超级军网7月26号在网上收集的关于前南中国使馆被炸的报道-->S.W. ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/30 07:55:49
这个事情国内民间的说法主要有2个：
一个是中国提供了雷达和导弹的技术，使得南联盟击落F-117，美国因此报复；
一个是中国收集来F-117的残骸进行研究，美国担心技术泄漏，从而打击报复，不想被中国顺手把联合攻击弹药的技术也拿到了。
从各个英文媒体的报道中看，主流的英文媒体都在NATO和美国的控制之下，对此事的说法统一为：accident(事故) ，更有一些印度，歌厮打离家，芬兰和澳大利亚的记者攻击中国政府操纵国内的媒体报道，指示中国国内媒体报道为美国故意袭击中国使馆（这不是一个指使不指使的问题，而是实事求是的基本原则就是美国人蓄意攻击中国使馆）
有两个评论透露了这次攻击的幕后情况，消息都源自英国的报纸，当然，受政治压力，在报道这个事件的不同说法上，都使用了“story”这个词
先看源自伦敦自由周报的评论原文：
NATO's 'Error'
Deliberate? Possibly. A news blackout? Definitely.
By Bob Harris
ON MAY 7, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three and injuring 20. The bombing caused widespread anger at the United States and Britain, whose own embassies in Beijing became the scene for days of protest. Relations between China and NATO were gravely affected. Since embassies are considered national territory, the bombing of the Chinese embassy, if intentional, would be an unambiguous act of war.
NATO claims that the bombing was the result of human error. Three cruise missiles, we are told, slammed into the embassy simply because NATO was using an outdated map. China's leadership--along with much of the world--still doesn't buy it. But that's NATO's story, and it's sticking to it.
Is it likely, though, that NATO intelligence didn't know where the Chinese embassy was?
No. As a matter of standard operating procedure, NSA, CIA, MI6, and possibly the blues band NRBQ would have been monitoring communications from the Chinese embassy since it was first placed at the site in 1996.
Is there a more plausible explanation?
Yes. The Observer, London's liberal newsweekly, reported last week that NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy was entirely deliberate. The Observer quoted three widely separated sources within NATO as stating that the Chinese embassy was bombed because it was transmitting Yugoslav military communications.
Why would the Chinese assist Milosevic? The Observer suggests that they might have wanted access to information on stealth technology that Belgrade had gleaned from the downing of an F-117 bomber at the outset of the war.
Moreover, the story also notes that the Chinese military attaché openly stated shortly before the attack that the embassy was monitoring incoming NATO cruise missiles in order to develop countermeasures. The attack on the Chinese embassy would therefore have had a clear military purpose.
Of course, since the NATO sources are as yet unnamed, the Observer story should be approached with caution.
But so should NATO's denials.
Remember, NATO spokesfolks committed numerous deceptions and distortions regarding the Kosovo war, regarding items as fundamental as the success of the bombing strategy, the necessity, number, and causes of civilian casualties, and even the terms of prewar negotiation and the final peace agreement.
And if the bombing of the Chinese embassy was indeed intentional, NATO has tremendous incentive to continue its truth modification program. So does China.
If the Observer story is true, then both China and NATO engaged in direct violations of international law amounting to acts of war. Moreover, the story came out precisely as Jiang Zemin began a two-week tour of Western capitals to discuss both NATO's military posture toward Beijing and China's bid to enter the World Trade Organization.
AN INDEPENDENT press, however, supposedly serves the interests of the public over the state, pursuing truth over expedient nonsense. We might hope for at least some serious attempts to follow up on the Observer's report.
However, according to their online archives, here's what America's leading dailies have had to say about the news that NATO sources now state that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was intentional, for reasons that China's military attaché has already partially confirmed:
The New York Times? Nothing.
The Los Angeles Times? Nothing.
The Chicago Tribune? Nothing.
The Washington Post carried exactly 93 words on page A14--headlined "NATO Denies Story on Embassy Bombing," thereby providing no hint of what the story actually was--buried beneath news of an execution in Yemen and projected election returns in Botswana.
So did NATO bomb the Chinese embassy intentionally? We still don't know for sure.
