Was the Chinese Embassy really bombed by accident?  

Page 1 / 2 Next
  RSS

(@jacklondon)
Reputable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 266
May 11, 1999 7:17 pm  

NO ACCIDENT

a. It was done on purpose to start WWIII

b. It was done on purpose to have the Chinese block all attempts for diplomatic solution in the UN (so NATO can continue bombing).

c. It was done on purpose to allow the Chinese to shift focus from their own human rights violations.

d. It was done on purpose to force the Chinese to bring the issue to the Security Council of the UN.

e. It was done on purpose because the capital of China starts with a 'B' , like Belgrade and Baghdad.

f. It was done on purpose because .... hell, we felt like it.

g. It was done on purpose because it was full moon.


h. It was done on purpose because the Chinese are hosts to Arkan's pussycats.

If 'h' is the right answer,
then WELL DONE NATO!

Listen to the Chinese talk about
'Human Rights' violations

CAN ANYBODY GIVE A GOOD REASON WHY IT WAS DONE ON PURPOSE ?

This gets weirder every day.


ReplyQuote
 maja
(@maja)
Reputable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 303
May 12, 1999 12:28 am  

To make Clinton's way out easier. To complicate everything to the extent it won't be seen like Clinton has screwed up big time.

Seven years old maps? No person with atleast half a brain will believe that. And even if someone does, let me tell you that I have asked around and no HQ of supply was there before the embassy was built. Doesn't matter how old the map was, there was no HQ there. Anyway, in five days NATO has not told us where this HQ is. They have no clue.

Let's not forget the money Clinton took from Chinese bussinesman and nuclears secrets somebody in his crew has sold to them. With everything that is at stake, Albanians are getting less and less important. If they ever counted for anything anyway. I hear the agencies are lacking money to feed them. Wonder how soon Clinton and Blair will help.


ReplyQuote
(@trelaway)
Active Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 13
May 12, 1999 4:27 am  

Despite my lack of trust for NATO, I can't think of a good enuf reason to purposely bomb the Chinese Embassy, unless they were hiding someone signifigant who, from Nato's perspective, would be better off dead. Even then, they'd have to be pretty important to risk pissing off China.

We critics have to be reasonable, not everything is a conspiracy. I think it's concievable that, given the number of shells dropped onto the region, mistakes/miscalculations happen.

If it was on purpose our planet is in deep s.h.i.t.


ReplyQuote
(@nazito)
New Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 1
May 13, 1999 1:27 am  

Everyone is asking this question: why NATO bombed Chinese Embassy? I will try to give you my answer here.

We must begin with their absurd excuse again: a map expert used some outdated map. Are they fools? Can't they imagine something more tenable than that? Of course, they can. Look at them, everyone of them was well-educated and well-fed. They also hire swarms of aides and staff who are claimed to be experts of all kinds. Then why they give us such a stupid excuse?

The answer is: it may be a bad excuse, but a perfect sign of menace. There have been opposing sounds all over the world from the very beginning of NATO's bombing Yugoslavia, even in those countries who are members of NATO. Among them, the sound from China is one of the steadiest. So they bombed Chinese Embassy to terrify all people who are against their violence: SHUT UP YOUR MOUTH! OR YOU WILL BE BOMBED TO DEATH! It is their real intention behind their stupid excuse. The bombing of our embassy is also a clear message that they will pay no attention to any international laws in the future. On the other hand, they will behave according their own laws: to intervene other nation's internal affairs freely, to tear apart any multinational countries they don't like. But it is also a dangerous and stupid challenge toward the peace and all people who love peace in the world.

Let's make a comparion between NATO and NAZI now: both of them started from Europe, they began to expand outwards after they became powerful enough. But NATO is more powerful now than NAZI, there already have been the most wealthy nations in the world and the most advanced weapons under their flags. They can not tolerate different sounds anymore, every nation and everyone have to choose: to obey them or to be bombed. They are bombing the Yugoslavia because the Serbians are the only ones who are dare enough to oppose them in Europe besides Russia.

