Explosions rocked Riyadh, flames and smoke near the airport: Saudi authorities have not issued a statement...
Explosions occurred near Riyadh's King Khalid International Airport on Saturday, causing fires and thick black smoke. Witnesses reported seeing flames near a fuel tank marked with the logo of Saudi oil giant Aramco. Firefighters were seen extinguishing the fire, and flight tracking website Flightradar24 initially reported significant delays but later indicated that air traffic had resumed normal operations. The Saudi authorities have not issued any official statement regarding the explosions, and AFP has yet to receive a response from officials. According to a tweet by The Hormuz Letter, this marks the first attack on the airport since the resumption of hostilities with Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Houthi group, which controls much of Yemen and fights against the government supported by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia, has not claimed responsibility for the attacks. Residents of Riyadh were alerted to a potential attack in the early hours of Saturday, followed by two loud explosions. Later in the day, residents reported hearing another series of explosions coming from different parts of the capital.
Yemeni rebels known as the Houthis claimed responsibility for attacks near King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, using drones and projectiles. The strikes occurred several hours after residents reported seeing fire and thick clouds of black smoke near the airport. According to reports, the attack targeted sensitive locations within the Saudi capital, though the exact targets were not specified by the rebels. The Houthis also stated that they had attacked an Aramco facility in the Black Sea port city of Yanbu, which serves as a key hub for Saudi oil exports. The attacks came as a response to a strike against Sana, the capital of Yemen, according to the rebels. Saudi authorities did not issue immediate comments on the fires or nighttime warnings issued around Riyadh due to the escalation of Houthi attacks. The Saudi Civil Defense sent phone alerts during the night warning of potential threats from aerial attacks in Riyadh and the city of Al-Kharj east of the capital. These warnings were followed by a morning announcement confirming there was no danger. A Reuters correspondent in the Olaya district of Riyadh heard explosions before being informed that the threat had passed. This marks the first such warnings in Riyadh this year since the start of the US-Iran war, although they are the first since the escalation of hostilities with the Houthis in July. The Houthis, who control the most populated areas of Yemen and much of the country’s coastline, have been attacking Saudi Arabia since declaring a maritime blockade against Riyadh. Their attacks also target Saudi vessels in the Red Sea. Targets include Saudi cities, energy infrastructure, and maritime traffic. These attacks have introduced new risks to global oil reserves and posed a threat to the primary alternative route through the Red Sea for oil exports from the Persian Gulf, while shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains under blockade. The attacks near the airport caused significant concern, with witnesses describing large columns of black smoke rising above the area. Footage from Reuters showed a massive plume of smoke, with highways leading to the airport, the main building, and other structures visible in the foreground. At one point, flames could be seen emerging from fuel storage tanks. Despite the intensity of the attack, Saudi officials remained silent on the incident, offering no immediate confirmation or denial of the Houthis' claims. The situation has intensified in recent weeks, with the Houthis continuing their campaign against Saudi interests. This latest strike highlights the ongoing conflict between the rebels and Saudi forces, which have been supported by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia. The attacks underscore the growing instability in the region and the continued impact on international energy markets.
Go to the primary sources (1)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
Hutisti, revolucionarni pokret u Jemenu, tvrde da su napali 'osjetljive' lokacije u saudijskom glavnom gradu Rijadu koristeći dronove i projektilima, nekoliko sati nakon što su se plamen i dima mogli vidjeti blizu zračne luke. Napadi su nastali kao odgovor na napad na jemenski grad Sanu. Saudijska civilna obrana je poslala upozorenja o potencijalnoj opasnosti od zračnih napada, ali nije bilo trenutačnih potvrda ili komentara saudskih vlasti. Hutisti su također napali postrojenje Aramco u gradu Yanbu, ključnom saudijskom središtu za izvoz nafte. Napadi su uzrokovali nove prijetnje globalnim naftnim zalihama i rizik za alternativnu rutu za izvoz nafte kroz Crveno more.
