Chinese embassy blitzed by Nato was hiding Serbs

[gambit]

If you say so. I wonder why lawyers don't use wikipedia more often then.

Who said I need wikipedia?

Laws and Rules Regarding Extraterritoriality | Integrity Legal Blog

There is a common misconception that Embassies and Consulates have extraterritoriality. As anecdotal evidence of this misconception, people will often say things like, “the US Embassy sits upon United States soil.” For the most part, this is not the case as extraterritoriality is not conferred upon an Embassy or Consulate, but in some situations extraterritoriality may be created by Treaty.

At one time, the Kingdom of Thailand conferred extraterritorial rights upon foreigners in the country.

A person or a bag may be conferred extra-territoriality but not the embassy ground itself. Shocking, eh?

Or if there is a treaty between two States where reciprocity is respected then they may confer extra-territorial status for each other embassies. So if Serbia extends such status to China, the latter should do the same for Serbia. However, if Serbia is at war against the US, and since the US is not party to that agreement, and if the Chinese embassy was being used for the benefit of the Serbian military, then as far as the war is concerned, the Chinese embassy lost its protected status FOR THE PURPOSES OF WAR. By allowing the Serbs to use the Chinese embassy as a tool of the Serbian war machines, China made herself an interested party in that war.

It cracked me up that your pals jumped over each other to 'Thank' you for your...ahhh...'useful'...posts when you disputed what I said earlier as I toyed with you. Now all of you ended up looking many times foolish over.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It cracked me up that your pals jumped over each other to 'Thank' you for your...ahhh...'useful'...posts when you disputed what I said earlier as I toyed with you. Now all of you ended up looking many times foolish over.

Except that you only made a fool of yourself.

Setting up "traps" on the internet, indeed.

Someone who is that desperate, to make other people look like "fools", clearly has an issue with participating in logical arguments.

 

[ao333]

Uhh... Why was the US in Serbia in the first place? Serbs shouldn't even have fleed anywhere. It's their country.

 

[gambit]

Except that you only made a fool of yourself.

Setting up "traps" on the internet, indeed.

Someone who is that desperate, to make other people look like "fools", clearly has an issue with participating in logical arguments.

What 'trap'? I gave you Chinese boys keyword search clues and even one example. But the ones who are desperate here are you Chinese boys for making a mockery out of that 'Thank' feature, there were nothing 'useful' in what was 'thanked'. You Chinese boys had to do everything and anything to try to make a Viet look bad, from cheap personal attacks and this 'Thank' for a...ahhh...'useful'...post. You Chinese boys are nothing more than a mutual admiration society.

 

[S10]

Who said I need wikipedia?

Laws and Rules Regarding Extraterritoriality | Integrity Legal Blog

A person or a bag may be conferred extra-territoriality but not the embassy ground itself. Shocking, eh?

Or if there is a treaty between two States where reciprocity is respected then they may confer extra-territorial status for each other embassies. So if Serbia extends such status to China, the latter should do the same for Serbia. However, if Serbia is at war against the US, and since the US is not party to that agreement, and if the Chinese embassy was being used for the benefit of the Serbian military, then as far as the war is concerned, the Chinese embassy lost its protected status FOR THE PURPOSES OF WAR. By allowing the Serbs to use the Chinese embassy as a tool of the Serbian war machines, China made herself an interested party in that war.

It cracked me up that your pals jumped over each other to 'Thank' you for your...ahhh...'useful'...posts when you disputed what I said earlier as I toyed with you. Now all of you ended up looking many times foolish over.

China have always maintained a strong link with Serbia, as far back as Yugoslavia days. Since you think the embassy lost its protected status because it "protected Serbs", why did Billy C ended up apologzing and paying compensation? Even your CIA was deseperate enough to use that god awful excuse "map error". It was an act of aggression, pure and simple, against a foreign diplomatic post. According to you, American government offices in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are also valid targets since they could provide aid to China's opponents during conflict.

In addition, all this was suppose to be based on an "unpublished" memoir. Sound as much as hog wash as "map error" to me.

What 'trap'? I gave you Chinese boys keyword search clues and even one example. But the ones who are desperate here are you Chinese boys for making a mockery out of that 'Thank' feature, there were nothing 'useful' in what was 'thanked'. You Chinese boys had to do everything and anything to try to make a Viet look bad, from cheap personal attacks and this 'Thank' for a...ahhh...'useful'...post. You Chinese boys are nothing more than a mutual admiration society.

