An additional reason springing from that bottomless well of intrigue, the
CIA, is of course the hope to wreck Russian, German and Chinese efforts
to end this murderous fiasco.
wcm
kkii>
> >
> > ============
> >
> > Dear people,
> > Please feel free to copy and distribute or post this in any way, to anyone
> > or any group or in any forum or print it - in other words, feel free to get
> > it to as many people as possible!  -- jared
> >
> > HOW NATO & THE MEDIA MISREPRESENTED
> > THE CHINESE EMBASSY BOMBING
> >                                                 by Jared Israel
> >
> > Opponents of the war against Serbia argue that much of what passes for news
> > these days is really a kind of war propaganda, that NATO puts out
> > misinformation and the media disseminates the stuff uncritically.
> >
> > A case in point is the coverage of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in
> > Belgrade.  I download wire service reports from the AOL world news database
> > (accessible at aol://4344:30.WORLD.338815.464449182
> > if you are an AOL member.  This allows me to see exactly how wire services
> > and newspapers change the news from hour to hour.  Very instructive for
> > studying how misinformation is disseminated.
> >
> > Studying misinformation is a special interest of mine.  If you'd like to
> > see some of my previous work in this area, send me a note and I'll email
> > you The Emperor's Clothes, which analyzes how the NY Times misinformed its
> > readers about the bombing of a Sudanese pill factory in August, 1998.
> >
> > Before we examine the news coverage of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy,
> > let me recount a very interesting report from a Chinese intellectual,
> > currently at Harvard's Kennedy Institute, who spoke on May 8th at the
> > weekly Boston anti-war rally (held at 3:00 every Sat. in Copley Square).
> >
> > The man had conferred with people overseas and thus had direct knowledge of
> > the attack on the Chinese  Embassy.  He said three missiles had struck the
> > Embassy compound, hitting three apartments where one or both adult family
> > members was a journalist.  The missiles apparently carried a light
> > explosive charge.
> >
> > Why NATO Targeted Chinese Journalists
> >
> > Why, asked the speaker, did all three missiles strike journalists'
> > apartments?
> >
> > Clearly, he said, the goal was to punish China for sympathizing with the
> > Yugoslav people against NATO.  More specifically, the intention was to
> > terrorize Chinese newspeople in Yugoslavia, thus silencing yet another
> > non-NATO information source.
> >
> > Does that seem too nightmarish to be true?
> >
> > Keep in mind,  NATO has consistently bombed Serbian news outlets with the
> > stated intention of silencing sources of "lying propaganda." Why would it
> > be so far-fetched for them to do the same to Chinese newspeople?
> >
> > Perhaps NATO wants to silence ALL non-NATO reporting on the war, even at
> > the risk of starting WW III.
> >
> > Or perhaps NATO, or a part of NATO, such as the U.S. government, wants to
> > provoke a fight with China before China gets too strong to be crushed?
> >
> > Let's take a look at the "news" coverage.
> >
> > SORRY, WRONG BUILDING
> >
> > NATO spokesman Jamie Shea's first response to the Embassy bombing was a) to
> > apologize and b) to explain that the NATO missiles had gone astray.  NATO
> > had intended to hit a building across the
> > street, a building that houses what SHEA called the "Federal Directory  for
> > the Supply and Procurement."
> >
> > Said Shea:  "'I understand that the two buildings are close together."'
> > (Reuters, May 8)
> >
> > (If they ever catch the terrorists who bombed the US Embassy in Kenya and
> > bring them to trial, could their
> > legal team utilize the Shea Defense which consists of a) first you say I'm
> > very sorry and b) then you say you
> > meant to blow up the building across the street?)
> >
> > But getting back to the "news" -- according to Jamie Shea the Chinese
> > Embassy is close to the "Federal
> > Directory for the Supply and Procurement."  But the Chinese Embassy is in
> > fact located in the middle of a large lawn or park in a residential
> > neighborhood and:
> >
> > "The embassy stands alone in its own grounds surrounded by grassy open
> > space on three sides.  Rows of high-rise apartment blocs are located 200
> > (600 feet) metres away and a line of shops, offices and apartments sits
> > about 150 meters (450 feet) away on the other side of a wide tree-lined
> > avenue, [called]...Cherry Tree Street." (Reuters, 5/8)
> >
> >  NEARBY BUILDING?  WHAT NEARBY BUILDING?
