What's new

Vietnam's Lies Exposed! Photos of Vietnam ship hitting Chinese patrol vessel released

You are the one crying. Not us. :lol:
you are the baby crying foul.
What's this thread, then !? Are you not crying as always ... ? :lol:

you guys look very happy when PRC govt released this short, edited videos ... :rofl:

7f005f78-baf0-4e31-96d5-6d3cd20f4f16.jpg

Finally, China can become "victim" , cheer ... :cheers:

We're so happy

6019_173083006195855_1157402818_n.jpg


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
What's this thread, then !? Are you not crying as always ... ? :lol:

you guys look very happy when PRC govt released this short, edited videos ... :rofl:

7f005f78-baf0-4e31-96d5-6d3cd20f4f16.jpg

Finally, China can become "victim" , cheer ... :cheers:

We're so happy

6019_173083006195855_1157402818_n.jpg


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
So u admit vietnam is agressor and ram Chinese ship? Too bad vietnam ship are egg and got pwned instead and sink by ramming against China rock ship. :lol:

And the final blow is China need not cry. Our rig is still there drilling oil and its vietnamese boat sinking. The cry baby is vietnam. Vietnamese are so useless, cant even remove a simple rig. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I see that Chinese members here love twisting others words around.

And looking at your last paragraph is enough to show who is the aggressor. If that log is used by Vietnam ships, show the damage of Chinese ships too. Or else it's just a random log floating in the sea.
So u admit vietnam is agressor and ram Chinese ship? Too bad vietnam ship are egg and got pwned instead and sink by ramming against China rock ship. :lol:

And the final blow is China need not cry. Our rig is still there drilling oil and its vietnamese boat sinking. The cry baby is vietnam. Vietnamese are so useless, cant even remove a simple rig. :lol:
 
So u admit vietnam is agressor and ram Chinese ship? Too bad vietnam ship are egg and got pwned instead and sink by ramming against China rock ship. :lol:

And the final blow is China need not cry. Our rig is still there drilling oil and its vietnamese boat sinking. The cry baby is vietnam. Vietnamese are so useless, cant even remove a simple rig. :lol:
Where your oil !? :lol:

And seem like my words are very hard to understand with you, beast!
Hmm, I must complain this with your teacher and Zoo's manager ... :coffee:
 
It could be so rare to have this shot showing a "light kiss" to China ship. It cannot be called as "hit" or "ram" ,,,
while show the big damage of Vietnam ship sideway.

. Vietnam has bundles of photos showing China ships hit and make severe damages to Vietnam ships. And water cannon too. And sinking Vietnam ships too.

China said " Please hit me as hard as you can
Vietnam said "Don't rally and stop in front of my nose"

please_hit_me_as_hard_as_you_can__by_lotusthekat-d6tvjax.png



China has ever used this tactic many times "sail into other noses and stop or slow down"
USS Cowpens was harassed by China warship Type 071
uss-cowpens-location.jpg


Hainan Incident, China much faster ( triple the speed ) intercept aircraft intercepted much slower US EP3

hainan_map.jpg

On April 1, 2001, the Hainan Island incident occurred when a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals intelligence aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China.

The EP-3 was operating about 70 miles (110 km) away from the PRC island province of Hainan, and about 100 miles (160 km) away from the Chinese military installation in the Paracel Islands, when it was intercepted by two J-8 fighters. A collision between the EP-3 and one of the J-8s caused the death of a PRC pilot, and the EP-3 was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan. The 24 crew members were detained and interrogated by the Chinese authorities until a statement was delivered by United States government regarding the incident. The exact phrasing of this document was intentionally ambiguous and allowed both countries to save face while simultaneously defusing a potentially volatile situation between militarily strong regional states
_1317534_plane300.jpg


USS Impeccable was harassed by China fake fishing boats

85115648.jpg

3e7373aa-196e-11de-9d34-0000779fd2ac.img


Updated March 11, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET
So once again we are reminded of why Ronald Reagan sank the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Thanks of a sort here go to China, which last week sent several ships to shadow and harass the USNS Impeccable, an unarmed U.S. Navy surveillance ship, as it was operating in international waters about 70 miles south of Hainan Island. The harassment culminated Sunday when the Chinese boats "maneuvered in dangerously close proximity" to the Impeccable, according to the Pentagon, forcing the American crew to turn fire hoses on the Chinese. Undeterred, two of the Chinese ships positioned themselves directly in front of the Impeccable after it had radioed its intention to leave and requested safe passage. A collision was barely averted.

