Actually, it's NATO that couldn't get its story straight and kept doing the dance of evasion...
Nato bombed Chinese deliberately | World news | The Observer
A Nato flight control officer in Naples also confirmed to us that a map of 'non-targets': churches, hospitals and embassies, including the Chinese, did exist. On this 'don't hit' map, the Chinese embassy was correctly located at its current site, and not where it had been until 1996 - as claimed by the US and NATO.
And not one name.
Not of the 'officers'. Not of the NIMA 'source'.
Here is how GPS works: Earth based coordinates.
If you build a building on geo-coordinates X by Y, it is not the building's geo-location but the Earth's that is used by any GPS guided device. If you move that building 100 meters anywhere, it would
STILL be the Earth's geo-coordinate that is used, not the building's latest Earth geo-coordinates, unless the map is updated. If you fly over a city, and you mark 'City Hall', it is not 'City Hall' that is recorded in the computer's memory, it is the Earth's geo-coordinates of the ground point that a building call 'City Hall' sits upon that is recorded. So if you have a map that contains the icon 'City Hall' off by 100 meters to the left but the Earth's geo-coordinates are written as correct, you may land your helo (or your bomb) on a street intersection instead of City Hall's front yard. If you swapped geo-coordinates between two buildings, you may bomb a hospital instead of an electrical station.
GPS Visualizer: Free geocoders: Convert addresses to GPS coordinates
"Geocoding" is the process of converting street addresses or other locations (ZIP codes, postal codes, city & state, airport IATA/ICAO codes, etc.) to latitude and longitude, which can be entered into a GPS device or geographical software. GPS Visualizer offers several options for geocoding your information.
GPS Coordinates - What They Are & How to Get Them
The global GPS system actually doesn't have a coordinates system of its own. It uses "geographic coordinates" systems that already existed before GPS...
So from a purely technical perspective, the one completely devoid of political and personal biases, it is eminently plausible that it was an accident that the Chinese Embassy was hit if we had the wrong geo-coordinates.
Do us all -- the Americans and other sane forum members -- and might as well admit that you are a '9/11 Troofer' since you are already more than halfway there with this.
Almost forgot...
From
YOUR source...
Nato bombed Chinese deliberately | World news | The Observer
The story is confirmed in detail by three other Nato officers - a flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior headquarters officer in Brussels. They all confirm that they knew in April that the Chinese embassy was acting as a 'rebro' [rebroadcast] station for the Yugoslav army (VJ) after alliance jets had successfully silenced Milosevic's own transmitters.
Let us grant you the benefit that this is true -- that NATO hit the Chinese Embassy on deliberately.
The highlighted is more a damning indictment against the Chinese than against US. Much more.
What the highlighted mean is that the Chinese
TOOK A SIDE DURING THAT CONFLICT...!!!
The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907
Article 1.
The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.
Art. 2.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.
Art. 3.
Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.
Art. 4.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.
Art. 5.
A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.
It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.
Article 1 say: 'The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.' And this includes embassies and consulates of said neutral country.
Article 5 say: 'A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.'
If the Chinese Embassy was acting as a 'rebro' in military language for 'rebroadcasting'
FOR the Yugoslavian Army, the Chinese violated the letter and spirit of Article 3a:
Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
Remember, an embassy is the equivalent of sovereign territory -- of a guest country on a host country. That mean if home soil is forbidden to serve as recruiting station or assistance to any side in a conflict -- for a neutral party -- then the same is applicable to embassies and consulates as well.
So here is your dilemma...
1- If China was actively involved in assisting one side in a conflict via a Chinese Embassy, then China, not merely the embassy ground, lost
ALL protection usually granted to a neutral party caught in the middle of a conflict. That mean that particular embassy lost all protection and was a legitimate target.
2- That it was a mistake on our part.
Either way, this explains why the Chinese government did nothing more than allow some Chinese citizens to protest.
You can pass your argument to some gullible young kid.
But not with me.
