiting rights

2) insurance benefits

3) inheritance of everything not specificly stated in a will

that's off the top of my head.

[Darth Tater]

gbear,

While the Christian right helps defend a word with very specific meaning. The current statutory definition of marriage comes as much from the definition argued by the rational theism.

Quotes form Kant -- The Science of Right:

'Act externally in such a manner that the free exercise of thy will may be able to coexist with the freedom of all others, according to a universal law.'

'...marriage (matrimonium), which

is the union of two persons of different sex for life-long

reciprocal possession...'

and further

'...such a relation is not really

different from concubinage, according to the principles of natural

right, and therefore does not constitute a real marriage.'

[mardi gras skin]

Has there ever been a faith, or a culture that cared little for faith, that has allowed for homosexual marriages? Obviously NAMBLA style man/boy unions were in vogue in some circles of the ancient Mediterranean empires, but I can't think of one society that has ever allowed for same sex marriages.

If that’s the case, then homosexual marriage is not an issue of the tolerance of one faith, but of the accepted norms of all people groups of all time. That’s a heavy stone to move.

[gbear]

HEavy doesn't make it unworthwhile. How long did it take us to get rid of slavery? Slavery was the norm for thousands of years. To say nobody else has done it before isn't enough to say it's not worthwhile.

I'll admit it makes it harder. The things we accept as "the norm because it's always been done," are often the hardest because humans aren't all that accepting of change.

I'll look for where it's been done before. Right now we have Vermont and the University of MD. It tougher to find though because the laws benefiting marriage haven't been in place for too long. Think about how much of the world has had inheritance going to oldest male, regardless of surviving wife? Health insurance is a new thing too. Taxes were paid by the household, and women didn't work. SO most of the benfits are newly granted to marriages. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to cal it marriage if that offends people. Just grant equal benefits of the long term sexual relations.

[Dirk Diggler]

I took a class in Criminal Justice and one of the things that I'll never forget is how appalling Islamic law was.

I remember how it is standard law that if a female virgin commits a crime punishable by death (ie jay walking :laugh: ), she must be raped before she is put to death. Some crazy belief about not being able to meet Allah as a virgin.

That was standard law too, not just some idea someone came up with in a cave somewhere. :doh:

[RiggoDrill]

Actually, if one is dealing with a culture that practices and encourages cannibalism, it seems sensible to me that one could easily presume that such a practice would have an indelible effect on their worldview. However, since South American cannibals were not the ones who flew airplanes into our skyscrapers on Sept. 11th, I'd say that bringing them up in this debate would be rather tangential and, ultimately, pointless.

I just love it when conservatives puff up their chests, get on their high horse and end up making my point for me!

Yes, Glenn, I deliberately constructed a pointless generalization to show that Art's thread is a pointless generalization.

Art keeps stating how the singular incident in his post is A) representative of the "enemy" and therefore the "real" reason we were attacked.

However, reading this thread in its entirety will show that Art has thus far failed to:

A)Define the "enemy" --is it Pakistanis? Afghans? Pashtuns? Taliban Muslims? Al Qaeda Muslims? All Muslims? If we do limit it to the tribes in the article, what basis is there for a generalization ... and to whom? ... given that the "enemy" is never defined.

B)Show how tribal rape is characteristic of the "enemy" (again, never defined). Are there any statistics or studies shown here which show any sort of prevalence, commonality, average, or tendency?

C)Show how this common practice (never substantiated) of our "enemy" (never defined) causes, or is correlated to, terrorist attacks on the US.

And, as far as the meaning of "culturally diverse" ... look it up! You're a big boy now!

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

I just love it when conservatives puff up their chests, get on their high horse and end up making my point for me!

Actually, RD, I love it when those who clearly know nothing about me jump to conclusions about my political worldview. For the record, I consider myself a liberal. Now maybe because I'm not a particularly big fan of the nouveau Left's favorite parlor game (next to Political Correctness) of Moral Equivalency I'm not liberal enough for you, RD. Heck, maybe my dislike of Moral Equivalency even makes me downright neoconservative in your view. Who knows? Only you can answer that question, sir.

