-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, 14 May 1999 12:24 AM
Subject: Lies, Damn Lies, & Maps
>Dear reader,
>Feel free to distribute this in any way you wish; no limitations.
>-- jared (Laid-out version attached; download to MS word)
>
>HOW NATO & THE MEDIA MISREPRESENTED
>THE CHINESE EMBASSY BOMBING
>
>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 remained: 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 LAWN, 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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
>
>Best regards,
>Jared Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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 flakes
>interfere with electrical generators, and 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
CHINES~1.DOC