After they seep that obstacle, they may open fire toward China and Russia. But China is more likely to be the next victim of their ambition for the following reasons:

First of all, their NATO's and NAZI's common enemies here: communism and communist. As a matter of fact, only a very small part of Chinese people are communists: there are 1.2 billion people in China, but there are only 30 to 40 million communits here. But who cares? Inncocent people always have to die for NATO's "JUST WARS" under the excuses of accidents and mistakes. Clinton can always console his people's conscience by his appolize. But why should inncocent fall down in rows for the stupid qurrales between politicans?

Finally, there are all the excuses they used in boming Yugoslavia in China: there are many races in China, and there exists the much more sensitive Taiwan problem in China. But it is very ridiculous excuse to meddle other nation's affairs under the excuse of race collision: there were bitter collistion between blacks and whites in American history. Even now, they are far from living together peacefully: Remember the recent massacre happened in some Colorado high school? It is also a sign of race collision. According NATO's ridiculous logic, we must demand that USA be divided into at least two parts: one for whites and the other one for minor nationalties. Will they agree that?

After all, I would like to tell everyone here that I love peace and I hate all kinds of wars. I mean to alert everybody in the world of the snaky ambition of NATO. Finally, I want to say: NO NATO! NO WARS!


ReplyQuote
(@jacklodnon)
New Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 1
May 13, 1999 1:42 am  

Everything you sid,
is a question.


Why. Why would NATO do this on purpose?

It is just a mistake.
If you think it is not....tell me why.


If you prove it to be on purpose
why do the Chinese harbour Arkan?
Chinese step aside!
....like the Russians did
Let us solve this
to OUR LIKING
WE ARE THE MIGHTY NATO
you eat rice.
GO AWAY ..... fools.


ReplyQuote
(@jacklondon)
Reputable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 266
May 13, 1999 1:47 am  

Everything you said,
is a question.


Why. Why would NATO do this on purpose?

It is just a mistake.
If you think it is not....tell me why.


If you prove it to be on purpose
why do the Chinese harbour Arkan?
Chinese step aside!
....like the Russians did
Let us solve this
to OUR LIKING
WE ARE THE MIGHTY NATO
you eat rice.
GO AWAY ..... fools.


ReplyQuote
 zoja
(@zoja)
Reputable Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 369
May 13, 1999 3:24 pm  

Not suitable for Milosevic fans!

Jack, something intersting about the two B's, Beograd and Baghdad....THE TORONTO STAR, Tuesday, May 11, 1999 OPINION

Belgrade's murky arms business

NEW YORK - Lost in the outrage over the NATO bombing of the Chinese
embassy in Belgrade was the real target of the attack.

According to NATO officials, the planes were aiming to hit Yugoslavia's
Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement, a building several
hundred yards away. They said satellite photos made it look almost
identical to the embassy.

The mistake has thrown light on one of the murkiest aspects of the
Balkan tragedy.

The directorate has been the principal arms export and import agency for
the Belgrade government since at least the late 1980s. It shoulders a
great deal of the responsibility for the continuing carnage in the
Balkans.

And not just the Balkans.

In March, 1997, President Slobodan Milosevic's government agreed to
supply rocket launchers (as well as volunteers) to the army of Zaire,
which was then fighting off a rebellion against the Mobutu dictatorship.

The business began long before. During the final decade of the Cold War,
Belgrade sold more weapons abroad than any other Warsaw Pact nation
except the Soviet Union.

he arms industry accounted for as much as 6 per cent of the country's
total exports.

In 1990 alone, Yugoslav military goods ranging from anti-tank systems
and helicopters to frigates went to more than 67 countries, the majority
in the Middle East and North Africa.

