Conspiracy Theories Abound After Chinese Embassy Attack

www.insidechina.com 5-1-99

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Was it sheer incompetence or was NATO somehow tricked into bombing the Chinese Embassy in the capital of Yugoslavia?

Could key allies conceivably have taken the huge risk of striking at the embassy grounds to neutralize some serious threat to its pilots, later apologizing for a "tragic mistake" to give NATO the cover of deniability?

A newspaper in NATO-member Turkey said China was suspected of giving Yugoslavia vital intelligence and that the embassy was struck knowingly.

A NATO military spokesman declined comment on Sunday, saying he would not engage in speculation.

Conspiracy theorists were having a field day, suggesting the faulty intelligence blamed by the United States for the bombing was not the mistaken location but false assurances that the embassy was vacated at night and safe to hit "by mistake."

"Totally absurd," said a senior NATO diplomat who assured Reuters he had been fully briefed on the incident. "It was a mistake pure and simple. This is a bogus report."

"There could indeed be some information sharing but this is not how we would deal with it," he added. "We'd do that either diplomatically or through counter-measures to plug the leak."

But serious questions remain unanswered. "We are as mystified as you are," said a NATO official. "Everyone is searching for a satisfactory explanation. But no one knows if we'll ever have it."

How could the combined intelligence of the world's strongest military alliance have mistaken a large diplomatic mission in ample grounds, identified on any city map of Belgrade?

Diplomats from NATO countries once sipped cocktails in the embassy reception rooms that were gutted by alliance munitions on Friday.

Amid profuse apologies at the weekend, NATO briefers ruffled at the suggestion that they might have used "an old map."

Stopping short of admitting NATO has eyes on the ground as well as sharp-eyed satellites in space, they insisted there were "plenty of sources" of good intelligence.

But an old map could turn out to be the mundane truth.

Yet of all the buildings in Belgrade that could have been bombed in error, what amazing coincidence drew NATO guided bombs with unerring accuracy to the embassy of the country that may hold the key to Yugoslavia's ultimate political isolation?

The United States, indirectly admitting its aircraft were involved, issued a statement on Sunday saying neither pilot nor mechanical error was to blame.

It was "faulty information" not detected in the target validation process -- "an anomaly that is unlikely to occur again," the Defense Department and the CIA said jointly.

That would appear to indicate a basic if monumental error that slipped through the U.S. military's check-and-double-check procedures and sent NATO planes to the wrong address.

The U.S. statement did not go into what misled NATO targeters to believe that the Yugoslav Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement was at the location that was hit.

It did not say which of the 19 NATO allies, if any other than the United States, was involved in providing information that turned out to be so dramatically "faulty."

Could there be a weapons bunker under the land that Belgrade sold to Beijing a few years ago for its new embassy?

Could NATO have known about the bunker but somehow failed to register that an embassy upstairs made it impossible to strike?

NATO won't say what sort of munitions were used or what plane dropped them. If it used deep penetration "bunker-buster" bombs, the target may have been more than the embassy compound.

A cloak of national security has been thrown over the incident and, as long as it remains, such questions are unlikely to receive answers. The dagger of investigative reporting is only now being unsheathed. It is hard to imagine how a hostile agent could trick NATO into bombing the embassy of the one power whose consent it now needs in the United Nations Security Council to force a Kosovo settlement on Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Even if someone deliberately fed wrong information, how could he have expected NATO not to notice it was being invited to bomb the Chinese embassy?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 11, 1999

Answers

Sorry, the gadang 'puter pahin up with the formatting...

THUMP!!!!!!!

Conspiracy Theories Abound After Chinese Embassy Attack

www.insidechina.com 5-1-99

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Was it sheer incompetence or was NATO somehow tricked into bombing the Chinese Embassy in the capital of Yugoslavia?

Could key allies conceivably have taken the huge risk of striking at the embassy grounds to neutralize some serious threat to its pilots, later apologizing for a "tragic mistake" to give NATO the cover of deniability?

A newspaper in NATO-member Turkey said China was suspected of giving Yugoslavia vital intelligence and that the embassy was struck knowingly.

A NATO military spokesman (Shhh, Flint) declined comment on Sunday, saying he would not engage in speculation.

Conspiracy theorists were having a field day, suggesting the faulty intelligence blamed by the United States for the bombing was not the mistaken location but false assurances that the embassy was vacated at night and safe to hit "by mistake."