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

I deliberately constructed a pointless generalization to show that Art's thread is a pointless generalization.

Deliberately pointless? So you're basically saying that you were wasting people's time there, correct? Well, what can I say? I'm truly impressed, RD. And thanks to such an enviable ability as deliberate pointlessness, you should have no trouble finding a cushy job within, say, the ivory towers of American academia -- should you choose to go that career route, of course.

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

as far as the meaning of "culturally diverse" ... look it up!

Ah, I see. In addition to being deliberately pointless, you're also adept at being evasive. Great strategy, RD: you assert something, then when I ask you to back it up, you dodge my query by pointing me in the direction of a dictionary. Cute. Very cute. However, since Webster's didn't arrive at the value judgment that Pakistan was "culturally diverse," you're the one who's responsible for explaining yourself, sir.

And while your at it, why don't you also try rebutting Art's argument that the Islamic World is an essentially barbaric place with something a tad more persuasive than "Nonsense!" and "that's utter B.S." Concrete examples to back up your case would be a big help, RD.

[HighOnHendrix]

Originally posted by Art

World: Pakistan investigates gang rape ordered by tribal council

Copyright © 2002 AP Online

By KHALID TANVEER, Associated Press

MULTAN, Pakistan (July 2, 2002 7:36 a.m. EDT) - A Pakistani tribal council ordered an 18-year-old girl to be gang-raped in order to punish her family after her brother was seen walking with a girl from a higher class tribe, police said Tuesday.

Those are some seriously sick people.

[Art]

It must be remembered here, in defense of RD and EG and other of our left friends that in their view, because our society has isolated events of criminal behavior, that the same types of outrages in other societies must be similary isolated. They can not let their mind process widespread and complete normalcy of such acts within any society because they refuse to recognize that we are better than them.

To them, we are all people and people are the same. And because people are the same, if we have isolated crime, and they see crime in other societies, then it must therefore be isolated too. It's impossible for them to process the fact that some places are simply more evolved with better people than other places.

I don't hold RD in contempt for his failure to recognize the point of this thread being the general lawlessness within this region of global society is where the problem lies, especially when one considers the fact that this act, even if the men who did it are caught, can almost not possibly be prosecuted due to laws of that area that require four Muslim males of good standing to have witnessed the rape. It is no mistake the tribe here picked four men to commit the crime as these four will say they didn't do it and no one else saw it, despite hearing it, so no one will be convicted here.

It's not isolated to mountain tribes in Pakistan. The society here is backward and corrupt by any views we apply, except one. Liberal self-loathing which allows us to make stupid comments that lends some moral weight to Thomas Jefferson's ownership and love life with slaves to what is the present day norm in these societies. Poor EG thinks he's gotten under my skin by making such a mindnumbingly stupid statement. He fails to understand that he made the point better than I could have. And, again, thanks for it.

Once people grasp the fact that we are better than them, we can go about correcting them. Until liberals full of guilt and self-loathing allow themselves this essential recognition, it'll always continue to be something we've done.

[Yomar]

Originally posted by Art

Once people grasp the fact that we are better than them, we can go about correcting them.

:notworthy

[mardi gras skin]

HEavy doesn't make it unworthwhile. How long did it take us to get rid of slavery? Slavery was the norm for thousands of years. To say nobody else has done it before isn't enough to say it's not worthwhile.

Though I do argue against the worth of homosexual marriage, that wasn't the point of my post. The point of my post was that it is dishonest to select any one group (in this case Christianity) and hold that group out as being narrow minded when it is, in fact, voicing an almost universal view. Be equally disdainful of Jews and Muslims and all people who have no particular faith but still, somehow, come to the conclusion that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Be honest about the scope of the people you are in disagreement with. You're not just disagreeing with a few frothy-mouthed right wing Christians.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Art

Once people grasp the fact that we are better than them, we can go about correcting them.

While I think you're being a bit comedic here (and certainly a bit serious, too), there is, in my view, undoubted weight to what you say.

