Chinese submarines thread

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

So you're telling me you think the Daily Mail is a credible source or you simply don't know? If the former, God help you. If the latter, don't comment without doing some research first.

No, I don't and never implied such a thing. No need to start lying because you're getting upset.

And don't answer a question with another question. I saw the Daily Mail report & posted it. If you want to make a claim that it's not credible, come up with something to support it & I may or may not agree.
I still ask you the same thing, saying 'God help you' doesn't help your post & it frankly makes you look like trying to avoid.

Am I lying ? I said others want to see info, not what one likes or dislikes to see & instead of replying intelligently, you replied 'then why are you here ?'.
Now, isn't that obviously a 'smart' comment lacking in any value just to get back as in a kid forum, just like the previous comment that say I'm 'getting upset'.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

And don't answer a question with another question. I saw the Daily Mail report & posted it.

You can't wangle out if it that easily. If you want to use a tabloid like the Mail, which has a pathetic reputation in the UK amongst anyone with a full set of brain cells, then it would do you good to say whether you did so because you think it's a good publication or because it was a piece of "exciting news" that you hoped was true and didn't realise the paper was of a low standard.

Am I lying ? I said others want to see info

Well you implied I act as if I represent the whole forum, which is a complete load of nonsense and thus you were lying.

 

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

You can't wangle out if it that easily. If you want to use a tabloid like the Mail, which has a pathetic reputation in the UK amongst anyone with a full set of brain cells, then it would do you good to say whether you did so because you think it's a good publication or because it was a piece of "exciting news" that you hoped was true and didn't realise the paper was of a low standard.

...........

lol, 'brain cells', 'exciting news', anything but any semblance of proof to support your claim to discredit the source. In the end, as always, you just make claims & shout them out loud & expect others to believe.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

In the end, as always, you just make claims & shout them out loud & expect others to believe.

Well, Schumacher, some things are taken for granted. For those people that are well-educated and have knowledge of the UK media, the Daily Mail being a bit of a rag is something generally accepted. That doesn't mean everything they post is rubbish, but given that:

a) This has not been carried by many (if any) other credible publications, rather than just saying "the Daily Mail said";
b) This involves precisely the same type of Chinese submarine and the same US carrier as happened last year;
c) The date of this article coincides approximately with the 2006 incident;
d) Does not mention the 2006 incident;
e) Does not even carry a date for when this event took place;

I would like see something harder to back it up. After all last year the US did admit that the meeting did occur.

Plus there's the following:

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but where and when have US diplomats been demanding anything recently?

Please, if you want to vest your own credibility in this Daily Mail "report" be my guest. :roll:

 

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

................
Plus there's the following:

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Now, stop me if I'm wrong, but where and when have US diplomats been demanding anything recently?
................

Now that's a much better post, elaborating on your views.
As for the diplomatic exchanges, this is more evidence of your lack of understanding of these issues. Why do you think exchanges between countries are always openly & widely reported ?
Not trying to force you towards one way or the other but to say that if you want to doubt the report, you need other reasons than to cite the lack of reports on those 'diplomatic exchanges'.

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

As for the diplomatic exchanges, this is more evidence of your lack of understanding of these issues. Why do you think exchanges between countries are always openly & widely reported ?

My lack of understanding? Do you even keep track of the exchanges between the US and China? America is quite happy to make public statements about the Chinese military. It openly talked about what happened last year - why wouldn't it do so this time?!

you need other reasons than to cite the lack of reports on those 'diplomatic exchanges'.

Schu, you really need those new glasses. I listed an additional five separate problematic points about the article.

 

[Norfolk]

Re: Chinese sub thread

CSR report on PLAN 2007 indicates that on the Nov 2006 incident that after the Song surfaced it dived again. It was then surface vessels tried to track it. But the sub simply disappeared.

Yes, I believe that the UPI report is indeed credible, if otherwise unconfirmed. If a French-built Dauphin-class SSK (not exactly a fresh design)of the South African Navy was able on exercise to run circles around a US Navy CSG a few years ago - and "sink" it - , then a well-trained PLAN submarine crew with a commander who knows what he's doing, on a boat that's rather "fresher" than what the South Africans were using, managing almost the same feat is not implausible. I think that UPI got lucky on this one before the lid was slammed on it, and getting more details might take a while, giving the sensitivity of this latest incident.

 

[kickars]

Re: Chinese sub thread

Wow, I was quite depressed due to the **** weather we have here today. Now I'm all exited. Go on, do worry about me. I'll just get some popcorn...

 

[Schumacher]

Re: Chinese sub thread

.............

Schu, you really need those new glasses. I listed an additional five separate problematic points about the article.

I praised your last post on the valid questions raised didn't I ?

 

[Deleted member 675]

Re: Chinese sub thread

I praised your last post on the valid questions raised didn't I ?

That doesn't make up for the fact you ignored the majority of my post.

Besides, I wouldn't call saying "this is more evidence of your lack of understanding of these issues" praise.