Breaking News: Yemen's Houthis strike Saudi Arabia's Abha airport with missiles and drones in a sharp escalation

[muhammed45]

What happened between the House of Saud and the Sharifs of Makkah more than a century ago does not answer what is happening today. The Houthis are launching missiles at Saudi Arabia, and KSA has every right to defend itself. galling every gulf government a “Zionist follower” is an emotional slogan, not an argument .

Ironically, you are the one turning a geopolitical conflict into a Sunni Shia issue while accusing everyone else of sectarianism.

Pakistanis are not anyone’s cannon fodder. Pakistan will make its own decision according to its national interests and defence commitments. If an allied country is attacked, supporting its defence does not make Pakistan an Israeli proxy.

Israel’s crimes do not give Iran or the Houthis a free licence to attack Saudi Arabia. We can oppose Israeli aggression and Iranian proxy warfare at the same time. This childish “either you support Iran or you support Zionism” narrative fools nobody.

Why do you people have selective mind?

KSA has invaded Yemen and starved them to death not vice verse.

Btw, attack on KSA's oil sector is same as attacking petro dollar assets.

 

[Pak Defender]

What happened between the House of Saud and the Sharifs of Makkah more than a century ago does not answer what is happening today. The Houthis are launching missiles at Saudi Arabia, and KSA has every right to defend itself. galling every gulf government a “Zionist follower” is an emotional slogan, not an argument .

Ironically, you are the one turning a geopolitical conflict into a Sunni Shia issue while accusing everyone else of sectarianism.

Pakistanis are not anyone’s cannon fodder. Pakistan will make its own decision according to its national interests and defence commitments. If an allied country is attacked, supporting its defence does not make Pakistan an Israeli proxy.

Israel’s crimes do not give Iran or the Houthis a free licence to attack Saudi Arabia. We can oppose Israeli aggression and Iranian proxy warfare at the same time. This childish “either you support Iran or you support Zionism” narrative fools nobody.

And by the way, this so called “think-tank consultant” is currently residing in the UK and giving lectures to Pakistanis.

 

[F.O.X]

Why do you people have selective mind?

KSA has invaded Yemen and starved them to death not vice verse.

Btw, attack on KSA's oil sector is same as attacking petro dollar assets.

Selective mind? You have deleted the entire beginning of the war to make your story work.

The Houthis seized Sana’a, overthrew the internationally recognised government and continued advancing. Saudi arabia interveened afterwards in support of that govt. You can condemn the Saudi air campaign and blockade for the enormous civilian suffering they caused, but pretending the Houthis were innocent bystanders until KSA suddenly invaded is simply false..

Yemen was not starved by one side alone either. Houthi obstructed and diverted humanitarian aid.

And if starving civilians is now your standard, apply it to Iran as well. Iran financed, armed and deployed forces to keep Assad in power while his regime and allied militias besieged civilian populations. In Madaya, pro Assad forces and Iran backed Hezbollah trapped civilians until people were starving. The same “surrender or starve” strategy was used across Syria, while residential areas in Aleppo and eastern Ghouta were relentlessly bombarded.

Calling Saudi oil infrastructure “petrodollar assets” is just verbal gymnastics. It remains Saudi territory and its economic lifeline. Attacking it is an attack on KSA, regardless of what fashionable label you attach to it.

Apparently Saudi actions mean condemn KSA forever, but Iranian involvement in starving and bombing Syrians disappears under the holy label of "resistance".

 

[Pak Defender]

Why do you people have selective mind?

KSA has invaded Yemen and starved them to death not vice verse.

Btw, attack on KSA's oil sector is same as attacking petro dollar assets.

KSA didn't invade Yemen, it went after Iranian-backed mercenaries on the request of official Yemeni government. It's the same logic Iran uses when bombing targets in Iraqi Kurdistan.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

Selective mind? You have deleted the entire beginning of the war to make your story work.