> >
> > Apparently realizing that a "Federal Directory for the Supply and
> > Procurement" would not be placed in an apartment complex -- or on a 1000
> > foot lawn - NATO spun a new story a few hours later:
> >
> > "Three NATO guided bombs which slammed into the Chinese embassy in Belgrade
> > overnight struck precisely at the coordinates programmed into them, but it
> > was not the building NATO believed it to be.
> >
> > 'They hit bang on the three aim points they were given,' a military source
> > said....
> >
> > [NATO military spokesman General Walter] Jertz declined to say what sort of
> > weapon hit the Chinese embassy, except that it was 'smart' or guided
> > munitions and not free-fall bombs. He denied planners were 'using old maps,
> > wrong maps.'" (Reuters, May 8)
> >
> > OK.  Three smart missiles or bombs hit the three locations they were
> > supposed to hit.  It was a misidentified  target.  And the Pilot(s) wasn't
> > misled by old or bad maps.
> >
> > On the face of it, what is the likelihood of NATO picking target
> > coordinates that just happen to coincide with three apartments occupied by
> > journalists?  I mean, one computer-guided bomb destroying a journalist's
> > home would not be unlikely.  But three hitting three journalists' homes?
> >
> > TOO MANY SPOKESMEN
> >
> > In the same Reuters story, another expert suggests it would be highly
> > unlikely for NATO to make the kind
> > of mistake Jertz is suggesting:
> > "'Target identification and pilot preparation would have been extensive in
> > this case, because of the military importance of the intended target and
> > because Belgrade is heavily defended by Serb forces,' [Air Force Maj. Gen.
> > Charles Wald, a strategic planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said at a
> > briefing for reporters.
> >
> > '`'The way targeting works ... the higher the threat, the more valued the
> > target, the more time you would study it.  The more time you have to study
> > it, the better,' Wald said."
> >
> > Based on what Wald is saying here, isn't it pretty much unlikely that an
> > embassy would be mistaken for a "Federal Directory for the Supply and
> > Procurement?"
> >
> > TOO MANY NAMES
> >
> > Which brings us to yet another problem.  Because in the same MAY 8 Reuters
> > Story the name of the place which NATO intended to bomb mysteriously
> > changes - not once but twice.  Read the following quote from General Jertz
> > carefully:
> >
> >  "Careful to avoid making excuses, NATO military spokesman  General Walter
> > Jertz said NATO went after the target because  it thought it was the
> > weapons warehouse of the Federal  Directorate for Supply and Procurement.
> >
> >  'The information we had was that in this building was the  headquarters of
> > the Directorate, and we have no evidence  that we were misled,' he said."
> >
> >  So now the thing they thought they were bombing was:
> > a) the Federal Directory for the Supply and Procurement;
> >  b) Weapons warehouse of the Federal  Directorate for Supply and
> > Procurement;  and
> > c) the headquarters of the Directorate.
> >
> >  No wonder they couldn't be misled.  They couldn't  even name the place.
> >
> > AND TOO MANY MISSILES
> >
> > NATO'S next spin-control effort was an attempt to simplify things.
> > Retelling the story again a bit later on the 8th, AP reported that:  "The
> > precision-guided weapon that hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade apparently
> > did just what it was told. .."
> >
> > One weapon.  That does make things more believable, unless of course the
> > reader has seen the previous stories that refer to Three missiles....Since
> > few people read multiple news stories about the same topic, and even fewer
> > read them carefully, moving from three to one missile is a pretty safe
> > gambit.  But the
> > problem still remains: how could NATO targeteers, pouring over their maps,
> > not notice the label CHINESE EMBASSY on a building they were planning to bomb?
> >
> > THE MAPS!  IT WAS THE MAPS!
> >
> > NATO'S answer: switch positions on the map question.
> >
> > What was the source of "the erroneous B-2 bomber attack, which dropped
> > several satellite-guided bombs on the embassy"?
> >
> > Here's the latest explanation:
> >
> > "In mistakenly targeting the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade Friday night, U.S.
> > intelligence officials were working from an outdated map issued before
> > China built its diplomatic compound  several years ago, American and NATO
> > authorities said yesterday.
> >
> > 'The tragic and embarrassing truth is that our maps simply did not show the
> > Chinese Embassy anywhere in that vicinity,' a senior NATO official said."
> > (Washington Post, May 10)
> >
> > Let's consider the implications of what we've just read.
> >
> > First, the Post accepts without question NATO'S assertion that the embassy
> > bombing was accidental.  Indeed the Post doesn't mention the highly
> > newsworthy fact that the news accounts are so mutually contradictory.