And if we are to depend on America's commercial news media to find out for us, there's a good chance we never will.这个事情国内民间的说法主要有2个：
一个是中国提供了雷达和导弹的技术，使得南联盟击落F-117，美国因此报复；
一个是中国收集来F-117的残骸进行研究，美国担心技术泄漏，从而打击报复，不想被中国顺手把联合攻击弹药的技术也拿到了。
从各个英文媒体的报道中看，主流的英文媒体都在NATO和美国的控制之下，对此事的说法统一为：accident(事故) ，更有一些印度，歌厮打离家，芬兰和澳大利亚的记者攻击中国政府操纵国内的媒体报道，指示中国国内媒体报道为美国故意袭击中国使馆（这不是一个指使不指使的问题，而是实事求是的基本原则就是美国人蓄意攻击中国使馆）
有两个评论透露了这次攻击的幕后情况，消息都源自英国的报纸，当然，受政治压力，在报道这个事件的不同说法上，都使用了“story”这个词
先看源自伦敦自由周报的评论原文：
NATO's 'Error'
Deliberate? Possibly. A news blackout? Definitely.
By Bob Harris
ON MAY 7, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three and injuring 20. The bombing caused widespread anger at the United States and Britain, whose own embassies in Beijing became the scene for days of protest. Relations between China and NATO were gravely affected. Since embassies are considered national territory, the bombing of the Chinese embassy, if intentional, would be an unambiguous act of war.
NATO claims that the bombing was the result of human error. Three cruise missiles, we are told, slammed into the embassy simply because NATO was using an outdated map. China's leadership--along with much of the world--still doesn't buy it. But that's NATO's story, and it's sticking to it.
Is it likely, though, that NATO intelligence didn't know where the Chinese embassy was?
No. As a matter of standard operating procedure, NSA, CIA, MI6, and possibly the blues band NRBQ would have been monitoring communications from the Chinese embassy since it was first placed at the site in 1996.
Is there a more plausible explanation?
Yes. The Observer, London's liberal newsweekly, reported last week that NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy was entirely deliberate. The Observer quoted three widely separated sources within NATO as stating that the Chinese embassy was bombed because it was transmitting Yugoslav military communications.
Why would the Chinese assist Milosevic? The Observer suggests that they might have wanted access to information on stealth technology that Belgrade had gleaned from the downing of an F-117 bomber at the outset of the war.
Moreover, the story also notes that the Chinese military attaché openly stated shortly before the attack that the embassy was monitoring incoming NATO cruise missiles in order to develop countermeasures. The attack on the Chinese embassy would therefore have had a clear military purpose.
Of course, since the NATO sources are as yet unnamed, the Observer story should be approached with caution.
But so should NATO's denials.
Remember, NATO spokesfolks committed numerous deceptions and distortions regarding the Kosovo war, regarding items as fundamental as the success of the bombing strategy, the necessity, number, and causes of civilian casualties, and even the terms of prewar negotiation and the final peace agreement.
And if the bombing of the Chinese embassy was indeed intentional, NATO has tremendous incentive to continue its truth modification program. So does China.
If the Observer story is true, then both China and NATO engaged in direct violations of international law amounting to acts of war. Moreover, the story came out precisely as Jiang Zemin began a two-week tour of Western capitals to discuss both NATO's military posture toward Beijing and China's bid to enter the World Trade Organization.
AN INDEPENDENT press, however, supposedly serves the interests of the public over the state, pursuing truth over expedient nonsense. We might hope for at least some serious attempts to follow up on the Observer's report.
However, according to their online archives, here's what America's leading dailies have had to say about the news that NATO sources now state that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was intentional, for reasons that China's military attaché has already partially confirmed:
The New York Times? Nothing.
The Los Angeles Times? Nothing.
The Chicago Tribune? Nothing.
The Washington Post carried exactly 93 words on page A14--headlined "NATO Denies Story on Embassy Bombing," thereby providing no hint of what the story actually was--buried beneath news of an execution in Yemen and projected election returns in Botswana.
So did NATO bomb the Chinese embassy intentionally? We still don't know for sure.
And if we are to depend on America's commercial news media to find out for us, there's a good chance we never will.