"Totally absurd," said a senior NATO diplomat (Shhhh, poole) who assured Reuters he had been fully briefed on the incident. "It was a mistake pure and simple. This is a bogus report."

"There could indeed be some information sharing but this is not how we would deal with it," he added. "We'd do that either diplomatically or through counter-measures to plug the leak."

But serious questions remain unanswered. "We are as mystified as you are," said a NATO official (Shhh Herr Hoff). "Everyone is searching for a satisfactory explanation. But no one knows if we'll ever have it."

How could the combined intelligence of the world's strongest military alliance have mistaken a large diplomatic mission in ample grounds, identified on any city map of Belgrade? [Uh, idiots - Andy]

Diplomats from NATO countries once sipped cocktails in the embassy reception rooms that were gutted by alliance munitions on Friday.

[lucky Bar-stewards! Andy]

Amid profuse apologies at the weekend, NATO briefers ruffled at the suggestion that they might have used "an old map."

[an OLD MAP???:))) hahaha]

Stopping short of admitting NATO has eyes on the ground as well as sharp-eyed satellites in space, they insisted there were "plenty of sources" of good intelligence.

[poole?]

But an old map could turn out to be the mundane truth.

[poole?]

Yet of all the buildings in Belgrade that could have been bombed in error, what amazing coincidence drew NATO guided bombs with unerring accuracy to the embassy of the country that may hold the key to Yugoslavia's ultimate political isolation?

["it's a freakin' mystery to me" - poole]

The United States, indirectly admitting its aircraft were involved, issued a statement on Sunday saying neither pilot nor mechanical error was to blame.

[I did not [wag and point finger] ... ]

It was "faulty information" not detected in the target validation process -- "an anomaly that is unlikely to occur again," the Defense Department and the CIA said jointly.

[Ya see poole, Flint and Herr Hoff - they're talking, about, wait for it...

IMPORTED CORRUPT DATA!!!

That would appear to indicate a basic if monumental error that slipped through the U.S. military's check-and-double-check procedures and sent NATO planes to the wrong address.

[Ooops]

The U.S. statement did not go into what misled NATO targeters to believe that the Yugoslav Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement was at the location that was hit.

['Cos it had bad DATA Herr Hoff]

It did not say which of the 19 NATO allies, if any other than the United States, was involved in providing information that turned out to be so dramatically "faulty."

["cos it probably didn't know]

Could there be a weapons bunker under the land that Belgrade sold to Beijing a few years ago for its new embassy?

[yes - possible - why the disinformation???]

Could NATO have known about the bunker but somehow failed to register that an embassy upstairs made it impossible to strike?

[again, why the "reuters neutrality" it is famed for?]

NATO won't say what sort of munitions were used or what plane dropped them. If it used deep penetration "bunker-buster" bombs, the target may have been more than the embassy compound.

[what a fucking, pardon my french, load of tosh this article IS]

A cloak of national security has been thrown over the incident and, as long as it remains, such questions are unlikely to receive answers. The dagger of investigative reporting is only now being unsheathed. It is hard to imagine how a hostile agent could trick NATO into bombing the embassy of the one power whose consent it now needs in the United Nations Security Council to force a Kosovo settlement on Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Even if someone deliberately fed wrong information, how could he have expected NATO not to notice it was being invited to bomb the Chinese embassy?

{why ask all these dumb-ass questions??? You are a freakin Reuters reporter get your arse in gear and get some answers, PRONTO!!!]

That's better, re-transmit...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 11, 1999.

Andy,

You are starting to sound like cpr ( you're talking to your self ), or Doc Polly ( you are foaming )

Have you ever heard of Murphy's Law? Things can, and do fuck up,,it's life.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 11, 1999.

Hi Andy,

Please keep us informed on anything you hear on this. We are all big boys and girls and know how to sift thru info. This was very interesting. Seems to me New York becomes a prime target for revenge!

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), May 11, 1999.

CT,

ever heard of a sense of humour?

No smoke without fire.

And can I have some please.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 11, 1999.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". This seems to cover both the event and the Chinese reaction thereto (which is dangerous, probably more so for the current Chinese rulers than for anyone else).

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), May 11, 1999.

Andy,

Yes I do.