Didn't I tell you sweeping statements were bad just a week ago? Since 7 out 10 Vietnamese I've had come across are drug runners, should I arrived at the conclusion that your race, you included, are criminogenic in nature? You sound like a butthurt brat screaming "you're all baaaad people".

 

[Pak_Sher]

When US bombs an embassey the Vieena Convention does not apply. It only applies when US Diplomat kill other people and want to walk free.

 

[gubbi]

China have always maintained a strong link with Serbia, as far back as Yugoslavia days. Since you think the embassy lost its protected status because it "protected Serbs", why did Billy C ended up apologzing and paying compensation? Even your CIA was deseperate enough to use that god awful excuse "map error". It was an act of aggression, pure and simple, against a foreign diplomatic post. According to you, American government offices in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are also valid targets since they could provide aid to China's opponents during conflict.

In addition, all this was suppose to be based on an "unpublished" memoir. Sound as much as hog wash as "map error" to me.

Apparently you didnt read the first report. A foreign embassy ceases to be a neutral or protected place once it "participates" - by allowing 'asylum seekers' to indulge in their war activities. Providing protection or aid to anyone seeking such is not an offence. But going a step further allowing them to use that protection to further their activities is.
China might have had good relations with the serbs, but many independent reports have confirmed that the serb general was allowed to set up his comm center in the embassy premises - effectively using the premises for war effort. In that scenario - a bad judgement - the embassy grounds lost its protected status by 'actively' taking sides.

It said Jiang regretted allowing the Serbs sanctuary inside China’s diplomatic mission and believed it was a serious political mistake. The memoir is said to tell how a furious Chinese government was forced to mute its protests after the Americans privately presented evidence of Serbian electronic communications from within the embassy.

The diplomatic bargain appeared to be that the Americans saved China’s face by apologising for a “mistake” and the Chinese allowed the street rage to cool off without serious violence.

Also from the same article

Chinese journalists believe the magazine’s account of the memoirs is authentic, pointing to previous instances when high-level documents or memoirs have first appeared as leaks in Hong Kong.

There was also a report of a commander/general who when asked why there was a mistake with smart bombs, retorted back by saying the bombs fell exactly where the military wanted them to.

 

[S10]

Apparently you didnt read the first report. A foreign embassy ceases to be a neutral or protected place once it "participates" - by allowing 'asylum seekers' to indulge in their war activities. Providing protection or aid to anyone seeking such is not an offence. But going a step further allowing them to use that protection to further their activities is.

United States had made no statements regarding any loss of status nor prior accusations. It simply bombed the location without provocation. It is an act of aggression, pure and simple.

China might have had good relations with the serbs, but many independent reports have confirmed that the serb general was allowed to set up his comm center in the embassy premises - effectively using the premises for war effort. In that scenario - a bad judgement - the embassy grounds lost its protected status by 'actively' taking sides.


Also from the same article

There was also a report of a commander/general who when asked why there was a mistake with smart bombs, retorted back by saying the bombs fell exactly where the military wanted them to.

Where is this independent report you speak of? Does it come from an "unpublished memoir" or "inside sources"?

Funny how these work. I could declare according to inside sources, G. W. Bush was secretly gay and Dick Cheney's unpublished memoir confirms the story. Sloppy journalism and rumour mills are what you are basing your argument on.

 

[below_freezing]

United States had made no statements regarding any loss of status nor prior accusations. It simply bombed the location without provocation. It is an act of aggression, pure and simple.


Where is this independent report you speak of? Does it come from an "unpublished memoir" or "inside sources"?

Funny how these work. I could declare according to inside sources, G. W. Bush was secretly gay and Dick Cheney's unpublished memoir confirms the story. Sloppy journalism and rumour mills are what you are basing your argument on.

Good, I had my doubts before.

What is confirmed is that Cheney's company, Haliburton, made billions off the brutal massacre of millions of Iraqis. That is confirmed, far more confirmed that the Chinese embassy being used for Serbian war efforts. If Chinese embassy was used for Serbian war efforts, Cheney should be imprisoned for corruption.

 

[pluto]

i don't know the truth and i don't care, but just let's develop more weapons like j20, DF-21D, and next time U.S dare to touch our embassy for whatever reasons, we'll bomb theirs, even this will lead to an end of the world.
what do you say?