一个是中国提供了雷达和导弹的技术，使得南联盟击落F-117，美国因此报复；
一个是中国收集来F-117的残骸进行研究，美国担心技术泄漏，从而打击报复，不想被中国顺手把联合攻击弹药的技术也拿到了。
从各个英文媒体的报道中看，主流的英文媒体都在NATO和美国的控制之下，对此事的说法统一为：accident(事故) ，更有一些印度，歌厮打离家，芬兰和澳大利亚的记者攻击中国政府操纵国内的媒体报道，指示中国国内媒体报道为美国故意袭击中国使馆（这不是一个指使不指使的问题，而是实事求是的基本原则就是美国人蓄意攻击中国使馆）
有两个评论透露了这次攻击的幕后情况，消息都源自英国的报纸，当然，受政治压力，在报道这个事件的不同说法上，都使用了“story”这个词
先看源自伦敦自由周报的评论原文：
NATO's 'Error'
Deliberate? Possibly. A news blackout? Definitely.
By Bob Harris
ON MAY 7, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three and injuring 20. The bombing caused widespread anger at the United States and Britain, whose own embassies in Beijing became the scene for days of protest. Relations between China and NATO were gravely affected. Since embassies are considered national territory, the bombing of the Chinese embassy, if intentional, would be an unambiguous act of war.
NATO claims that the bombing was the result of human error. Three cruise missiles, we are told, slammed into the embassy simply because NATO was using an outdated map. China's leadership--along with much of the world--still doesn't buy it. But that's NATO's story, and it's sticking to it.
Is it likely, though, that NATO intelligence didn't know where the Chinese embassy was?
No. As a matter of standard operating procedure, NSA, CIA, MI6, and possibly the blues band NRBQ would have been monitoring communications from the Chinese embassy since it was first placed at the site in 1996.
Is there a more plausible explanation?
Yes. The Observer, London's liberal newsweekly, reported last week that NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy was entirely deliberate. The Observer quoted three widely separated sources within NATO as stating that the Chinese embassy was bombed because it was transmitting Yugoslav military communications.
Why would the Chinese assist Milosevic? The Observer suggests that they might have wanted access to information on stealth technology that Belgrade had gleaned from the downing of an F-117 bomber at the outset of the war.
Moreover, the story also notes that the Chinese military attaché openly stated shortly before the attack that the embassy was monitoring incoming NATO cruise missiles in order to develop countermeasures. The attack on the Chinese embassy would therefore have had a clear military purpose.
Of course, since the NATO sources are as yet unnamed, the Observer story should be approached with caution.
But so should NATO's denials.
Remember, NATO spokesfolks committed numerous deceptions and distortions regarding the Kosovo war, regarding items as fundamental as the success of the bombing strategy, the necessity, number, and causes of civilian casualties, and even the terms of prewar negotiation and the final peace agreement.
And if the bombing of the Chinese embassy was indeed intentional, NATO has tremendous incentive to continue its truth modification program. So does China.
If the Observer story is true, then both China and NATO engaged in direct violations of international law amounting to acts of war. Moreover, the story came out precisely as Jiang Zemin began a two-week tour of Western capitals to discuss both NATO's military posture toward Beijing and China's bid to enter the World Trade Organization.
AN INDEPENDENT press, however, supposedly serves the interests of the public over the state, pursuing truth over expedient nonsense. We might hope for at least some serious attempts to follow up on the Observer's report.
However, according to their online archives, here's what America's leading dailies have had to say about the news that NATO sources now state that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was intentional, for reasons that China's military attaché has already partially confirmed:
The New York Times? Nothing.
The Los Angeles Times? Nothing.
The Chicago Tribune? Nothing.
The Washington Post carried exactly 93 words on page A14--headlined "NATO Denies Story on Embassy Bombing," thereby providing no hint of what the story actually was--buried beneath news of an execution in Yemen and projected election returns in Botswana.
So did NATO bomb the Chinese embassy intentionally? We still don't know for sure.