Yugoslavia's early arms trading formed the basis for a deep and
long-standing connection with states like Iraq, where it was a prime
supplier of Soviet-built air-defence systems.

With the collapse of the Yugoslav state, Belgrade's arms deals have
largely gone undercover - particularly since 1998 when an international
arms embargo was put into effect.

It's been payback time since then.

Belgrade and Baghdad began holding secret talks several months ago,
sharing data about both defence systems and strategies. According to
several reports, the two countries discussed smuggling spare parts for
Iraq's air-defence system and even swapped information about chemical
weapons.

The international arms trade and its ugly cousin - weapons smuggling -
are a bleak fact of life in the post-Cold-War world. Yugoslavia is,
after all, only a minor player in a league dominated by the U.S.,
Britain, Russia and China.

But no one doubts that the trade has greased the wheels of violence and
ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. And the Federal Directorate is most
likely at the epicentre.

As early as 1994, investigators exposed a scheme by Russian officers in
former Soviet military bases in Germany to smuggle anti-aircraft guns,
heavy mortars and S-300 surface-air-missiles to the Serbs.

In March, 1999, NATO forces seized tanks, Red Arrow anti-tank systems
and rocket launchers from the Bosnian Serb Army's 311th Infantry brigade
that were bound for Kosovo. The officers involved were supposedly
engaged in private smuggling for profit.

No official Yugoslav government involvement has been proved in this and
similar instances. But in the circumstances of an ongoing war and an
international embargo, the line between official and unofficial activity
is blurred.

The connections between Serbia's military machine and the outside world
are similarly murky.

At the end of March, officials in Azerbaijan seized a private Russian
cargo plane with six MiG fighters aboard that they claimed was bound for
Yugoslavia. The cargo manifest said the plane was carrying 50 tons of
scrap metal.

Originally, officials said the cargo was bound for Kazakhstan, then
Slovakia.

The incident was hurriedly swept under the rug, and the Russian
government denied any involvement.

But according to an application filed recently with U.S. federal
aviation authorities for a permit to fly cargo into the U.S., one of the
executives of the company which owned the plane bears the same name as a
former Soviet foreign ministry official. The company, named Polyot,
admitted it owned only two planes.

Was this a deal hatched by the Federal Directorate? No one will ever
know for sure.

The Serbs, of course, are not the only Balkan arms merchants.

The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has been deeply implicated in arms and
narcotics smuggling. A former Albanian defence minister was under
investigation last year for illegal weapons trading.

The fact is, the illicit market in weapons has done as much to make the
Balkans a powderkeg as ethnic hatreds.

The sad irony of the flubbed NATO attack last weekend was that the arms
trade which has fuelled Balkan bloodshed will now probably slink further
into the background.

Stephen Handelman's column appears every second Tuesday in The Star.

Zoja


ReplyQuote
(@jenniferthompson)
New Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 1
May 15, 1999 3:08 am  

I really don't know for sure. But what I do know
is: We have this technology to bomb targets with
extreme accuracy- by golly if we've got the
capability we should make damn well sure we bomb
the right building. I can't believe they are
bombing the wrong stuff and helicopters are
crashing into each other and all this. What the
heck has happened to our forces? Are they all
smoking crack? If not, maybe they should start-
or at least do something.


ReplyQuote
 zoja
(@zoja)
Reputable Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 369
May 15, 1999 6:07 am  

Radio Free Asia Fills in Gaps


By George Gedda
Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 14, 1999; 1:46 a.m. EDT


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Chinese government had one piece of
advice when a U.S. government-sponsored broadcast operation for
Chinese listeners went on the air three years ago: ``Shut up.''

Radio Free Asia, as the operation is called, ignored the advice and in the
wake of the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, feels
it has more reason than ever to try to reach the Chinese people.

RFA's charter bars it from broadcasting propaganda. Instead, it seeks to
fill in the gaps in coverage by the Chinese media, all state-controlled, in its
reporting on China-related news.