From your attacks, I smell a Troll/gov.org stooge. Is that what you are? Or do you allways personaly attack someone who doesn't agree with your wild ass ideas?

Can you see which finger I'm holding up?,,,Stuff it,, have another Beer, smoke what you want,, strain yourself,,try to touch base.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 11, 1999.

its hard to believe that even the low IQ ****holes in the CIA can be that dumb, every foreign-owned site in the country should be known

I hope in some way those responsible get their come-uppance, if Clinton had any sense he would put them on trial

Hopefully the NATO leaders (and their minions) will be put on international trial for their illegal actions in Serbia

important precedents were established at Nuremberg, ie that following orders is no defence

-- dick o' the dale (rdale@coynet.com), May 11, 1999.

This has nothing to do with the price of spam, but I have this image in my head of a Chinese diplomat, shaking his fist at the sky right after the attack, yelling, "damn you, Clinton, this is coming out of your retirement account!"

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), May 11, 1999.

I feel we bombed the emmbasy on purpose, to incite China against us, so that they will unite with russia to destroy us. This embassy bombing was a PLANNED event, by our MAD, WAR CRIMINAL leaders. If we "accadentally" bomb or destroy a russian facility or ship in the next few weeks, then you KNOW I'm right. Keep your ears and eyes open, and pray that the Chineese don't attack us in return (as they have every right to, as bombing their embassy was an act of WAR!!)...

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), May 11, 1999.

Though I hate to mention The Great One, Rush's take on this makes an ugly amount of sense. Look at the results. If anyone had wanted to cut off ALL avenues of investigation into the "Chinese Friends of Bill C" how would they go about it in order to get it done in one fell swoop??

They are not talking to us now on ANY level.....

Chuck

a nonconspiricist until Occam suggests one....

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 11, 1999.

Y2K is becoming a non-issue. No need to worry about survival of a man- made boo-boo if you glow in the dark......

going out for Chinese anyone? I hear the missles are really fresh and tender....

gettin' scratched...

The Dog

-- Dog (desert dog @-sand.com), May 11, 1999.

The embassy bombing goes a long way towards silencing any players that could implicate the Clinton Administration in the Chinese Espionage Investigation. China is no longer speaking with us on any level as a poster above mentioned. That's ONE possibility.

Another is this: Has anyone considered that if this map info was delivered bogus to NATO by China, then it's all the excuse China needs to retaliate against the U.S. (Militarily) in order to take us out of the equation when China moves to reunify with Taiwaan???

If not by military strike, then perhaps by threat and extortion?? "Re Owe ru big time, if ru interfrere wif China taking Taiwaan den we wir bury you...."

Taking the U.S. out of the Pacific equation is ALL China wants or needs. Kind of like the Japanese thought in WWII, that by bombing Pearl Harbor they keep the U.S. out of the war.

History does repeat itself.

And boy have we forgotten history in this country.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), May 11, 1999.

YOu hAVE aLL mISseD THe trUTH!!!!! CAn yOu nOT SeE It?????? INFideLs!!!!! iF THe chINa coNNecTiONS WIth FUnd raISIng ANd nUke seCREts hAD beEn aLLowED TO doMINatE ThE AiRWAveS, ThE faCT thAT mR CLinTOn ANd hiS BACkerS (WhO WIll be EXPOsed LAteR) HAvE PLAnS fOR aLL OF thE WOrlD WOulD HavE SURfacED!!!!! ANdY Is geTTinG TOo clOSE tO tHE TRutH FoR COmfoRT, AnD thE EMbaSSY BOmbInG IS A rEd hERRinG, MenT TO focUS ANdy's, And tHE WORLd'S, aTTENtiONs elSEWHerE!!!!!!

DO NoT DIsmiSS THis thEORy!!!! anDY Has shOWn thAT THe nWo wAS BEhiND COLumBINe!!!!! ANd whY????? TO disARm tHE PUblIC!!!!!! BUt whY????? WHy iS IT NoW SO ImpoRTAnT TO disARM THe u.S. CITIzeNS??????? WHilE NOt diSARmiNG THe ciTIZenS OF SWItZeRLANd??????? beCAusE, As diETEr wiLL MAke clEAr laTER, SWItzERLanD Is coLD!!!!!