And if we are to depend on America's commercial news media to find out for us, there's a good chance we never will.这个事情国内民间的说法主要有2个：
一个是中国提供了雷达和导弹的技术，使得南联盟击落F-117，美国因此报复；
一个是中国收集来F-117的残骸进行研究，美国担心技术泄漏，从而打击报复，不想被中国顺手把联合攻击弹药的技术也拿到了。
从各个英文媒体的报道中看，主流的英文媒体都在NATO和美国的控制之下，对此事的说法统一为：accident(事故) ，更有一些印度，歌厮打离家，芬兰和澳大利亚的记者攻击中国政府操纵国内的媒体报道，指示中国国内媒体报道为美国故意袭击中国使馆（这不是一个指使不指使的问题，而是实事求是的基本原则就是美国人蓄意攻击中国使馆）
有两个评论透露了这次攻击的幕后情况，消息都源自英国的报纸，当然，受政治压力，在报道这个事件的不同说法上，都使用了“story”这个词
先看源自伦敦自由周报的评论原文：
NATO's 'Error'
Deliberate? Possibly. A news blackout? Definitely.
By Bob Harris
ON MAY 7, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three and injuring 20. The bombing caused widespread anger at the United States and Britain, whose own embassies in Beijing became the scene for days of protest. Relations between China and NATO were gravely affected. Since embassies are considered national territory, the bombing of the Chinese embassy, if intentional, would be an unambiguous act of war.
NATO claims that the bombing was the result of human error. Three cruise missiles, we are told, slammed into the embassy simply because NATO was using an outdated map. China's leadership--along with much of the world--still doesn't buy it. But that's NATO's story, and it's sticking to it.
Is it likely, though, that NATO intelligence didn't know where the Chinese embassy was?
No. As a matter of standard operating procedure, NSA, CIA, MI6, and possibly the blues band NRBQ would have been monitoring communications from the Chinese embassy since it was first placed at the site in 1996.
Is there a more plausible explanation?
Yes. The Observer, London's liberal newsweekly, reported last week that NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy was entirely deliberate. The Observer quoted three widely separated sources within NATO as stating that the Chinese embassy was bombed because it was transmitting Yugoslav military communications.
Why would the Chinese assist Milosevic? The Observer suggests that they might have wanted access to information on stealth technology that Belgrade had gleaned from the downing of an F-117 bomber at the outset of the war.
Moreover, the story also notes that the Chinese military attaché openly stated shortly before the attack that the embassy was monitoring incoming NATO cruise missiles in order to develop countermeasures. The attack on the Chinese embassy would therefore have had a clear military purpose.
Of course, since the NATO sources are as yet unnamed, the Observer story should be approached with caution.
But so should NATO's denials.
Remember, NATO spokesfolks committed numerous deceptions and distortions regarding the Kosovo war, regarding items as fundamental as the success of the bombing strategy, the necessity, number, and causes of civilian casualties, and even the terms of prewar negotiation and the final peace agreement.
And if the bombing of the Chinese embassy was indeed intentional, NATO has tremendous incentive to continue its truth modification program. So does China.
If the Observer story is true, then both China and NATO engaged in direct violations of international law amounting to acts of war. Moreover, the story came out precisely as Jiang Zemin began a two-week tour of Western capitals to discuss both NATO's military posture toward Beijing and China's bid to enter the World Trade Organization.
AN INDEPENDENT press, however, supposedly serves the interests of the public over the state, pursuing truth over expedient nonsense. We might hope for at least some serious attempts to follow up on the Observer's report.
However, according to their online archives, here's what America's leading dailies have had to say about the news that NATO sources now state that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was intentional, for reasons that China's military attaché has already partially confirmed:
The New York Times? Nothing.
The Los Angeles Times? Nothing.
The Chicago Tribune? Nothing.
The Washington Post carried exactly 93 words on page A14--headlined "NATO Denies Story on Embassy Bombing," thereby providing no hint of what the story actually was--buried beneath news of an execution in Yemen and projected election returns in Botswana.
So did NATO bomb the Chinese embassy intentionally? We still don't know for sure.
And if we are to depend on America's commercial news media to find out for us, there's a good chance we never will.
引用伦敦观察家消息的报道原文：
Chinese Embassy Deliberately Targeted?
TAIPEI, Taiwan, Dec. 3 - For the second time in the last couple of months, the London Observer published a story on Nov. 28 which alleged that the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was deliberately targeted by the U.S. when it was bombed on May 7 (see Day 46 and Day 47 for our reports about it, and Kosovo War Photo Album - for photos).
