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.
What a weird article leaving out very key information of the tanker being an israeli vessel
This video with too loud background music does a lot better a job of explaining what happened https://youtu.be/-VOF2v9cogI?si=V7Vm33fBIIBi5-Yb
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/-VOF2v9cogI?si=V7Vm33fBIIBi5-Yb
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This platform never works for me.
No.
The comments on that video are mental
Yup, what the heck is going on there. There’s this one comment about how the U.S got technologically surpassed and I’m just thinking “even if it’s true, they have nukes. Who will ever test them??”
Don’t ask questions you don’t want the answers to XD. When we use them…
Way to sensationalize, just call it a missile no need to evoke the thought of an icbm.
It’s probably a sayyad anti ship missile, ciws would murder them things unless mass fired which they don’t have the resources for.
Isn’t there two types of missiles? The distinction matters, why would you assume it’s intercontinental based off of the type of missile? Cruise or ballistic can both be intercontinental.
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.
Not young at all and no they aren’t. There’s nothing to imply icbm from ballistic, cruise would be more worrisome in reality than ballistic, so making the distinction removes an issue there.
And why are you assuming nuclear with icbm? None of those are related unless you make the biased connection.
You are reaching even worse now……
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.
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.
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.
Nope detail to convey the subject is good, irrelevant detail to draw clicks isn’t.
If someone sensationalizes a situation or event, they make it seem worse or more shocking than it really is.
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.
This is a really good look for you.
“If a shitty home-made missile’s engine fails half way through flight then technically it’s ballistic from that point on.” - shitty reporter.
It’s if homemade it’s probably unguided which makes it a rocket or rocket assisted mortar.
Removed by mod
What’ll it be next? Attack helicopters!? /s
Get out of here with your tired identity humor.
Idk dude, that one was actually kinda funny
It’s Apache, thank you very much.
Balistic missles are not an ideal antiship weapon.
the high angle of attack reduces opportunity for intercept by all but the most advanced and expensive systems. it may seem counterintuitive, but we’re not dealing with 1960s ballistic missiles, we can now guide during terminal descent.
So these boston whaler based terrorists have precision guidance and a seeker of some sort? How do they target?
From the description though it seems like these ballistic missiles were about as technologically advanced as a firework.
yeah I have no doubt iran /whomever has a long long way to go in their development, just don’t want to see all ballistics derided because they change the intercept game mightily.
(Good) Terminal guidance really puts a limit on the speed though, which kind of negates the main advantage of using a ballistic missile (speed).
Even a good ballistic missile will be open for interception longer than say a low observability sea skimmer like LARASM.
Iran isn’t capable or mass producing enough anti ship missiles to give to their terrorist proxy forces so ballsitic missiles it is
I wonder if conservatives are gonna run with this story and make the Houthis the next Supervillain Of The Month, or just slap the “rebel” tag on them and forget about it.
Well conservative have no idea what is going on. If they say the Houthi are bad then they cannot complain about Obama bombing them. If they say the are not bad, then Israil will be upset.
You or I would take those things into account, but remember: conservatives are extremely comfortable with hypocrisy.
The Houthis are an Iranian proxy. The smart conservatives will know this and will incorporate it into their vilification efforts. The stupid ones don’t need anything like a reason or a plausible excuse.
Before anyone makes the obvious joke, it’s important to remember that yes, there ARE smart conservatives. Folks like me are used to making fun of MAGAts and their ilk, but don’t underestimate the conservatives higher up.
They’ll just bring up Hunter’s laptop, Clinton’s emails, and some form of “Border crisis” down south.
don’t forget about the border crisis up north.
did you hear about the massive terrorist attack on the northern border that wasnt totally just a sad, and tragic car accident?
But it exploded! You know, like vehicles filled with large amounts of volatile fluids can do under the precise circumstances. It’s really really rare, but it absolutely CAN happen if the right things happen.
“The missiles landed in the Gulf of Aden approximately ten nautical miles from the ships,"
Yeah… Not concerned at all.
B13… miss.
The US navy are just overreacting to extreme fishing.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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 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.
Hours later, at 1:41 a.m. local time on Monday morning, two ballistic missiles were fired from areas controlled by Houthi rebels in Yemen “toward the general location” of the USS Mason and Central Park, the statement said.
A statement from Zodiac Maritime, which manages the Central Park, said Sunday the Liberian-flagged chemical tanker was safe “and all of the crew, the vessel, and cargo are unharmed.”
“We will continue to work with allies and partners to ensure the safety and security of international shipping lanes,” Kurilla said.
The original article contains 378 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 48%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So many wars to wage! So much money to make!
Aww it’s the USS Liberty sequel!
Israel loves pulling the US into war. It’s their national pisstime.
Edit: corrected the word passtime
“Pastime”
“Passtime” is both not a word and if it were it would mean something not what you are attending.
While we are at it,
It’s “Dog-eat-dog” not “doggy-dog” “Regardless” not “irregardless”
All because Israel, that country is as much of an ally as Pakistan. Edit: For those that don’t know, the US was responding to the high jacking of a tanker owned by an Israeli billionaire. Israeli billionaires are using our military assets to protect their business
This is about Saudi Arabia and Iran’s proxy war in Yemen, not Israel
deleted by creator
The tanker is owned by an Israeli billionaire family, dingus. Israeli businesses are using our military as their personal police.
US navy does indeed insure the safety of maritime travel and trade, as that is a net benefit for the US.
Yeah, protecting billionaires is the status quo. The fact they happen to be Israeli this time doesn’t factor in.
Do you have issues with reading or understanding?
¿Por que no los dos?
:P
Possibly? I was agreeing with you, I thought?
deleted by creator
The Houthi hate the US for reasons other than Israel. They kind of view us as at the same level of Israel.
Well we have been selling arms to the Saudis for a proxy war that by now has led to the starvation death of children numbered at almost 100,000. Atleast it was around 70,000 a few years ago. So it must be more now
Yeah, death to America on their flag and all that. I’m talking about US presence in the sea. And that tanker is owned by a billionaire Israeli family business. Israel is using US as their personal police on top of the foreign aid they already receive, I’m fucking sick of it.
The US navy combats piracy world wide. The destroyer’s response has nothing to do with it being an Israeli tanker.
regarding the current genocide, it does
The US would have responded the same for a large number of different counties’ ship if they were hijacked in a similar way.
US really needs to freedomize Yemen already
So the results of five aggressors means wipe out a population of innocent people?
Seems real Hamas if you ask me.
How many pilots executed 9/11? Five?
It’s as American as it gets
