Michael,
Why would they "notify the Chinese embassy in advance?"
The database that the NIMA was using, presumably left
over from the old Defense Mapping Agency who made the
map in 1992 that this was based on, still had the Chinese
embassy located in its more than four year old location.
So, when they checked for "dangerous potential collateral
damage" which they reportedly did, their database did not
show the Chinese embassy nearby.
I see nothing incredible about such an error. What I
see as incredible, if not silly, is the repeated claim that
somehow these bureaucratic bunglers could not have made
such an error. See my recent post on interspook rivalries
for a further discussion of just how screwed up these folks are.
People who think the US intelligence agencies are so
precisely capable and competent have either been watching
too many James Bond movies or playing too many video games.
BTW, reportedly the Chinese media is not reporting to
its own people either that various administration figures have
apologized to the Chinese (although Clinton's was pretty
ridiculous and worthy of rejection) and also has not been
reporting doodley-squat about the Albanian Kosovar
refugees. They do not exist (and His Excellency has just
claimed that they are all actors staged by NATO anyway,
hah hah hah!). Only NATO-caused bomb damage in
Belgrade exists. Thus, it is even more understandable
that demonstrators in Beijing would be extremely angry and
yelling "Kill the Big Noses!" in front of the US embassy.
Much better having them do this than getting upset about
the anniversary coming up on June 4th........
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Eisenscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 10:25 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:6621] Re: Re: Re: Fwd: RE: Was it a mistake?
>Barkley,
>
>Let's assume that NATO planners have a standing order not to bomb
>diplomatic missions. That is what their spin-doctors are saying was the
>case. One could presume then that they would have plotted every off-limits
>site (embassies, churches, hospitals, historic sites, etc.) in the normal
>course of identifying and locating targeted sites. That would mean that
>the Chinese Embassy would have been identified in advance and placed on a
>do-not-target list.
>
>But even if you assume that was not the case, something as obvious as a
>defense/weapons depot (the alleged real target) would have been identified
>and located if it were to be a target. In doing so, one would expect our
>crack military and intelligence planners would ask the question: What
>off-limit sites might be in this area? In that event the Chinese embassy
>should have come up on the list of "nearby do-not-destroy" sites.
>
>After the Three-Mile-Island nuclear accident here, the concept of "normal
>accident" got some play. A "normal accident" is an accident that will
>almost inevitably occur in any highly complex system despite all the
>planning, preventative measure, and fail-safe devices intended to prevent
>just such an event. The complexity of the system itself becomes its own
>undoing. While there no doubt may have been errors or procedure or by
>individuals in this incident, the reality is that an "accident" of this
>sort was an inevitability, even if one discounts the explanations about
>internal power struggles and other theories that have been offered.
>
>In essence, this is the explanation now offered by the administration when
>they say, "Look, in thousands of sorties we only screwed up a dozen times
>and that ain't bad for such a complicated operation." But tell that to the
>families of the "accidental" victims. The reality of such "accidents"
>should not blind us to the malevolence of the policy which made it
>possible, nor to the cruel indifference and self-serving abuse of power by
>Clinton and his friends.
>
>In solidarity,
>Michael
>At 03:16 PM 5/10/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Michael,
>> They did not ask "where is the Chinese embassy?"
>>because that was not the target they were looking for
>>and their out-of-date maps had it way in another part
>>of town. They were looking for another target that
>>physically resembles the embassy and is very near it.
>> Do you imagine that for all of the thousands of targets
>>they hit they ask, "oh by the way, has the Chinese embassy
>>relocated near this site (or any of a bunch of other embassies
>>or other possible embarrassments?)"?
>>Barkley Rosser
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Michael Eisenscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 11:45 AM
>>Subject: [PEN-L:6581] Re: Fwd: RE: Was it a mistake?
>>
>>
>>>While I have no doubt that Jim Craven's contact provided this
information,
>>>the argument is just plain unbelievable. The US has satellites that they
>>>claim can pinpoint a terrorist picking his nose while riding a camel
across
>>>an Iraqi desert, but it can't find an embassy of a major global
protagonist
>>>in an urban center in which, until recently, the US also maintained a
>>>diplomatic presence. Has anyone bothered to consider why US intelligence
>>>did not ask members of the US diplomatic service to accurately locate the
>>>foreign embassies so that they could avoid just such an international
>>>embarrassment? No doubt, when it opened a few years ago, those diplomats
>>>attended a reception at the embassy. As someone previously observed, any
>>>cab driver could have told US "intelligence" where to find it.
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>>At 10:53 AM 5/10/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>>From: "Craven, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>Subject: RE: [PEN-L:6554] Was it a mistake?
