The Saudi-led coalition said a projectile struck a terminal at Riyadh’s airport Sunday, a day after a missile attack killed 13 people and injured 309.
An unidentified projectile struck Saudi Arabia’s main international airport Sunday, injuring people a day after a deadly missile attack at the same site raised questions about whether the United States would join another conflict in the region.
Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation confirmed the death of a Pakistani resident and injuries to 11 others in the new attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh. It said authorities were assessing damage and checking the safety of airport facilities.
The Saudi-led coalition said the projectile struck Terminal 4, causing a fire that authorities were working to control. It also reported intercepting and destroying a cruise missile near the airport.
Fuck the Saudies and their psycho murderous king. It’s despicable how USA has supported that religiously fanatic regime for decades, and it clearly shows the hypocracy in being against a somewhat similar religiously fanatic regime in Iran.
They are both equally bad, but USA is the true villain, for trying to control the oil of the region without any respect for either democracy or the good of the people.
You are quite right except that most dont know the houthis practice a unique version of Islam that is neither sunni nor shiite. Saudi Arabia has been trying to colonize them for generations now in part because Saudi Arabia wants to dictate Islam. They court Iranian support not because of religion but because Yemen has been facing Saudi pressure for ages now.
I must admit I didn’t know that either. But I do know that Saudi Arabia has tried to be an influence on Islam, and they are leveraging Mecca for that.
Most dont realize the House of Saud invaded Mecca and Medina to occupy it, they didn’t get it out of some benevolent religious process.
Edit: in fact they allied with extremist tribes that believed in a literal reading of the Quran and when they took over mecca they aggressively removed the pluralist, multi-school institutions and the indigenous practitioners which were much more allegorical in their reading. Fast forward today and most Islamic groups have been pushed further to the extreme as a result.
Do you have any further reading on this? I would love to learn more.
The Houthis are real men, the saudis are soft.
deleted by creator
I don’t think you realize how big that family is, they have dozens to take over the throne if necessary.
Not dozens, thousands, if not more. Kill them all.
That’s because it’s not a family per se; it’s more of a tribe.
The Saudi regime isn’t “religiously fanatic” in 2026 and hasn’t been for a while. MBS is, like most other Middle Eastern dictators, going the secular-ish nationalist autocrat route these days. Besides, the idea that “religious fanatics” should have some kind of solidarity between them is very strange considering the centuries-old bad blood between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and in any case the Iranian and Saudi regimes operate completely differently.
Notice how none of these “religious fanatics” have faith in any god who wants them to abide by reason, justice and fairness and equality to everyone. They all believe in a god that grants them specifically execlusive unjustfiable supramacy. In reality they are ruthless psycopaths who abuse an unreasonable unjust fake version of -insert religon here- as narrative to exploit vulurable people for money and power.
Sharia law, enough said.
That’s not what the word “fanatic” means, but also Sharia law is a thin veneer of religiosity that the MBS regime violates on a daily basis (you can quite famously get alcohol in Saudi Arabia, for example).
Yes it is, you have to be a fanatic to base the law of the land on 1500 years old superstition. It’s no different than fanatic christians in USA that contrary to scientific evidence want laws that make life worse because (they think) that’s what their religion says.
Being a fundamental Islamist is being a religious fanatic.
Doesn’t change the fact that there is death penalty to “offend” Islam in Saudia Arabia based on Sharia law.
And what they call offend can be an extremely mild questioning of a religious practice.
So essentially you’re defining “fanatic” to mean (or at least include in its definition) “non-secularist.” That’s a possible definition of the word, but it’s not a particularly useful one, and while I could go at length into why that’s the case I’ll just say that one group of people that wanted to base the law of the land on 1500 years old superstition was early abolitionists. British sailors capturing slavers might as well have been screaming “deus vult.”* Which, you know, if that’s a group you’re comfortable calling religious fanatics I’m not going to stop you, but I think most people wouldn’t be.
*Just to drive this point home:
-Wikipedia.
So you call it normal to execute people simply because they don’t believe in Islam?
That’s not what I said; my point is by widening the meaning of the word too much it loses its explanatory power. When you say that the people running Saudi Arabia (chiefly MBS) are religious fanatics, what you’re doing is taking some of their actions and using them to derive a hypothesis about the character of those people. However, for this to make sense this hypothesis needs to survive contact with the evidence or it must be discarded, and the hypothesis that—say—MBS is a religious fanatic doesn’t do that. Neither his domestic nor foreign agendas match up with someone who considers religious concerns a priority in their governance, so the situation we’re looking at (the fact that Saudi Arabia executes people for criticizing Islam) needs to be explained some other way.