Seldom have the perceived shortcomings of the Chinese media been as
evident as they have since last week's bombing in Belgrade. China has
ignored the U.S. contention that the bombing was a case of mistaken
targeting and also neglected for four days to report President Clinton's
apologies.

Richard Richter, president of RFA, said that within hours of the bombing,
the station reported the Pentagon's explanation of the bombing and, later
on, Clinton's formal apology.

Richter said the station also sought to fill in a gap in China's coverage of
the Kosovo crisis by reporting that the NATO bombing campaign was not
responsible for the mass exodus from Kosovo but rather the ethnic
cleansing policies of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

State Department spokesman James P. Rubin says China's coverage of
the Kosovo issue has been ``extremely unfortunate.''

News accounts have suggested that a large majority of the Chinese people
seem to accept the Chinese government's account of both the Yugoslav
war and the Belgrade embassy bombing.

But Richter, a veteran of both television and print journalism, said in an
interview that sentiment is far from universal. One admittedly unscientific
barometer of opinion is the RFA call-in show broadcast each weekday.

``The first day, there were seven callers. Six called about the embassy
bombing and only one criticized NATO,'' Richter said. ``The rest
criticized the Chinese government.'' On a subsequent day, of the 11 callers
to RFA, only three were critical of the United States. On yet another day,
however, the majority of the callers were anti-American.

Richter acknowledged that Chinese who tune in to RFA are probably
more favorably disposed toward the United States than those who don't.

While the ``great preponderance'' of RFA's broadcasting over the past
week has been related to the embassy bombing, Richter said that in
normal times the station tells the Chinese people what they don't get from
their own media on issues such as unemployment, human rights and the
economy.

To the extent that the station is biased, it uses prominent Chinese exiled
dissidents for broadcast commentaries, he said.

China sees RFA as an irritant, complaining that it interferes with China's
sovereignty. For almost two years, it has tried, with mixed success, to jam
the broadcasts. The station counters by changing frequencies or switching
transmitters.

Radio Free Asia was established in the spring of 1996 to promote
democracy in Asia's remaining authoritarian countries. Vietnam, China and
North Korea are among the primary targets. The broadcasts in China are
in the dominant Mandarin language.

But is anybody listening?

Richter took satisfaction from a poll taken in selected areas of China
showing that RFA ranks third behind the Voice of America and the British
Broadcasting Corp. It outranked stations operated by Taiwan, Japan,
Russia and Australia.

© Copyright 1999 The Associated Press

Zoja


ReplyQuote
(@pkurdo)
Active Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 8
May 15, 1999 8:03 am  

Article by Pedro Kurdo (business corespondent, Internet Express News)

It would be a good idea to take note about the events that are taking place in the background of the current crisis in Yugoslavia. This can have great consequences on the way some organisations will have to conduct their business, now and in the near future.


Just recently we learned that US Department Of Justice (US DOJ) commenced an action against NATO alliance under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for unlawfully gaining its monopoly in the market of terrorist activities.
As US DOJ put it "NATO is engaged in unfair business practices and anticompetitive agreements directed at gaining total monopoly in the terrorist business."
According to US DOJ, "Carrying illegal attacks on Afghanistan, Somalia and now Yugoslavia, NATO is trying to use backdoor entry to the market, and with all its financial and technological might to push out numerous, small and often independent terrorist groups out of the spotlight."

"We clearly feel threatened", says Osama bin Laden, managing director of a relatively small but well-established terrorist group. "They have all the technology and know-how to carry out mass murder and destruction on a scale we can only dream of. They have a superior infrastructure and propaganda machine required for getting away with this sort of business. This market has to be regulated as soon as possible." (Terrorist Digest, April 99)

But architect of NATO's new policies Madeleine Albright vigorously defends their position "It's a nonsense. Stating that NATO is engaged in unfair practices is just an attempt to put blame on somebody else, which is not uncommon in this sort of business. They have to take a better look into their effectiveness and, if necessary, restructure in the most critical areas of their activities."