>>>>>Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:31:40 -0700
>>>>>X-RCPT-TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>
>>>>>Robert:
>>>>>
>>>>>I was on the phone last night with someone who was 25 years in
>>intelligence
>>>>>work and who maintains contacts inside the intelligence community. This
>>is
>>>>>someone who is well published and well known for this person's
background
>>as
>>>>>a deep cover agent. This person told me that the CIA got stung and that
>>the
>>>>>Serbs gave out disinformation to a known agent that the building
housing
>>the
>>>>>Chinese embassy was a logistics center for the Serb Army. The intent
and
>>>>>results were obvious: Chinese, who opposed the bombing and have veto
>>power
>>>>>in the UN are pissed off and the riff widens. Now this may be some more
>>>>>disinformation but it does not make the CIA look good and it does not
get
>>>>>the US off the hook and it is unlikely to make the Chinese pissed off
at
>>the
>>>>>Serbs.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can pass this on to pen-l as I cannot access from this computer
only
>>>>>receive for some reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim Craven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: Robert Naiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>>>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 1999 5:31 PM
>>>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>Subject: [PEN-L:6554] Was it a mistake?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>One does have to wonder if the bombing of the Chinese Embassy was a
>>mistake.
>>>>>It it quite a coincidence.
>>>>>We'll probably never know, and the accusation that they did it on
purpose
>>is
>>>>>hard to prove.
>>>>>But there is a pattern of U.S. hits on certain civilian targets that
were
>>>>>claimed to be mistakes at the time, which were accepted to be mistakes
in
>>>>>the United States, but were not interpreted as mistakes by the target
>>>>>country.
>>>>>
>>>>>For example, there was the downing of the Iranian Airbus. The U.S.
>>claimed
>>>>>it was a mistake. If memory serves, the Iranians thought it was
>>intentional,
>>>>>and this was a key factor in Khomeini's decision to make peace with
Iraq
>>>>>(which he described as drinking poison) on the grounds that the U.S.
had
>>>>>signaled that it was ready to intervene massively and brutally on the
>>Iraqi
>>>>>side.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, if memory serves, in a bombing of Libya the U.S. hit an embassy
of
>>a
>>>>>country that had been critical of U.S. policy. It was France or the
S.U.,
>>I
>>>>>think.
>>>>>
>>>>>Considering the pattern of recent bombings, U.S./NATO seems to have
>>thrown
>>>>>aside the pretense of avoiding civilian targets. We seem to be
witnessing
>>>>>"total war" with the idea that it is perfectly acceptable and strategic
>>to
>>>>>target the civilian population as a way of pressuring the regime, as in
>>>>>Iraq, combined perhaps with a sort of Nixonian "mad dog" approach that
>>the
>>>>>target regime should be convinced that the U.S./NATO is totally nuts,
>>ready
>>>>>to kill anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>I hadn't been following reports from China, but the things that I have
>>read
>>>>>and heard in the last couple of days suggest that government, media,
and
>>>>>public opinion have been very anti-NATO for some time. And that the
>>Chinese
>>>>>government was prepared to oppose the U.S. in the Security Council on
the
>>>>>war. The Chinese government and the Chinese public seem to believe that
>>the
>>>>>bombing was intentional, perhaps to send a signal to China that the
U.S.
>>is
>>>>>prepared to punish them for resisting U.S. policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>The current story is that they bombed the building on purpose (hence
the
>>3
>>>>>missiles), based on "intelligence" that it was something else,
>>intelligence
>>>>>that was "several years old."
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this really credible, that they would be so sloppy? We always knew
>>that
>>>>>"pinpoint" bombing was a fraud, but how hard is it to avoid bombing the
>>>>>embassies of other countries? Surely they have a list of buildings to
>>avoid.
>>>>>When Israel was bombing Lebanon in 1996, they had a list from the UN of
>>UN
>>>>>sites, in order not to bomb them (a key reason that UN personnel were
>>>>>suspicious when Israel bombed Qana "by mistake" -Qana was on the list).
>>>>>
>>>>>Either it was intentional, or they are totally incompetent, or totally
>>>>>callous. Or some combination thereof.
>>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>>Robert Naiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>Preamble Center
>>>>>1737 21st NW
>>>>>Washington, DC 20009
>>>>>phone: 202-265-3263
>>>>>fax: 202-265-3647
>>>>>http://www.preamble.org/
>>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------
>>>>Robert Naiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>Preamble Center
>>>>1737 21st NW
>>>>Washington, DC 20009
>>>>phone: 202-265-3263
>>>>fax: 202-265-3647
>>>>http://www.preamble.org/
>>>>-------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>
>