The Chinese have a knack for welcoming incoming U.S. Administrations with these sorts of provocations. In April 2001, a hotdogging Chinese fighter pilot collided with a slow-moving U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft, forcing the American plane to make an emergency landing on Hainan, where its 24-member crew remained for 11 days. They were released only after the U.S. issued a letter saying it was "sorry" for the incident without quite apologizing for it.

Thereafter, the Chinese kept their distance from U.S. surveillance planes, and Beijing's relations with the Bush Administration were generally positive. But the Chinese military remains strategically committed to dominating the South China Sea, and it has recently built a large submarine base on Hainan. China also makes a contentious claim to the oil-rich Spratly and Parcel Islands -- an endless source of friction with the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam, which also have their claims. Following Sunday's incident, the Chinese accused the U.S. of violating Chinese and international law.

Which brings us to the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty -- which the Gipper sent to the bottom of the ocean, but the Chinese have signed and which the Obama Administration intends to ratify, with the broad support of the U.S. Navy. The supposed virtue of the treaty is that it codifies the customary laws that have long guaranteed freedom of the seas and creates a legal framework for navigational rights.

The problem is that, as with any document that contains 320 articles and nine annexes, the treaty creates as many ambiguities as it resolves. In this case, the dispute involves the so-called "Exclusive Economic Zones," which give coastal states a patchwork of sovereign and jurisdictional rights over the economic resources of seas to a distance of 200 miles beyond their territorial waters.

Thus, the U.S. contends that the right of its ships to transit through or operate in the EEZs (and of planes to overfly them) is no different than their rights on the high seas, including intelligence gathering, and can point to various articles in the treaty that seem to say as much. But a number of signatories to the treaty, including Brazil, Malaysia, Pakistan and China, take the view that the treaty forbids military and intelligence-gathering work by foreign countries in an EEZ. Matters are further complicated by the claims China made for itself over its EEZ when it ratified the Law of the Sea in the 1990s.

We don't have a view on the legal niceties here, which amounts to a theological dispute in a religion to which we don't subscribe. But the incident with the Impeccable is another reminder that China's ambitions for regional dominance, and for diminishing U.S. influence, remain unchanged despite a new American Administration; and that the Law of the Sea Treaty, far from curbing ambitions or resolving differences, has served only to sharpen both.

Next time the Impeccable sails these waters -- and for the sake of responding to China's provocation it should be soon -- President Obama ought to dispatch a destroyer or two as escorts.
 
Last edited:
Some reporters realized that China sailors show their smiles when at last a prepared scene of Vietnam "kiss" to China ship recorded. They clearly know that Vietnam ships never ram to their ships, because the loss would be to Vietnam ships.
--------------------

China holds press conference to slander Vietnam
Sunday, June 15, 2014 - 15:36:13





(VOVworld) – After setting up some scenes of the collisions between Vietnamese fisheries resources surveillance ships and Chinese coast guard ships, China’s Foreign Ministry on Friday held a press conference to slander Vietnam and justify its illegal actions in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.
tau%20ca_VTTL_TKEO.jpg

A Chinese vessel intentionally hits Vietnamese fishing boat

Yi Xianliang, deputy director-general of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs accused Vietnam of sending many vessels, including military ships to obstruct the normal operations of oilrig Haiyang 981 and ram Chinese ships. He said that Vietnam dropped obstacles and fishing nets into water, which impacted the safety of Chinese vessels and their crews. When asked why Chinese vessels were damaged at the prow, which indicates that they hit Vietnamese vessels, he blamed rough sea and said that the prow was the most vulnerable part in case of collision. Yi also said that China had not sent any modern military ship to protect the oilrig, and if there was any, they just passed by the area. It was obvious that a scenario had been set up when reporters from Chinese news agencies were invited to raise questions so that Mr. Yi would read the prepared answers. He also said that China hopes Vietnam will not bring the case to an international arbitration court and that China wants to settle the issue through bilateral negotiations.
 
PRC propaganda can fool only some Chinese idiots ... :lol:
 
Is it not true that almost Liaoning escost ships sent to site as early phase statement ?
 
Back
Top Bottom