The Observer article was headlined "The Chinese embassy bombing: Truth behind America's raid on Belgrade." Its sub-heading claimed that, "The US claimed it was a tragic blunder. But the pinpoint accuracy of the attack was in fact a deadly signal to Milosevic: seek outside help in Kosovo at your peril."
"The true story," this left-wing London daily claims, "though it is being denied by everyone from Albright, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and CIA director George Tenet down - is that the Americans knew exactly what they are doing. The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was deliberately targeted by the most precise weapons in the US arsenal because it was being used by Zeljko Raznatovic, the indicted war criminal better known as Arkan, to transmit messages to his 'Tigers' - (the alleged) Serb death squads - in Kosovo."
And in support of its theory, the Observer cites the following exchange which supposedly took place at the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) in Vincenza in northern Italy:
"British, Canadian and French air targeteers rounded on an American colonel on the morning of 8 May. Angrily they denounced the 'cock-up'. The US colonel was relaxed. 'Bullshit,' he replied to the complaints. 'That was great targeting ... we put two JDAMs down into the attaché's office and took out the exact room we wanted ... they (the Chinese) won't be using that place for rebro (re-broadcasting radio transmissions) any more, and it will have given that bastard Arkan a headache'."
---
TiM Ed.: To which we say, hogwash! And for once agree with Madeleine Albright, the U.S. secretary of state. She characterized the Observer report as "balderdash." Unless, of course, one is prepared to believe a fairy tale - that the U.S. military had been given a free hand in running the Clinton administration's foreign policy, not only executing the bombing campaign in Serbia. Consider some evidence to the contrary before you decide if you wish to believe that the Chinese Embassy was deliberately attacked…
You may recall from our contemporaneous report about the May 7 bombing, referenced above, that Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan's office was in the nearby Hotel Jugoslavija (a few hundred yards from the embassy). And that the Pentagon/NATO tried to hit it the same night. But they missed and hit the hotel parking garage instead, killing one guest (also see the photos at our Web site - Kosovo War Photo Album). And they also mistakenly hit other foreign embassy residences in Belgrade later in May (S99-84, Day 58, Item 1, May 20 and S99-85, Day 59, Item 2, May 21).
So much for "great targeting" about which the unnamed U.S. colonel bragged in the Observer piece.
NATO also demonstrated its "pin-pointed accuracy" when several of its missiles hit a suburb of Sofia, Bulgaria (check out a story at our Web site - S99-86, Day 60 - Special TiM GW Bulletins, May 22, 1999). And when they exploded in Macedonia. If they could not even hit the right country, why should we be surprised that they hit the wrong building in Belgrade?
Nor was this the only example of NATO's or Pentagon's ineptitude. Remember the hundreds of "collateral damage" civilians killed or maimed as a result of dozens of "regrettable mistakes," according to NATO's and Pentagon's own wartime spokesmen? If the Chinese embassy bombing was such a perfect hit, all these other war crimes against civilians which the NATO/Pentagon leaders and soldiers had committed must have been also deliberate hits. Right? The NATO/Pentagon "supermen" can't have it both ways. Or can they?
Furthermore, several western "post mortems" conducted after the bombing ended showed that the NATO's 79-day war on Serbia yielded dismal military results. One such a report showed that NATO hit only 26 of the 900 military targets in Serbia (US News & World Report, Sept. 20. You can also search our Web site - www.truthinmedia.org - for additional stories about how Serb wooden dummies fooled NATO's brass dummies).
Finally, while attending a business conference in Boston last July, this writer had lunch with the man who is in charge of the Pentagon's mapping office, which provided the target specs during NATO's bombing. He admitted their mistake in the Chinese embassy's case, while lamenting a lack of credit for other targets which they did get right (see our July 27 letter to the Wall Street Journal editor re. this).
Of course, this man was a computer executive, not a military expert or a politician, trained in the art of lying and denying. So he probably didn't know he was supposed to "lie and deny" everything - to help maintain the myth of infallibility of the world's most expensive airplane (B2 - $44 billion), according to the Observer. Or on another heretofore "untouchable" F-117 "stealth" plane which the Serbs shot out of the sky on the fourth day of the war. For photos of this monumental NATO/Pentagon embarrassment check out - Kosovo War Photo Album).