Analysts say that, though the marked is still not saturated a sudden arrival of such a powerful organisation into the world, for a long time dominated by small, ethnically and religiously organised businesses, has sent shockwaves throughout the industry.

Another prominent terrorist leader, who wanted to remain anonymous, accused NATO of "dumping" practices, without a doubt another new tactic in the market. "They are ready to invest enormous amounts of time and money in killing and destruction without getting any political profit from it," he said. "You don't have to be a guided missile scientist to figure out the motifs".
What he finds especially disturbing is the use of the latest generation humanoid remote-controlled robots of "Solana" type for public relation exercises. "You can always say, after things start to go wrong, that you didn't want it or you didn't mean it, and put all the blame on a brainless dummy", he complains. "and that will give them enormous advantage by keeping the core of the organisation with all the decision-makers invisible for prosecution."

James Rubin, a prominent advocate of NATO's involvement in terrorist business finds the whole case "misplaced". "We love to compete, and more so, we support competition", he replies passionately. "If our unconditional support for KLA does not illustrate our commitment for small terrorist organisations I don't know what does."

But many industry watchers dispute the idea of NATO's commitment for small subversive organisations, and find it just a cover for achieving the organisation's goals.

The terrorist business is definitely not what it used to be. It has institutionalised and moved mainstream. Like it or not, NATO is here to stay, one way or the other, for a long time to come.


ReplyQuote
 maja
(@maja)
Reputable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 303
May 15, 1999 9:17 pm  

Jack, can you answer me two questions?
1. This HQ of supply that you say looks like an embassy, where is it located? Can NATO tell us?
( Cause that was the first excuse, it was near by and we confused it with it ).
2. Can they show us the old map where it said on that land was a HQ of supply? ( They said they used old maps, therefor show us old maps and which it says seven years ago there was HQ on that land).

I am suprised journalists don't ask NATO that.


ReplyQuote
(@L'menexe)
Honorable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 616
May 16, 1999 12:13 am  

the bigger the bomb, the bigger the mistake...buses, embassies, hey, wasnt that a big mistake? we vewy vewy sowwy. and we PWOMISE it wont happen again...until next time. ^_~


ReplyQuote
(@jacklondon)
Reputable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 266
May 16, 1999 10:41 pm  

Sorry, Maja.

I can't answer either question.
That's the honest truth.

I don't understand the bombing of the Chinese embassy
any better than any other of the participants on
this board.

One thing I can deduct in reason,
based on the information available at present :
there was very little for NATO to GAIN
for doing it on purpose.

Ergo, it must have been a (stupid) mistake.
Old maps, bad info, whatever.....

My question to all was - and is :
If NOT a mistake - then WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE ?
Until a viable motive is presented,
we can not do other than consider it a MISTAKE.


ReplyQuote
 maja
(@maja)
Reputable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 303
May 17, 1999 6:42 pm  

I do not know the motives. But if those two questions can not be answered, and were not,
that is a proof that such mistake could not
happen. Maybe some other did ( double agents ) but this one not.


ReplyQuote
(@L'menexe)
Honorable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 616
May 18, 1999 11:57 am  

i dont believe there was any "design" to the accident...you start slingin' bombs around like it was WWII and this is what happens...


and NATO concedes "hundreds of civilian casualties" from the weeks of bombing...


so now NATO has caused the deaths of far more innocents than who died at columbine...and Milosevic, more than NATO...and to the majority of americans this is just one more news story floating by.


when the NATO bombing began i was naive enough to think "okay then. kick this guy's ass" but now it's gone on and on...i regret believing something "good" could come from this...a nasty mess became a nastier mess and innocents are being killed by both sides...


do i have a solution? hell no. do you?


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2 Next
Share:
  
Working

Please Login or Register