The Houthis seized Sana’a, overthrew the internationally recognised government and continued advancing. Saudi arabia interveened afterwards in support of that govt. You can condemn the Saudi air campaign and blockade for the enormous civilian suffering they caused, but pretending the Houthis were innocent bystanders until KSA suddenly invaded is simply false..

Yemen was not starved by one side alone either. Houthi obstructed and diverted humanitarian aid.

And if starving civilians is now your standard, apply it to Iran as well. Iran financed, armed and deployed forces to keep Assad in power while his regime and allied militias besieged civilian populations. In Madaya, pro Assad forces and Iran backed Hezbollah trapped civilians until people were starving. The same “surrender or starve” strategy was used across Syria, while residential areas in Aleppo and eastern Ghouta were relentlessly bombarded.

Calling Saudi oil infrastructure “petrodollar assets” is just verbal gymnastics. It remains Saudi territory and its economic lifeline. Attacking it is an attack on KSA, regardless of what fashionable label you attach to it.

Apparently Saudi actions mean condemn KSA forever, but Iranian involvement in starving and bombing Syrians disappears under the holy label of "resistance".

With the greatest respect, sir, after hearing this manner of argument, one is almost tempted to think that you would believe whatever were placed before you, provided it were presented with sufficient confidence (or from sectarian angle!); and that, should someone arrive with a proposition so carefully constructed as to leave your reason temporarily unemployed! (a damned accusation on anybody without evidence!), you might take offence at being asked to examine it.

I have, therefore, two rather simple questions for you.

First: why, precisely, must I view all these matters through the narrow and convenient lens of sectarianism?

And secondly: even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that all of this is indeed true, pray tell me—who, exactly, has derived the benefit from it?

 

[Pak Defender]

And for those Pakistanis who were calling this a false flag, the Pakistani government has now officially issued a press release condemning the Houthi militia’s drone attack on Makkah.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

Selective mind? You have deleted the entire beginning of the war to make your story work.

The Houthis seized Sana’a, overthrew the internationally recognised government and continued advancing. Saudi arabia interveened afterwards in support of that govt. You can condemn the Saudi air campaign and blockade for the enormous civilian suffering they caused, but pretending the Houthis were innocent bystanders until KSA suddenly invaded is simply false..

Yemen was not starved by one side alone either. Houthi obstructed and diverted humanitarian aid.

And if starving civilians is now your standard, apply it to Iran as well. Iran financed, armed and deployed forces to keep Assad in power while his regime and allied militias besieged civilian populations. In Madaya, pro Assad forces and Iran backed Hezbollah trapped civilians until people were starving. The same “surrender or starve” strategy was used across Syria, while residential areas in Aleppo and eastern Ghouta were relentlessly bombarded.

Calling Saudi oil infrastructure “petrodollar assets” is just verbal gymnastics. It remains Saudi territory and its economic lifeline. Attacking it is an attack on KSA, regardless of what fashionable label you attach to it.

Apparently Saudi actions mean condemn KSA forever, but Iranian involvement in starving and bombing Syrians disappears under the holy label of "resistance".

To my mind, all these tales of “he killed him”, “the government fell”, and the endless parade of such petty distractions amount to little more than a convenient curtain drawn across the real matter—designed to obscure what truly deserves attention and to lead the public, with considerable success, down a rather different road.

After all that has been said and done, this is still the question I would put before you: why, when it comes to such elementary matters as choosing our own leaders or deciding in whose currency we may trade, are we apparently denied even the most basic freedom to make such choices for ourselves—and, more importantly, who is it that stands so firmly opposed to our having that freedom?

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

And for those Pakistanis who were calling this a false flag, the Pakistani government has now officially issued a press release condemning the Houthi militia’s drone attack on Makkah.

who cares, zero credibility!

PAk. could have bombed Houthis, even without all that drama!

shameful really

 

[F.O.X]

With the greatest respect, sir, after hearing this manner of argument, one is almost tempted to think that you would believe whatever were placed before you, provided it were presented with sufficient confidence (or from sectarian angle!); and that, should someone arrive with a proposition so carefully constructed as to leave your reason temporarily unemployed! (a damned accusation on anybody without evidence!), you might take offence at being asked to examine it.

