Re: GeeK: FW: US Media overlook Embassy Bombing

Mark Atwood (
27 Oct 1999 18:00:31 -0700

"Joseph S. Barrera III" <> writes:
> Does anyone want to reassure me that my government couldn't
> possibly have bombed the Chinese embassy on purpose?

If it *was* acting as a signal relay, then it *was* a valid military

Tough. Deal.

One of the "deals" you make when you set up an embassy is you *dont*
do military stuff there. You can do diplomacy, spying, and even
SIGINT, but do military stuff, even C4I, and you have no cause to
complain when someone gets military with you. (This goes for US
embassy's too.)

It was probably decided at the top levels that the US could knock it
out without going to war with China by using the cover story of an

Hell, it's a better cover story than the bald-faced lies that Isreal
tells about firing on the USS Liberty.

And the bit about the US media not covering the story? So. I didn't
even notice. I read it off the online versions of the UK papers when
they ran it. With the `net, newsdelivery is so internationalized that
"official silence" is hardly noticable, let alone a real problem.

Again... Deal.

Mark Atwood               |             | |