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.

  • Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why would people think ballistic is bad? You seem to be the only one inferring that here.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve already explained this, I’m not responsible for anyone else’s reading comprehension bud.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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….