I have, therefore, two rather simple questions for you.

First: why, precisely, must I view all these matters through the narrow and convenient lens of sectarianism?

And secondly: even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that all of this is indeed true, pray tell me—who, exactly, has derived the benefit from it?

With respect, you used alot of fancy english to answer something I never even said.

First, I am not looking at this from any sectarian angle. I am talking about Iranian policy and how Iran uses armed groups for its own interest. criticizing Iran is not sectarian. Calling everyone sectarian is just an easy way to avoid the actual point.

Second, who got the benefit? Iran got an armed group right on Saudi border, pressure on KSA without fighting directly, influence near Bab al mandab and the option to deny everything. Houthis got weapons, training and control over large parts of Yemen. What did ordinary Yemenis got? Hunger, destruction and graves.

Iran benefits while someone else country gets destroyed. We already saw this in Lebanon, Syria and now Yemen.

The answer was very simple, there was no need for all this Shakespeare.

 

[F.O.X]

To my mind, all these tales of “he killed him”, “the government fell”, and the endless parade of such petty distractions amount to little more than a convenient curtain drawn across the real matter—designed to obscure what truly deserves attention and to lead the public, with considerable success, down a rather different road.

After all that has been said and done, this is still the question I would put before you: why, when it comes to such elementary matters as choosing our own leaders or deciding in whose currency we may trade, are we apparently denied even the most basic freedom to make such choices for ourselves—and, more importantly, who is it that stands so firmly opposed to our having that freedom?

remove long dashes before posting AI reply.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

remove long dashes before posting AI reply.

AI, you’re speaking as though that were the argument being made throughout the entire post!

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

With respect, you used alot of fancy english to answer something I never even said.

First, I am not looking at this from any sectarian angle. I am talking about Iranian policy and how Iran uses armed groups for its own interest. criticizing Iran is not sectarian. Calling everyone sectarian is just an easy way to avoid the actual point.

Second, who got the benefit? Iran got an armed group right on Saudi border, pressure on KSA without fighting directly, influence near Bab al mandab and the option to deny everything. Houthis got weapons, training and control over large parts of Yemen. What did ordinary Yemenis got? Hunger, destruction and graves.

Iran benefits while someone else country gets destroyed. We already saw this in Lebanon, Syria and now Yemen.

The answer was very simple, there was no need for all this Shakespeare.

no, it was written to show how you write, without making sense and writing and observing every event from sectarian lense!

which is not only dishonest, is also very myopic!

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

With respect, you used alot of fancy english to answer something I never even said.

First, I am not looking at this from any sectarian angle. I am talking about Iranian policy and how Iran uses armed groups for its own interest. criticizing Iran is not sectarian. Calling everyone sectarian is just an easy way to avoid the actual point.

Second, who got the benefit? Iran got an armed group right on Saudi border, pressure on KSA without fighting directly, influence near Bab al mandab and the option to deny everything. Houthis got weapons, training and control over large parts of Yemen. What did ordinary Yemenis got? Hunger, destruction and graves.

Iran benefits while someone else country gets destroyed. We already saw this in Lebanon, Syria and now Yemen.

The answer was very simple, there was no need for all this Shakespeare.

secondly, IR does not benefit.. as IR has nothing gained financially or politically.

zios benefit who have now proved a reason for US bases in the region!

which will now become zios bases.

now problem with you is, that, the moment I say zios, you will argue IR is also majoosi, zios supporter!


please, give me a break!

 

[F.O.X]

no, it was written to show how you write, without making sense and writing and observing every event from sectarian lense!

which is not only dishonest, is also very myopic!

Please enlighten me which of my paragraphs were hard enough for you to understand. I will try to write it in easy english.

 

[Mighty_Dragon_Strike]

@F.O.X

im sorry what so funny?!!

im have respected you opinion thus, far, it may not be the case if you do those idiotic smileys!