Two ballistic missiles were fired from Houthi rebel-controlled Yemen toward a US warship in the Gulf of Aden, after the US Navy responded to a distress call from a commercial tanker that had been seized by armed individuals, the US military said Sunday.
The tanker, identified as the Central Park, had been carrying a cargo of phosphoric acid when its crew called for help that “they were under attack from an unknown entity,” the US Central Command said in a statement.
The USS Mason, a guided-missile destroyer, and allied ships from a counter-piracy task force that operates in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia responded to the call for help and “demanded release of the vessel” upon arrival, Central Command said.
“Subsequently, five armed individuals debarked the ship and attempted to flee via their small boat,” said the statement posted on social media platform X.
It just means they follow a ballistic trajectory instead of direct fire like a tow missile.
It doesn’t really matter no, they’re just trying to make it sound scary. You gotta remember like half or more of the population won’t know that and don’t have the critical thinking to look it up.
Fun fact in this case it’s a ballistic and a cruise missile. Likely a sayyad version of the qud missile which is itself likely a recased version of an Iranian missile.
How are they trying to make it sound scary? They are literally just telling you the type of missle. Cruise vs ballistic. Anything else is in your head.
People don’t need to look anything up, it’s not denoted as intercontinental, so why would you assume that?
You’re the one trying to make it sound scary lmfao. The article is fine and don’t claim critical thinking when you’re lacking it yourself. People aren’t going to assume icbm since it wasn’t ever mentioned until you did….
The vast majority of the public understands “missile fired from ship” to mean a missile fired from a ship, like they’ve seen in the movies. Hits the ship and goes boom. “Ballistic missile” invokes the misunderstanding of a missile with a nuke attached as the warhead.
Don’t fall out of your chair reaching like that.
The media says ballistic missiles when they want to invoke the idea of ICBM with nuclear warheads. If you didn’t realize that, then you’ve never watched the news during a time of tense international relations, which means you’re likely quite young. No reaching required.
It’s called sensationaliam, adding a detail for no reason in the headline is the very definition of it.
I don’t. Many people will, I guarantee it.
No, I’m not trying to make anything scary saying it’s sensationalized is the very opposite of that.
Take your complaint up with US Central Command, they’re the ones who described them as “ballistic missiles”. It’s not sensationalizing to use the phrase your sources use, they’d be criticized for bad reporting if they just said “missiles”
They are ballistic missiles, the fact that it’s in the title is the irrelevant part because people see “ballistic” and go ooo that must be bad when in reality a ballistic missile against a us destroyer is an insanely idiotic waste of money.
Why would people think ballistic is bad? You seem to be the only one inferring that here.
It’s an important fact. These rebels are well known to be supplied by Iran, specifically with ballistic missiles which they have used before against Saudi targets.
And they would be supplying them with missiles if we remove the distinction.
What’s your point?
In a military incident, what ordnance is used matters.
I’ve already explained this, I’m not responsible for anyone else’s reading comprehension bud.
You’ve explained incorrectly with your bias leading.
Sensationalism isn’t just adding words, there must be intent there and you’re just assuming intent.
You claim critical thinking and this and that, yet it only sounds like you had sensationalism arms your word of the day and are taking it at face value. Instead of understanding that intent also matters.
Try some critical thinking of your own, and maybe some reading comprehension as well if you want to try and use that against others. Which is incredibly ironic considering you’ve proved that lack of yours by assuming all of this and missing the intent….
I didn’t lead anyone anywhere bud.
That’s quite literally sensationalism. Instead of houthi missile it’s houti make ballistic missile so the uneducated go “wait they have ballistic missiles” and read a story that is a nothing burger. It’s like the seventh time they’ve been attacked loitering in the area.
Nope, you’re judging it based on people that actually read like most of us in world News. The average person is not smart, and lacks critical thinking and judging by how many people don’t get it they number may be a bit higher than I assumed. Yes intent matters, that’s why they added ballistic lol.
No need, but you probably aught to rethink some things yourself.
Except a ballistic missile often invokes the image of an low tech, unguided mortar more than it does an intercontinental nuke. You calling it “sensationalized” is implying it’s the worse thing when it’s clearly not.
