[PEN-L:7163] Re: Re: Re: Balkan confusion

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Rob,
      Certainly there was a difference in how the
Norwegian ambassador's residence was hit and
how the Chinese embassy was hit.  The latter looks
more like how the military base occupied by the UCK/
KLA was hit.  The building hit was indeed the one
actually targeted to be hit.  But the intelligence going
into the targeting was faulty.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Schaap <rws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 11:17 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7144] Re: Re: Balkan confusion


>G'day Barkley,
>
>You write:
>
>>      The Gang That Can't Bomb Straight has not only
>>hit the Swedish embassy, but also the residences of
>>the Norwegian and Spanish ambassadors (NATO
>>members vigorously supporting the war effort, last time
>>I checked).  They also hit a hospital, ugh, but not the
>>Swiss embassy or ambassador's residence.
>>      Yes, I think this pretty much tanks for good the
>>theory that the Chinese embassy was bombed "on purpose."
>>This bombing just kills and kills and kills indiscriminately.
>>Barkley Rosser
>
>I'd distinguish between collateral damage and deliberate targeting by
>looking for a cluster of the following: (a) how many passes were made at
>the thing that was hit, (b) by whether it was directly hit, and (c) how
>many times it was directly hit.  Where I arrive at (a) three, (b) yes, and
>(c) five, I must arrive at the conclusion that the Chinese Embassy was a
>target and the others weren't.
>
>I'd add to that the rhetorical trick that pompous git Shea deployed
>straight after the Chinese journos were fried in their beds.  He said we'd
>be 'certifiable' to believe it could have been deliberate.  A cheap stunt,
>and it stunk like one.
>
>I reckon you'd be certifiable to bomb *anywhere* if you really believed
>three passes and five missiles at one site  were within the realms of
>'possible mishap'.
>
>Cheers,
>Rob.
>
>