> > Doesn't that tell us something about these news agencies, about their
> > attitude toward NATO and this war?  That they are really part of NATO'S
> > public relations effort, dutifully reporting whatever they are told without
> > pointing out the implications of NATO'S ever-evolving explanations.
> > Doesn't that suggest that we should be very skeptical about other media
> > coverage - for example, the stories "proving" the Serbs are committing
> > genocide?
> >
> > Second, the claim that using "old maps" was the problem flatly contradicts
> > an equally confident assertion made about 36 hours earlier by a NATO
> > spokesman, General Jertz. You remember: "He [that is, Gen. Jertz] denied
> > planners were 'using old maps, wrong maps.'" (Reuters, May 8)
> >
> > Third, consider the phrase "outdated map issued before China built its
> > diplomatic compound several years ago."  This phrase suggests NATO was
> > using map-books or perhaps fold-up maps, the kind you take on a road trip.
> > Is it conceivable that NATO would be using such ancient technology? What's
> > the matter, they can't afford computers? They have no technical staff?  We
> > are after all talking about  the combined armed forces of the U.S. and most
> > of Europe. The whole focus of their attack on Serbia is aerial
> > bombardment.  Aerial bombardment depends primarily on maps and
> > intelligence.  Doesn't it fly in the face of rudimentary common sense --
> > indeed of sanity -- to believe that this super-technological military force
> > would have anything but the most sophisticated mapping facilities, updated
> > with satellite photos and local intelligence reports hourly, all of it in
> > computerized war rooms with giant screens, scores of technical personnel,
> > etc.
> >
> > And isn't it equally obvious, that that one thing such an armed force would
> > have at its finger tips would be exact information about sensitive
> > installations -- such as diplomatic facilities -- precisely to make sure
> > they did not get bombed?
> >
> > Unless of course NATO wanted them to be bombed.
> >
> > And of  all the diplomatic facilities in all of Yugoslavia, wouldn't the
> > one to which NATO would pay the most attention be the Chinese Embassy in
> > Belgrade - both because of China's immense world-importance and because it
> > is Belgrade's chief ally?
> >
> > Of course NATO had up-to-date maps of the area around the Chinese Embassy.
> > And of every square inch inside the Embassy and complete dossiers on all
> > the people working in the Embassy as well.
> >
> > Fourth, since NATO claims it decided to bomb the Embassy because of what
> > the targeteers  saw on these "old maps" - just what did the targeteers see?
> >  We are told they didn't see the Embassy.  Did they see something else they
> > wanted to attack and destroy?  Just what was this something else?  Was it a
> > building which housed some military facility?  In the middle of  a 1000
> > foot lawn in a residential section of the city?  And if  there is such a
> > map with such a building, why doesn't NATO produce this ancient document,
> > and show it to us?
> >
> > Fifth, the story says the bombs were delivered by a "B-2 bomber."  Don't
> > the B-2's fly out of a U.S. base - I believe it's in Missouri.  So let us
> > "be from Missouri" for a moment, and ask a couple of Missouri (that is
> > skeptical) questions:
> >
> > a) Keeping in mind that NATO has air bases in Italy - right near Yugoslavia
> > - as well as aircraft carriers in nearby waters, is it really believable
> > that the U.S. government would send a super-expensive plane on an eight
> > hour flight to deliver three smart missiles or bombs to a relatively minor
> > site in Yugoslavia?  (I say relatively minor because it took NATO two days
> > to even get clear on the name of the institution they meant to bomb...)
> >
> > b) Having made the unbelievable decision to send this plane on that
> > mission, is it
> >     believable that the U.S. military would do such a thing based on the
> > information
> >     contained in some "outdated maps issued" years before?
> >
> > And sixth -- did you notice we are once again talking about multiple bombs
> > or missiles?
> >
> > LET US NOW REVIEW NATO'S STORIES
> >
> > According to NATO there were three -
> >
> >         NO, there was only one
> >
> > smart bomb that hit the Chinese Embassy by mistake because it missed a
> > building across the street that houses the "Federal Supply and Procurement
> > Office" --
> >
> >         NO, that wasn't the problem.  The missiles (because we're back to three
> > missiles again)  didn't miss -- they hit right on target except it turned
> > out the target was all wrong,  wasn't the Federal Supply and Procurement
> > Office at all, it was the Chinese Embassy and somehow the targeteers got it
> > all confused but one thing is definite: the mix-up was not the result of
> > using old maps.
