Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
And not one name. Not of the 'officers'. Not of the NIMA 'source'.
Are you saying that the Guardian, a respectable mainstream source, is making things up?
Ever heard of media protecting their sources in other, highly controversial, situations?
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.
The dilemma is on your part.
- Was the Chinese embassy targeted deliberately because, according to NATO, it had lost its protected status? In that case, NATO would need to prove beyond a doubt its claims of 'rebro'
- Or did the NATO targeting mechanism mysteriously malfunction in a most convenient way?
a personal attacking post deserves an equally hard hitting reply.
There is nothing personal in pointing out your posts in this thread, which eagerly await a major escalation of this conflict.
As for the rest of your rant, I can't be bothered...