For what it's worth... We are not a military experts, as you know. But our readers tell us that they detect an above average expertise on matters of common sense.
That an American colonel with a vested interest in his job security and protection of his employer from further embarrassments would help spread a fairy tale about the supposed Pentagon infallibility, is understandable. That a left-wing British publication, seeking to embarrass the "capitalist" U.S., would swallow it fish, hook and sinker, and publish it as supposed "truth," is similarly plausible.
But that the Princes' proxies (Bill Clinton and his team) would risk over $200 billion which their bosses had poured into China during the 1990s, just to give one two-bit alleged criminal (Arkan) a headache and cut off his phone, does not pass our test of common sense. To us, this NATO blunder seems more like the main reason NATO's "supreme being," as Gen. Wesley Clark's subordinates derisively refer to NATO's Supreme Commander, was told he'd have to leave his post prematurely (see "The 'Clinton General,' Our 'Victorious' NATO Commander, Gets the Boot" - S99-130, "Peacefarce" 24, Item 1, July 29).
For the full Observer story, check out - http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk .
Chinese Embassy Deliberately Targeted?
TAIPEI, Taiwan, Dec. 3 - For the second time in the last couple of months, the London Observer published a story on Nov. 28 which alleged that the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was deliberately targeted by the U.S. when it was bombed on May 7 (see Day 46 and Day 47 for our reports about it, and Kosovo War Photo Album - for photos).
The Observer article was headlined "The Chinese embassy bombing: Truth behind America's raid on Belgrade." Its sub-heading claimed that, "The US claimed it was a tragic blunder. But the pinpoint accuracy of the attack was in fact a deadly signal to Milosevic: seek outside help in Kosovo at your peril."
"The true story," this left-wing London daily claims, "though it is being denied by everyone from Albright, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and CIA director George Tenet down - is that the Americans knew exactly what they are doing. The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was deliberately targeted by the most precise weapons in the US arsenal because it was being used by Zeljko Raznatovic, the indicted war criminal better known as Arkan, to transmit messages to his 'Tigers' - (the alleged) Serb death squads - in Kosovo."
And in support of its theory, the Observer cites the following exchange which supposedly took place at the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) in Vincenza in northern Italy:
"British, Canadian and French air targeteers rounded on an American colonel on the morning of 8 May. Angrily they denounced the 'cock-up'. The US colonel was relaxed. 'Bullshit,' he replied to the complaints. 'That was great targeting ... we put two JDAMs down into the attaché's office and took out the exact room we wanted ... they (the Chinese) won't be using that place for rebro (re-broadcasting radio transmissions) any more, and it will have given that bastard Arkan a headache'."
---
TiM Ed.: To which we say, hogwash! And for once agree with Madeleine Albright, the U.S. secretary of state. She characterized the Observer report as "balderdash." Unless, of course, one is prepared to believe a fairy tale - that the U.S. military had been given a free hand in running the Clinton administration's foreign policy, not only executing the bombing campaign in Serbia. Consider some evidence to the contrary before you decide if you wish to believe that the Chinese Embassy was deliberately attacked…
You may recall from our contemporaneous report about the May 7 bombing, referenced above, that Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan's office was in the nearby Hotel Jugoslavija (a few hundred yards from the embassy). And that the Pentagon/NATO tried to hit it the same night. But they missed and hit the hotel parking garage instead, killing one guest (also see the photos at our Web site - Kosovo War Photo Album). And they also mistakenly hit other foreign embassy residences in Belgrade later in May (S99-84, Day 58, Item 1, May 20 and S99-85, Day 59, Item 2, May 21).
So much for "great targeting" about which the unnamed U.S. colonel bragged in the Observer piece.
NATO also demonstrated its "pin-pointed accuracy" when several of its missiles hit a suburb of Sofia, Bulgaria (check out a story at our Web site - S99-86, Day 60 - Special TiM GW Bulletins, May 22, 1999). And when they exploded in Macedonia. If they could not even hit the right country, why should we be surprised that they hit the wrong building in Belgrade?