For far too long, ever since rampant cynicism about all things American came into vogue in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam, America -- especially America's left-leaning academic intelligentsia -- has tirelessly and unyieldingly fixated on its shortcomings, past and present, failing entirely to address anything even remotely indicative of its greatness. A kind of far-reaching relativism, both morally and ethically, took hold. Suddenly all bets were off, and America was no longer in any position to advise any nation on how to conduct it's business. The moral high ground had been obliterated. Right and wrong were no longer solid and universal but fluid and conditional.

However, Stanley Crouch, the noted jazz critic and ranking member of the black intellectual community whose delightfully contrarian views have never ceased to rankle his colleagues on the Left, will fortunately have none of this. Speaking on C-SPAN some years back at a conference about the sorry state of the African continent, Crouch didn't feel encumbered by relativism or a touchy-feely need to "empathize." For example, he had no trouble blasting the practice of so-called female circumcision, which remains common in some parts of Africa, as the barbaric and wrong-headed act that it is. "Look," Crouch said, "there's right and then there's wrong. I don't care what anybody says, this [female circumcision] is just plain wrong."

Many of Crouch's fellows on the Left, notably the academic Left, would have "issues" with making a similarly clear and unambiguous declaration on a matter such as this, an international matter. Caveat-laden statements are more their style. Except, of course, when it relates to America (e.g. American foreign policy). In that case, they have no trouble sounding off loud and proud with their views and opinions, which are almost always uniformly and uncritically anti-American. "America can do no right and other nations can do no wrong -- unless, of course, these other nations have been driven to do so by bad ol' America," seems to be their ceaselessly shrill message.

On the other hand, Crouch, thankfully, sees through this silly party line and is smart enough to think for himself. While readily acknowledging that America "has had bad policies, has been a slaveholding republic, has been quite racist and has upheld racism, while holding back women and frequently exhibiting xenophobia," Crouch goes on to point out "that is only part of a long story." He continues:

The Declaration of Independence starts off with a proclamation of equality and inalienable rights that might now sound romantic, but that vision of equality and fundamental rights has taken the world over, so much so that even those who have claimed to hate us are often wandering through their sleep as Americans...

Any woman in some of the Arab states or China or black Africa who dreams of becoming as influential within the context of her nation as has national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is dreaming of being an American woman.

Any man born of immigrant parents who dreams of rising to the very top of his country's military, turning his back on becoming the leader of his country, then functioning a few years later as its commander of foreign relations, as has Secretary of State Colin Powell, is dreaming of being an American...

[The] Founding Fathers were no band of angels coming down from the clouds to create a nation based on the dictates of heaven. They did not have to be. Jefferson and his fellow Founders planted the seeds of liberty, and those seeds have been so well watered with blood, labor, grief and optimism that those men would not recognize the America that now exists.

They might be pretty proud, though, to have given us not a perfect beginning, but one upon which we could build this inarguably great nation, this ongoing work in progress that is the envy of the world.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/crouch.html

[Darth Tater]

In relationships between countries, friendship as between individuals does not exist. As Machiovelli indicated, nation-states change allies and enemies on their own interests, not necessarily moral principles (although for a government to act counter to national interests may be said to be an immoral act).

To keep your allies faithful and your enemies in line, you must use the old 'carrot-and-stick' method: use the carrot to get them to act as you will and the stick to punish them for acting otherwise. To use this strategy effectively, the policy maker must know what 'carrot' or what 'stick' to use and know when to restrain the 'stick', allow the ally or enemy to have the 'carrot', or not use the 'carrot' at all.

Events like the one that lead off this thread, seem to indicate that we don't even know what the proper stick or carrot is. And further, do we, as a democatic nation built on certain moral principles, want to positively associate ourselves with a nation-state which acts against natural law?

-- By the way, are you ready for some football?

[The Evil Genius]

And, EG, since you seem to be such a big fan of non sequiturs involving former presidents and alleged cases of rape, try this one for size: According to journalist Christopher Hitchens’ research, which served as the basis for his book No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family, there is ample evidence to support Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that Bill Clinton, while Attorney General of Arkansas in the late 1970s, raped her.

