Because then NATO, not the Guardian, would have to prove their suspicions beyond a doubt.
China is not Iraq, where you can bomb around at random based on mere suspicions.
Yeah...You are definitely dodging because you know you have been busted for ignorance.
You brought on this source...
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.
...To show that NATO knew exactly that the Chinese Embassy is where NATO's map say. To show that we deliberately attacked a country's sovereign soil via an embassy. And to cast moral condemnation upon US to alleviate and distract from the moral outrage being performed by your fellow muslims on our embassies worldwide.
I said I am willing to grant you the latitude that the newspaper is correct, that we
KNOWINGLY and
DELIBERATELY attacked the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with full knowledge of its identity and location.
Here is what you missed in that news article...
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.
If I grant you that latitude, it mean I am conceding to your point, it also mean no proof from me is required on NATO's behalf on what NATO believed or do not believed. Why should I or NATO provide any proof? For this discussion, on behalf of NATO, we already conceded that you are correct in your charge.
So here is what the Geneva Convention said about neutral parties who are caught in a 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.
If China claim neutrality then China -- via one of its embassy -- cannot assist Milosevic in any way. Articles 3a and 5 applicable here, in spirit and letter.
You cannot demand that we believe NATO was telling the truth in one article and lied in the same article. And if we concede to your charge that we bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade knowing what it was, it mean
YOU have to concede to the article's reporting that said embassy was acting in favor of the Yugoslav Army.
So according to the Geneva Convention regarding claimed neutrality, China was not a neutral party in that conflict and if China acted in favor of Milosevic, then the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade deserved that bomb.
Now explain to the readers in a coherent and logical manner how was China neutral in that conflict.
