[PEN-L:6581] Re: Fwd: RE: Was it a mistake?

[Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@xxxxxxx>]

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" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>
>>To: "'naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: RE: [PEN-L:6554] Was it a mistake?
>>Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:31:40 -0700
>>X-RCPT-TO: <naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>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:naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Sunday, May 09, 1999 5:31 PM
>>To: jcraven@xxxxxxxxx
>>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 <naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Preamble Center
>>1737 21st NW
>>Washington, DC 20009
>>phone: 202-265-3263
>>fax:   202-265-3647
>>http://www.preamble.org/
>>-------------------------------
>
>-------------------------------
>Robert Naiman <naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Preamble Center
>1737 21st NW
>Washington, DC 20009
>phone: 202-265-3263
>fax:   202-265-3647
>http://www.preamble.org/
>-------------------------------