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….
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….
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.
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?
Nope detail to convey the subject is good, irrelevant detail to draw clicks isn’t.
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?