>
> ============
>
> 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]