not so silly

[Adam Souzis]

The problem with the accident explanation is that it is almost impossibly
bad luck.  Let's assume the entire NATO chain of command is so incompetent
and reckless to allow a mistake like this to happen.  Now can you think of
anything worse to accidently hit?  The only things that comes to mind are
the Russian embassy and maybe a nuclear power plant (anyone know how many
there are in Serbia?)   How many thousands of buildings are there in
downtown Belgrade?  Also consider that it's only been a few weeks that
targets in a civilian area like downtown Belgrade are acceptable targets.
Even if we generously assume that 1 out of 100 targets are mistargeted the
odds of a missle hitting the chinese embassy is in the .1 or .01
percentile.  So the mistake theory is possible, just highly improbable.

If someone did purposely target the Chinese embassy, why didn't they go for
the gold and target the Russian embassy?  Maybe they didn't have the guts;
after all, just two days before Yeltsin said: "Just let Clinton, a little
bit, accidentally, send a missile. We'll answer immediately. We don't want
war in Yugoslavia. We don't want to . . . Such impudence. To unleash a war
in a sovereign state without the Security Council, without the United
Nations ­ it could only be possible in a time or barbarism." 

-- adam


>Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:02:21 -0400
>From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb at jmu.edu>
>Subject: not so silly
>
>
>     OK.  Since lots of people on these lists
>seem to think that it is not silly to contemplate
>that the US government or elements within the
>US government consciously targeted the Chinese
>embassy in Belgrade for bombing, I take it back
>and apologize to anybody who was offended by
>my use of such terminology.  I never applied that
>to any individual or group of people, despite the
>interpretation in that vein of recent postings, only
>to the argument itself.
>      However, I still consider such a view to be
>extemely unlikely.  The spy theory, now supported
>by Jim Craven in the post I have just forwarded, or
>the just plain goofed-up in the middle of a war 
>(go read _Catch-22_) both seem far more likely
>to me as explanations of what has happened.
>      And, again, that it might have been an accident
>is no justification.  All Chinese have every reason to
>be angry and to protest what has happened.  Everyone
>should understand that bad stuff happens when one
>starts bombing intensively.  The case remains unmade
>that the end remotely justifies the means in this case.
>Barkley Rosser
>PS: Apologies to lbo-talk for being way overquota.  I
>am shutting up for the day.
>Barkley Rosser