Doesn't surprise me - Clinton's morality isn't in question - his extra marital affairs speak for themself. And if he did indeed commit rape(s) - then I hope he pays for his actions.

[The Evil Genius]

Some more updated news.

Pakistan Gang Rape Suspects Arrested

Sun Jul 7, 4:12 PM ET

MULTAN, Pakistan (AP) - Police arrested two men Sunday suspected of taking part in the gang rape of an 18-year-old girl as part of a tribal punishment in a remote Pakistani village.

Police raided two houses in separate villages in Punjab province and arrested Ghulam Farid and Mohammed Fayaz, said police Col. Farman Ali. The suspects were hiding in the homes of relatives, he said.

The arrests bring the number of people detained in the rape to four, including a police officer who faces charges for failing to take action against the suspected attackers. One other suspected rapist remains at large.

Police said the woman was raped June 22 by four men after a tribal council in Meerwala village ordered that her family be punished after her 11-year-old brother was seen walking unchaperoned with a girl from a different tribe.

The victim's family was from the Gujar tribe, considered lower-class than the Mastoi tribe to which the girl who walked with the boy belonged. The council was Mastoi, as were the men who carried out the rape.

Police say the tribal verdict was illegal. But Pakistan has a tradition of tribal justice in which crimes or affronts to dignity are punished outside the framework of Pakistani law.

The rape has outraged rights groups, which have demanded an end to punishments by tribal councils. The Pakistan government has given the family $8,000 as compensation and says a school will be built in Meerwala in the victim's name.

Police have been under pressure to capture the rapists after Pakistan's Supreme Court accused local officers of negligence for failing to detain them immediately after the crime.

[Art]

EG,

I see you are enjoying the show. Here's more news.

"Fifteen-year-old Jehan Mina became pregnant after being raped by her uncle and cousin. Her family filed a complaint of rape but since there were no witnesses, the alleged rapists were acquitted. Yet her pregnancy was proof that "zina" [extra-marital sexual intercourse] had taken place and she was sentenced to 100 lashes in public. The punishment was later converted to 3 years imprisonment and 10 lashes."

--excerpt taken from an Amnesty International News Release on Pakistan, 10 June 1997"

The fact is, these gentlemen will not be convicted of rape in Pakistan because due to Hudood laws in Pakistan that require an equivalent of four Muslim male witnesses of good character verify a woman’s claim to being raped. It is equivalent because if eight women witnessed the crime, they would count because two women count as a single male.

But, thanks for the update. I'm still looking for your update, BTW, showing the U.S. stating that the civilians killed last week were near an anti-aircraft site and that crews in the air and on the ground witnessed tracking gunfire before unleashing the killing blows. You pointed out our actions as potentially those of a terrorist, but, you haven't pointed out further information. I can't figure out why you'd not do so.

[The Evil Genius]

You mean this one?

U.S. General Visits Afghan Site, Offers Support

Mon Jul 8, 5:08 AM ET

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A top U.S. commander has returned from a visit to an Afghan village that was mistakenly bombed by U.S. aircraft last week, pledging humanitarian help and a beefed-up military presence to prevent any more such accidents.

General Dan K. McNeill, head of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan ( news - web sites), met the governor of Uruzgan province, Jan Mohammad Khan, on Sunday and accompanied him to Deh Rawud village where the bombing took place.

The Afghan government said 48 people were killed and 117 wounded when a U.S. B-52 bomber was thought to have mistakenly dropped a 2000-lb bomb on the wedding party.

Pentagon ( news - web sites) officials have suggested that an AC-130 warplane could also have mistaken rifle-shots -- fired in the air during festivities in a traditional Afghan ritual -- as anti-aircraft fire and responded with its cannons.

"If there were casualties and injured innocents, they know that was not our intention," McNeill said during his visit.

U.S. forces are hunting for remnants of the ousted Taliban regime and for fighters from Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network who are believed to be hiding out in remote parts of the country.