 

[gubbi]

United States had made no statements regarding any loss of status nor prior accusations. It simply bombed the location without provocation. It is an act of aggression, pure and simple.

There is Google, you know? And there are numerous advantages of using an advanced search engine over any crappy one.

Nato bombed Chinese deliberately
Nato deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the war in Kosovo after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications.
According to senior military and intelligence sources in Europe and the US the Chinese embassy was removed from a prohibited targets list after Nato electronic intelligence (Elint) detected it sending army signals to Milosevic's forces.
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.



Did the U.S. Deliberately Bomb the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?
Elements within the CIA may have deliberately targeted the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, without NATO approval, because it was serving as a rebroadcast station for the Yugoslavian army.
The London Observer and Copenhagen’s Politiken reported that, according to senior U.S. and European military sources, NATO knew very well where the Chinese embassy was located and listed it as a “strictly prohibited target” at the beginning of the war. The Observer stated that the CIA and its British equivalent, M16, had been listening to communications from the Chinese embassy routinely since it moved to its new site in 1996. The Chinese embassy was taken off the prohibited target list after NATO detected it sending Yugoslavian army signals to forces in the field. “Nearly everyone involved in NATO air operations (radio) signals command knows that the bombing was deliberate,” said Jens Holsoe of Politiken, lead investigative reporter on the news team reporting on the story.

There are many more reports if you knew how to use Google (not that Baidu!)

Funny how these work. I could declare according to inside sources, G. W. Bush was secretly gay and Dick Cheney's unpublished memoir confirms the story. Sloppy journalism and rumour mills are what you are basing your argument on.

Are you high?

And just FYI, it was a NATO operation, not by US alone.

 

[gambit]

China have always maintained a strong link with Serbia, as far back as Yugoslavia days.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Since you think the embassy lost its protected status because it "protected Serbs", why did Billy C ended up apologzing and paying compensation?

Do not care what Clinton said. An idiot at that moment does not negate the fact that an embassy can lose its protected status. You are either wrong or being deceitful when you claim that the Chinese embassy was merely protecting Serbian nationals. Am willing to bet on the latter. Anyway...There is nothing illegal in having members of the host State on embassy grounds. Every embassy in the world conducts business that way everyday. However, since Serbia and NATO were in a conflict, every embassy in Belgrade has a duty to declare their neutrality to ALL parties in said conflict. That is common sense. If you are the Ambassador of your country and the host State is having a war with his neighbor, you do not want to do anything that would jeopardize the protected status of your embassies (plural) in BOTH host States, assuming your country has an embassy in that other State.

In this case, IF it is true that the Belgrade Chinese embassy is not merely having Serbian nationals on embassy grounds, but that those Serbian nationals were performing acts that benefit the Serbian military forces, AND the Chinese ambassador knows about it and does nothing to stop it, then effectively China has declared herself an interested party in the conflict on the Serbian side. The Belgrade Chinese embassy then became a legitimate target. Worse yet...NATO members then has the right to declare that protected status for ALL Chinese embassies in every NATO member states negated. Just because NATO members chose not to exercise that right does not mean that right does not exist. However, because Russia is not a NATO member and was not an interested party in that conflict, then Russia has no good cause to declare anything regarding Russian Chinese embassy in Moscow.

Even your CIA was deseperate enough to use that god awful excuse "map error". It was an act of aggression, pure and simple, against a foreign diplomatic post. According to you, American government offices in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are also valid targets since they could provide aid to China's opponents during conflict.

Wrong...As long as the US remain a neutral State, China as no legal reason to attack those embassies. Worse if China's conflict does not involve the States listed. So if China's war is against Russia, for example, the Tokyo US embassy is off limits.

In addition, all this was suppose to be based on an "unpublished" memoir. Sound as much as hog wash as "map error" to me.

There is nothing wrong with discussing this even if the memoir is not yet published.

 

[gambit]

There is something else people should consider: Technically speaking...An 'embassy' does not refer to the building and the grounds but to the PERSONNEL that make up the delegation from the 'sending State'. So when an 'embassy' has extra-territorial status, it means the Ambassador and his diplomats have that status, not the building and the grounds. Those structures only have host State territorial rights and administrations suspended for the duration of the treaty that is in effect between contracting States.