No an unguided missile in military parlance is a rocket and yes probably a ballistic one. But way to prove my point, your average person has no idea what the fuck they’re talking about.
It’s not sensationalized, it’s an important distinction.
It would be like an article mentioning a vehicle involved in a collision is a truck instead of a car. How would that be sensationalism?
Again, you’re the one attempting to make a non-issue scary. This isn’t sensationalism by any stretch of the defintion.
It’s not.
Does the word ballistic materially change the subject of the article? No it’s an unnecessary adjective. And yes your example would be as well. They tried to make it sound worse, it’s a shitty Iranian missile fired well under maximum range it being ballistic is irrelevant aside from being an idiotic choice.
Not at all. How exactly do you get that out of my comments.
How does telling you the type of missle make it sound worse? Because you think and want it to…?
Any headline can be stripped down and made to be sensationalized if you can never ever use an adjective. It’s only sensationalized in your head since you want it to be, you’re the biased one here.
How is my example sensationalized? Please explain to the rest of class so we can understand why you’re so biased here.
For reasons already stated, it’s not hard to understand. You should read Chomsky if you don’t understand the importance of words.
Again, remove ballistic and it changes nothing but adding it makes it sound worse. That’s sensationalism.
There’s no bias and I’m pretty sure I told you why I’m my last response didn’t I .
No you haven’t explained anything, you just keep repeating the same thing and I keep telling you that’s not actually sensationalism, since it’s not.
Try something else, sensationalism isn’t just adding words, it’s adding words to intentionally mislead.
You’re the one misleading here, not the headline.
Try again.
I’ve repeatedly explained sensationalism, I’m not sure why you’re saying I haven’t.
It literally is.
Not at all.
Try what again?
I won’t read Chompsky because I know the importance of words
The dude thinks the USA invented propaganda and no other country uses it
Apparently not.
And no they didn’t, propaganda is much older than England let alone the US and we’re certainly not the only ones to use it but way to prove that lack of critical thinking.
Boat A responded to a call from Boat B that was under attack in the water. Boat A fired warning shots and used a weapon to deflect an incoming weapon. No injuries or damage were reported. The incident is being investigated.
Better?
Well yes, but actually no.
We both know you didn’t have to remove all the detail along with the sensationalized detail. You’re just trying to be petty about it.
Well that’s their point, where’s the line of sensationalized detail? Calling it a missile can be sensationalism to some people.
Also, omitting details is sensationalism as well, it’s not just adding words. They sensationalized the headline with omissions to make a point.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. It’s a “missile” if it has a means of self-propulsion (otherwise it’s a “bullet” or “shell”) and a guidance system (otherwise it’s a “rocket”). Maybe some people would think calling a missile what it is is sensationalism, but they’re just wrong.
Yes, I’m aware of what they were trying to do. Their point was stupid and they were petty to make it.
I’ve always wondered what the difference is between a “rocket” and a “missile”, but constantly forget to look it up. Now I know it’s a guidance system. Thanks!
Ballistic missiles don’t usually have guidance systems though…. Those are cruise missiles and why the original articles distinction matters.
A missile is a rocket with a payload, which is just a projectile with an engine.
The article better just call it a projectile to avoid any avenue of sensationalism.
Fact, it’s a projectile.
Describing it further as a missile, bullet, mortar, shell. Can all be considered sensationalism.
You seem to have missed the point, where’s the line of a description being sensationalism?
A ballistic missile is sensationalized of missile, missile is sensationalized of projectile. Projectile is sensationalized of weapon.
Where’s the line dude……?
No, that’s a lie. Words have meanings and you aren’t entitled to pretend “missile” isn’t factually accurate.
Nope detail to convey the subject is good, irrelevant detail to draw clicks isn’t.
Mads, it’s time for your takes to get wildly less insane.
Aww still salty Mr bigot? Here to make fun of my disability or some shitty racist take on houthis?
Ed: almost forgot. You’re a bigot, at least be an honest bigot. An ashamed Nazi is still a Nazi.