US destroyer has ballistic missiles fired toward it, after responding to attack on commercial tanker | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
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.

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.worldEnglish
    39·
    1 year ago

    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 .

    • schmidtster@lemmy.worldEnglish
      63·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • schmidtster@lemmy.worldEnglish
          33·
          1 year ago

          You haven’t explained sensationalism, you’ve sensationalized the definition really.

          Sensationalism requires intent, there is no intent to mislead here so there is no sensationalism. Sorry you can’t think critically enough to comprehend this.

          Try to explain this is sensationalism, your explanation you’ve tried doesn’t work since intent is needed and it’s lacking here. So try again to prove this is sensationalism.

          Heres a hint, omitting words can also be sensationalism, so yeah… its not just adding words like you’ve previously claimed.