Nor was this the only example of NATO's or Pentagon's ineptitude. Remember the hundreds of "collateral damage" civilians killed or maimed as a result of dozens of "regrettable mistakes," according to NATO's and Pentagon's own wartime spokesmen? If the Chinese embassy bombing was such a perfect hit, all these other war crimes against civilians which the NATO/Pentagon leaders and soldiers had committed must have been also deliberate hits. Right? The NATO/Pentagon "supermen" can't have it both ways. Or can they?
Furthermore, several western "post mortems" conducted after the bombing ended showed that the NATO's 79-day war on Serbia yielded dismal military results. One such a report showed that NATO hit only 26 of the 900 military targets in Serbia (US News & World Report, Sept. 20. You can also search our Web site - www.truthinmedia.org - for additional stories about how Serb wooden dummies fooled NATO's brass dummies).
Finally, while attending a business conference in Boston last July, this writer had lunch with the man who is in charge of the Pentagon's mapping office, which provided the target specs during NATO's bombing. He admitted their mistake in the Chinese embassy's case, while lamenting a lack of credit for other targets which they did get right (see our July 27 letter to the Wall Street Journal editor re. this).
Of course, this man was a computer executive, not a military expert or a politician, trained in the art of lying and denying. So he probably didn't know he was supposed to "lie and deny" everything - to help maintain the myth of infallibility of the world's most expensive airplane (B2 - $44 billion), according to the Observer. Or on another heretofore "untouchable" F-117 "stealth" plane which the Serbs shot out of the sky on the fourth day of the war. For photos of this monumental NATO/Pentagon embarrassment check out - Kosovo War Photo Album).
For what it's worth... We are not a military experts, as you know. But our readers tell us that they detect an above average expertise on matters of common sense.
That an American colonel with a vested interest in his job security and protection of his employer from further embarrassments would help spread a fairy tale about the supposed Pentagon infallibility, is understandable. That a left-wing British publication, seeking to embarrass the "capitalist" U.S., would swallow it fish, hook and sinker, and publish it as supposed "truth," is similarly plausible.
But that the Princes' proxies (Bill Clinton and his team) would risk over $200 billion which their bosses had poured into China during the 1990s, just to give one two-bit alleged criminal (Arkan) a headache and cut off his phone, does not pass our test of common sense. To us, this NATO blunder seems more like the main reason NATO's "supreme being," as Gen. Wesley Clark's subordinates derisively refer to NATO's Supreme Commander, was told he'd have to leave his post prematurely (see "The 'Clinton General,' Our 'Victorious' NATO Commander, Gets the Boot" - S99-130, "Peacefarce" 24, Item 1, July 29).
For the full Observer story, check out - http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk .
今早上还看到一则关于4月抵制日货游行的报道，NY times发的，很强的反华腔调，本来游行的人不多，到了报纸上就是一万人了。
还有的地方是这么写的：
...protest Japan's decision to issue new textbooks they say gloss over the atrocities it committed in China during World War II.
他们（指中国人）抗议日本在教课书问题上的决定，即中国认为的美化二战期间日本在中国所犯下的罪行。
Others demanded that Japan give up its claim to a string of small islands in the East China Sea that China considers part of its territory.
另外有人要求日本放弃对中国认为拥有主权的东海岛链宣称拥有。
太可气了，纽约时报就已经把日军美化了，还把钓鱼岛划给日本了，愤怒啊！
[em16][em16]
还有的地方是这么写的：
...protest Japan's decision to issue new textbooks they say gloss over the atrocities it committed in China during World War II.
他们（指中国人）抗议日本在教课书问题上的决定，即中国认为的美化二战期间日本在中国所犯下的罪行。
Others demanded that Japan give up its claim to a string of small islands in the East China Sea that China considers part of its territory.
另外有人要求日本放弃对中国认为拥有主权的东海岛链宣称拥有。
太可气了，纽约时报就已经把日军美化了，还把钓鱼岛划给日本了，愤怒啊！
[em16][em16]
勿忘过去，踏实努力，着眼未来
楼主引用的文章很有说服力啊~~~~~~~~~
汗。。。看不懂洋文。。。有达人帮翻译下咩。。