> >
> >         But that's not right either because if a target is important a great deal
> > of care is taken, and given that this was such an important target, even
> > more care would be taken to make sure it really was the a) Federal
> > Directory for the Supply and Procurement and  -
> >
> >         NO, that should be the b) Weapons Warehouse of the Federal Directorate for
> > Supply and Procurement,
> >
> >         NO,  that isn't right either it wasn't just a warehouse, it was the c)
> > HEADQUARTERS of the Directorate and -
> >
> >         NO!  Forget everything we've said so far.  It was the maps.  The maps were
> > very old so you couldn't tell that the building on that site was an
> > Embassy.   And there were three missiles, of course.  Who ever said
> > anything about there only being one?
> >
> >         And as for sending a B-2 bomber half way around the world to carry out
> > this mistaken attack on a target whose name nobody can get straight, all I
> > can say is: what damn fool went and admitted it was a B-2 bomber?
> >
> > A PARK, AND OTHER MILITARY TARGETS
> >
> > This writer has just spoken to a Serbian gentlemen whose family lives a few
> > blocks from the Embassy.  He says the Embassy was built 4 or 5 years ago
> > and that prior to the building of the Embassy, the only thing there was: a
> > park.
> >
> > A letter from an American living in Belgrade says the embassy is in area
> > called New Belgrade (Novi Beograd), developed from sand marsh land after
> > W.W.II.  She confirmed that the land on which the Embassy sits was
> > unoccupied before it was built.  However, she says "park" is too fancy a
> > term, that it was just a huge lawn, with very few trees.
> >
> > Therefore the notion that NATO could possess a map drawn before the Chinese
> > Embassy was built which showed any building occupying the land on which the
> > Embassy now stands is simply impossible.  There was nothing there.
> >
> > Therefore NATO is lying.
> >
> > Since NATO is lying, what are we are left with?  There is the Chinese
> > gentleman's explanation.  There is the possibility that this bombing is an
> > intentional provocation, perhaps aimed at challenging China before China
> > gets too big. There is the possibility that NATO and or the U.S. government
> > was "delivering a message"  to China - and to other would-be independent
> > governments - that independence will be punished with death.
> >
> > In any case, it seems clear that the attack was planned, and that to make
> > sure it went precisely according to that plan, the most sophisticated plane
> > available was sent thousands of miles to deliver three small bombs.  NATO
> > deliberately blew up three apartments inhabited by Chinese journalists in
> > the Chinese Embassy.  This was a high-tech execution.
> >
> > The question is: What will NATO do next?
> >
> > (Note to reader: If you wish to see the complete text of the articles I
> > have quoted from, drop me a line and I'll be glad to send them to you.
> > [log in to unmask] )
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jared  Israel  [log in to unmask]
> >
> > PS - This document has been read by several thousand people by now, and
> > I've received quite a few responses.  Perry, an American grad student in
> > California writes:
> > "Talking to people about the Embassy bombing, I've noticed how the lies
> > which you point out  actually *dovetail* in the mind of  many people - 1)
> > old maps; 2) nearby target.  People naturally put this misinformation
> > together and "create" meaning!  The common interpretation is as follows:
> > There was a military target which US/NATO was trying to hit, but because of
> > "old maps" they got confused and bombed the wrong location.
> > Now I know that this line doesn't make any sense, but I can't tell you how
> > many people have repeated it to me.. Very effective propaganda; we can
> > almost call it 'art.'"
> >
> > This recalls a point I made in my analysis of NY Times coverage of the
> > bombing of the pill factory in Sudan, an analysis I called The Emperor's
> > Clothes.  (If you'd like to see the Emperor, drop me a line and I'll send
> > it to you...).  In that analysis, I pointed out that several days after the
> > bombing of the Sudan factory, the Times "floated" an entirely new
> > explanation for U.S. actions.  A page 1 story claimed that not only had the
> > pill factory secretly manufactured nerve gas - but Iraq was behind the
> > whole thing.  This justification apparently didn't fly because it was
> > repeated in a minor story one more time, then dropped entirely.
> >
> > Five days later, the Times printed a letter from a gentleman who commented
> > on this "Iraqi connection" as if it were an established fact.   And the
> > thought occurred to me that these bits of non-fact stick in our heads,
> > interfering with our thinking the way graphite ribbons interfere with
> > electrical generators, and that this nonsense, multiplied a thousand-fold,
> > forms a kind of smog, preventing us from seeing the surrounding mountains
> > of evidence: that the US government has murdered people and lied about the
> > deed.
> >
> > IF you know anyone to whom you would like me to send documents and analysis
> > concerning this war and related questions, please send me the email
> > address(es). Thanks - [log in to unmask]
>