SO, HoW DOes THe embASSy boMBIng, scHooL SHooTInGS, Y2k, SUnspOTS,UFoS, ANd glOBaL WArmiNG TIe togETHEr??????

siMPLe!!!!! EVen diETeR CAn sEE It!!!!!!

DO noT CONceRN YouRSELveS WIth aN IVAsioN Of ameRIcA, tHE INvasIOn OF oUR PlaNET IS geTTIng veRY CLosE!!!!! WHilE Our ATTentIONs aRE FOCUsed ACRosS THe seA, WE wiLL NOT bE LOOkING UP!!!!!!! BUt whO Is behIND It aLL, PuLLinG The strINgs????? REptILe aLienS!!!!!! YeS!!!!!!

COld BLooDED AS thEY aRE, GLobaL WArmING Has NOw maDE EArtH SAfe FOr thEIr UFo trANSPOrteD REptILe armIEs!!!! ThaT Is whY AMerICA muSt be diSARmed, WHiLE THe swISS ArE LeFT To Be, It iS tOO COld tHERe!!!!!! See How iT All tiES TOgetHER?????? OuR ARmeD FORceS SPReaD THruOUT The WORld, CUt oFF BY y2K, BLinDED by SUNspOTS!!!!!! ARt beLL CAn conFIRm thIS!!!!!!

ThE OnLy quESTiON ThaT WE NeeD TO ANswER.....is IT TOo LAte??????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), May 11, 1999.

OK, Dieter, calm down, and drink a glass of warm milk. I think you've lost it buddy. If you disagree with us, do it politly, and without mocking us huh?? Lameass, foolish, polly-troll that you are... I can below the belt too, you know...

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), May 11, 1999.

RoTfLmAoApImP!!

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 11, 1999.

Are the aLIeN rePtILeS edible?

-- A. Hambley (a.hambley@usa.net), May 11, 1999.

cRONiO

wHY AskS YoU ABouT BeiNG MOCKed bY DIetEr??????? DIetER MocKS NoT!!!!! JACkaL!!!!! DIeteR SPreADs trUTh whiLe eXPOsiNG FOoLishNeSS, DoeS He nOt??????? idiOT!!!!! Go awAY!!!!! SiLencE, LesT DIetEr spEAk oF FLUoriDE, AnD PReCioUS BOdiLy fLuiDS!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), May 11, 1999.

Dieter, It's "Out Precious Escence" not "Precious Bodily Fluids". I recommend another evening with Doctor Strangelove, Mr Sellers and Mr Wills.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), May 11, 1999.

DAnkE HeRR wW!!!!!

DIetER, UnLikE SOme, Is ashAMED NoT WheN HiS FOoLishNEss Is POinTEd oUT To hiM!!!!!!! Is tHIs sO??????? natURLicH!!!!! IS It noT EVeN ENCouRAGeD?????? Of COurSE!!!!! evEN oF THe miSSpeLLinGS Of tHE NEIN wAS DIeteR CAPablE OF!!!!!! IS THis nOT So??????? YeS!!!!!! The jaCKasS!!!!!!! pePpERonI!!!!!

Has DIetER No SHamE?????? HuH????

NEIN!!!!!!

diETeR Is a FOoL!!!!!! AnD HENcE, AN AutHoRItY In thE SUbjECt!!!!!

GooD MornINg siR!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), May 11, 1999.

Drudge is reporting that the Wed. May 12 edition of the Financial Times is reporting that China is demanding that the US make trade and military concessions in order to get the US/China relationship back on track.

Anybody want to bet against Clinton and his bunch giving the Chinese what they want?

Honestly, if it walks and quacks like a duck, maybe it really is a duck. The entire Clinton administration appear to be walking and quacking like Chinese operatives.

I'll let the Clinton haters cite the many examples of what the US govt has done apparently in contrast to the interests of the American people.

But it's not just this bunch. Eight years ago, a number saw the Republican administration to be acting on behalf of Japan. I remember Buchanan suggesting that Carla Hills should just wear a kimono every day.

There are too many people for this to be mere incompetence.

And don't forget the Wall Streeters who prefer to invest in new factories overseas rather than in the US, thereby pitting foreign employees with state of the art equipment against American employees saddled with aging equipment.

No matter where you turn, I see the leaders of America selling out their own people.

Flame on if you want, I'm not making this up.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), May 11, 1999.