Lies, Damn Lies and Maps: US/NATO Bombing of Chinese Embassy (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:55:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: JaredI@aol.com
To: JaredI@aol.com
Subject: Lies, Damn Lies and 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. jaredi@aol.com )

Best regards,
Jared  Israel  jaredi@aol.com

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 - jaredi@aol.com

CHINES~1.DOC