EDIT (2025-06-02T06:55Z): I think I’m overthinking it 😆 please disregard the following comment.
[…] She tried the same about a month ago and her ship was bombed in a drone strike.
Depending on exactly what they mean by “her ship”, this is either false or misleading. Presumably, they are referring to the incident that occurred on 2025 May 2[1] where the Conscience was struck while still at anchor in Malta [1.2]; however, Greta Thunberg was not on board that ship during the incident [2], but she was supposed to board it [2]. Therefore, it would be false if, by “her ship”, they meant she was physically present on the ship during the incident, or it would be misleading, imo, if, by “her ship”, they mean that she was supposed to be on it. Another possible option could be that they meant that she personally owns the ship; however, if so, that would also be false, as it is owned by a Turkish NGO [1.1].
[…] the vessel is owned by the Turkish non-governmental organization Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH). […]
Type: Text. Location: §“Incident”. ¶1.
[…] The boat was on its way to Malta to collect more aid and pick up 44 passengers. According to reports, while still at anchor, the vessel was struck shortly after midnight local time on 2 May by what were described as missiles launched from two drones. […]
Hrm, idk. I think I would just avoid the reference altogether. It feels, to me, like the reference emotionally charges the reporting too much for my liking. That being said, perhaps something more like this: “A month after a ship with the same destination that she was to board was allegedly bombed, Greta Thunberg sets sail to Gaza.”.
You’re taking the sentence way too literally, you need to chill a little, dude. They mean the ship she was due to travel on. It’s longer to say it that way, so they say “her ship”. Similarly, if you were going to fly on an airplane, people would say what time does your plane land? They don’t think you own the plane. You had a misunderstanding.
When I first read it, it felt, to me, like they were insinuating that she was on board and in transit while it happened, but on second thought perhaps I read too much into it.
EDIT (2025-06-02T06:55Z): I think I’m overthinking it 😆 please disregard the following comment.
Depending on exactly what they mean by “her ship”, this is either false or misleading. Presumably, they are referring to the incident that occurred on 2025 May 2 [1] where the Conscience was struck while still at anchor in Malta [1.2]; however, Greta Thunberg was not on board that ship during the incident [2], but she was supposed to board it [2]. Therefore, it would be false if, by “her ship”, they meant she was physically present on the ship during the incident, or it would be misleading, imo, if, by “her ship”, they mean that she was supposed to be on it. Another possible option could be that they meant that she personally owns the ship; however, if so, that would also be false, as it is owned by a Turkish NGO [1.1].
References
“Her ship tried the same a month ago” would be slightly better.
Hrm, idk. I think I would just avoid the reference altogether. It feels, to me, like the reference emotionally charges the reporting too much for my liking. That being said, perhaps something more like this: “A month after a ship with the same destination that she was to board was allegedly bombed, Greta Thunberg sets sail to Gaza.”.
You’re taking the sentence way too literally, you need to chill a little, dude. They mean the ship she was due to travel on. It’s longer to say it that way, so they say “her ship”. Similarly, if you were going to fly on an airplane, people would say what time does your plane land? They don’t think you own the plane. You had a misunderstanding.
When I first read it, it felt, to me, like they were insinuating that she was on board and in transit while it happened, but on second thought perhaps I read too much into it.
I think that’s a fair point!