Expert Shatters Rumors About Chinese Aircraft Carrier in Syria

A Chinese military expert has rejected reports about a Chinese aircraft carrier which was allegedly on its way to Syria to take part in the fight against Islamic State militants.

The Liaoning CV-16, China's only aircraft carrier, isn't on its way to Syria, according to Zhang Junshe, a military expert and employee of the Research Institute of the Chinese People's Liberation Army's Navy.
In an interview with the Chinese newspaper Huantsyu Shibao, Zhang rejected "false rumors" about the Liaoning CV-16 being en route to the Mediterranean.

Expert Shatters Rumors About Chinese Aircraft Carrier in Syria

This is from Sputnik, so it must be true, right? The blogosphere has been on fire with stories purporting that Chinese troops were on their way to Syria. The stories are false. The Chinese spokesperson said:

"China's position is to respect the free choice of the Syrian people and not to add to a military intervention in Syria or a forcible power shift, which is why China could not send an aircraft carrier to Syria to interfere in the internal affairs of the country," Zhang said.

What does this mean? Al-Masdar did not practice good journalism. Devka actually lied, inventing details. Alex Jones repeated the lies without fact checking. RT.com repeated the lies even though I'm pretty sure they knew otherwise. I assume globalresearch.com and the other purveyors of internet rubbish joined in.

Moral of the story: use critical thinking. Don't believe something because you want it to be true.

(This can eventually be moved to Deconstructing Disinformation.)

China isn't even close to being ready to fight an aircraft carrier offensively. They only have a handful of aircraft and pilots certified to fly off the deck, and a long way to go on their doctrine.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
China isn't even close to being ready to fight an aircraft carrier offensively. They only have a handful of aircraft and pilots certified to fly off the deck, and a long way to go on their doctrine.

The first clue the Devka story was pure BS. A Chinese ship may well have entered the Canal en route to Egypt or Cyprus, but it was pure bad reporting to jump to the conclusion it was headed for Syria. As for the others... they should be ashamed of themselves.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's classified Zap, how could you know those details?

And what's this thread about???

originally posted by: zilebeliveunknown
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's classified Zap, how could you know those details?

And what's this thread about???

It's a response to this rubbish:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks to the internet, a lie can run around the globe while the truth is putting its running shoes on.

originally posted by: zilebeliveunknown
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's classified Zap, how could you know those details?

And what's this thread about???

It's a response to this rubbish:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks to the internet, a lie can run around the globe while the truth is putting its running shoes on.

a reply to: DJW001

Ah, thanks, missed that one.
There goes their element of surprise.

Whenever I read 'experts' said such and such it always reminds me of that scene in 'Ali G In Da House'.....I just can't help it.

''We is experts''

a reply to: DJW001

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well looks as though that thread should be sent to the hoax bin after seeing this information.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: DJW001

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well looks as though that thread should be sent to the hoax bin after seeing this information.

Technically, the original report was not a hoax, just bad journalism. Devka was Israeli disinformation. The clue there was an unnamed military source giving detailed information. (We've seen that before!) Israel is a security state and there is no way the Mossad would allow that information to be linked if it were true!

originally posted by: zilebeliveunknown
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's classified Zap, how could you know those details?

And what's this thread about???

Because Chinas 'aircraft' carriers come from Russia.

They just slap the made in china label on them.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: zilebeliveunknown
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's classified Zap, how could you know those details?

And what's this thread about???

Because Chinas 'aircraft' carriers come from Russia.

They just slap the made in china label on them.

If they are from Russia we have nothing to fear. Russian made ships tend to have a tendency to sink themselves

a reply to: DJW001

The saddest part about modern "journalism": they end up "on fire" about rumor and speculation.

When my grandfather was a young man, they wouldn't have called that journalism. They'd have called it tabloid news.

a reply to: neo96

The Liaoning is from Russia. Their next two that are under construction are their own designs, and will be much more capable.

a reply to: DJW001

The went through the Canal a couple of weeks ago, heading to a joint exercise with Russia. They may have been on their way out after the exercise ended.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001

The saddest part about modern "journalism": they end up "on fire" about rumor and speculation.

When my grandfather was a young man, they wouldn't have called that journalism. They'd have called it tabloid news.

It goes beyond that. There was fabrication involved, and a knowing dissemination of disinformation.

a reply to: DJW001

I can't imagine why....

Simple reasoning would show this to be untrue. China is years away from aircraft doctrine, they could not use it properly today if they wanted to.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

None of the American media covered the story because it was unconfirmed. I agree that the corporate consolidation that is going on is unhealthy, but in this case it managed to practice good journalism while the state controlled media in Russia went on a binge.

I see the Russian trolls are still peddling the lie that the Chinese are backing the Syrian government, so I thought I'd take the liberty of bumping this thread.