The United States launched its Afghan offensive in October to flush out bin Laden, prime suspect in the September 11 attacks on the United States, and to punish his Taliban allies.

There have been several incidents in which civilians were mistakenly attacked since the campaign began.

U.S. HELP

McNeill, guarded by a formidable contingent of U.S. and Afghan troops, visited village elder Abdul Rahim in his mud compound in Deh Rawud and sat cross-legged on a woven plastic mat, sipping orange soda, as they chatted.

The meeting was convivial and upbeat, and no direct mention was made of the bombing.

The discussion focused, rather, on how McNeill's forces could help in an area where U.S. officials have grudgingly admitted that innocent lives could have been lost in last week's incident.

"Our hospitals are not in good shape, our schools are not in good shape, everything is destroyed," Rahim said. "Twenty-three years of war have destroyed everything here."

McNeill suggested that U.S. forces could help the village build a much-needed bridge in the area as a starting point.

He said his trip to Deh Rawud was intended partly to help compensate victims of last week's air strike.

"But the truth is, I had planned to come and meet with governor Jan Mohammad for some time," he added.

"They had asked us if we would put some (U.S. soldiers) here, that would stay here, and we're thinking that that's probably in our best interests," he added.

"This is an area in which we've worked often, so we propose to put some U.S. forces here and then, we will probably bring in teams that can help with the liaison to humanitarian assistance."

A U.S. special forces operative attended the meeting in Deh Rawud and said he expected 20 to 30 men to be based in the village.

Colonel Roger King, a spokesman at Bagram air base, said an assessment of the Deh Rawud area would be carried out, and U.S. forces would likely be deployed there within weeks.

McNeill said forces sent to Deh Rawud could include coalition special forces soldiers as well as conventional combat troops.

"We will certainly continue to look for those who would perpetrate terrorist acts or who could harbor those who perpetrate terrorist acts," he said.

"We have a rather long list of intelligence data, which is related to this particular area, that goes over some months, and we will continue to work according to that aspect," he said.

Rahim said he welcomed a greater U.S. presence in the area. "You are welcome here always, " he told McNeill. "Now, today and in the future."

[Art]

Sure, EG, that's fine. So is this.

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57186,00.html

Pentagon Acknowledges Civilians Were Killed in Afghan Raid

Monday, July 08, 2002

WASHINGTON — Afghan civilians were killed and injured by a U.S. airstrike last week, Pentagon officials acknowledged Monday, but the number of casualties is unclear.

"What we're focused on is finding out what happened and what went wrong that led to the deaths and injuries of civilians," Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said at a Pentagon news conference.

U.S., coalition and Afghan forces had been watching the villages involved on and off since February, but did not know that a large group of civilians were gathered to celebrate a wedding, said Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"It is termed an accident for the reason we struck people we did not intend to," Newbold said.

Afghan officials say more than 40 civilians were killed and more than 100 injured in the July 1 strikes by a U.S. AC-130 gunship on suspected anti-aircraft guns in central Afghanistan's Uruzgan province.

The interim Afghan government headed by Hamid Karzai has criticized the raid and demanded that the United States change its procedures to prevent such mistakes in the future.

A preliminary investigation by a joint U.S.-Afghan team did not find evidence of the large number of casualties cited by Afghan officials, Clarke said. A panel including an Afghan representative and headed by a U.S. Air Force general will begin a full investigation within two days, Clarke said.

"The issue of the number of civilian casualties and civilians killed is much less clear," Clarke said. "We know they occurred and we regret every one of them but we do not have any hard and fast numbers."

Clarke and Newbold said spotters on the ground and U.S. aircraft definitely saw anti-aircraft fire coming from the villages that were attacked, although investigators did not find any anti-aircraft weapons.

"I don't think there is any question that our aircraft and our forces on the ground were fired at," Newbold said.

The United States has no plans to pay compensation to victims of the raid, Clarke said. Discussions on the general issue of compensation for civilian victims are happening between U.S. government agencies, Clarke said.