Bias read (Progressive): Artikl naglašava aktivnosti hutista kao povratnog udarca protiv saudskih ciljeva, što sugerira levi okvir. Iako se ne pominje direktna podrška od strane međunarodnih sila, akcent na vođenje napada i njihovo pitanje kao političkog i teritorijalnog sukoba stvara levi okvir. Sadržaj fokusira se na utic
Why factuality (87): This article closely mirrors the content of item 0, providing similar details about the Houthis' claims, the Reuters footage, and the absence of a Saudi government response. It accurately reflects the available information without adding unverified claims.
Why objectivity (82): The tone remains neutral and factual throughout, presenting events as reported by Reuters and the Houthis without apparent bias or subjective commentary.
Jemenski hutisti izjavili su da su napali osjetljive lokacije u saudijskom glavnom gradu Rijadu koristeći dronove i projektile, što je rezultiralo velikim kolima dima i plamena blizu zračne luke. Napadi su nastali kao odgovor na napad na jemenski grad Sanu, a hutisti su također napali postrojenje Aramco u gradu Yanbu. Saudijska civilna obrana je dostavila upozorenja o potencijalnoj opasnosti, ali nije bilo trenutačnih potvrda ili komentara saudskih vlasti. Napadi su povezani s eskalacijom sukoba između hutista i Saudijske Arabije, s ciljem na štete energetskoj infrastrukturi i brodskom prometu, što predstavlja rizik za globalne nafte resurse.
Bias read (Progressive): Artikel fokusira se na aktivnosti hutista kao na političku silu koja napada Saudijsku Arabiju, što se smatra desnom stranom u regionalnim sukobima. Povratak na povijesnu kontekstualizaciju napada na Sanu i povezanost s iranskom podrškom dodaje levi okvir, jer naglašava geopolitičku konfrontaciju i p
Why factuality (85): The article provides detailed information about the Houthis claiming responsibility for attacks near Riyadh, including specific locations like the airport area and Yanbu. It references Reuters videos showing black smoke and fires at fuel storage facilities. However, it lacks confirmation from Saudi
Why objectivity (80): The article presents the facts neutrally, citing Reuters footage and statements from the Houthis. While it mentions the lack of an official Saudi response, it does not take a clear stance or use emotionally charged language.
Hutisti, revolucionarni pokret u Jemenu, tvrde da su napali 'osjetljive' lokacije u saudijskom glavnom gradu Rijadu i postrojenje Aramco u gradu Yanbu koristeći dronove i projektilima, kao odgovor na napad na jemenski glavni grad Sanu. Napadi su rezultat eskalacije sukoba između hutista i Saudijske Arabije, koja je proglasila pomorsku blokadu protiv Rijada. Saudijska vlada nije dala trenutne komentare, ali je civilna obrana poslala upozorenja o potencijalnoj opasnosti. Napadi su povezani s globalnim rizicima za naftne zalike i alternativnu rutu za izvoz nafte kroz Crveno more.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the attack by the Houthis as a justified response to Saudi actions, emphasizing their military strategy and the geopolitical implications of the conflict. The narrative highlights the escalation of hostilities and the impact on global oil supply, which aligns with a leftist or non
Why factuality (83): The article reports on the Houthis' claim of attacking Riyadh and Yanbu, referencing Reuters footage of smoke and fire. It also notes the lack of a Saudi government response. However, it includes some additional context about the ongoing conflict but stays within the bounds of known facts.
Why objectivity (78): While mostly factual, the article slightly leans toward emphasizing the impact of the attacks through phrases like 'plamen i crni dim opaženi su u subotu,' which may subtly highlight the severity of the incident more than strictly neutral reporting would require.
Explosions occurred near Riyadh's King Khalid International Airport on Saturday, causing fires and thick black smoke. Witnesses reported seeing flames near a fuel tank marked with the logo of Saudi oil giant Aramco. Firefighters were seen extinguishing the fire, and flight tracking website Flightradar24 initially reported significant delays but later indicated that air traffic had resumed normal operations. The Saudi authorities have not issued any official statement regarding the explosions, and AFP has yet to receive a response from officials. According to a tweet by The Hormuz Letter, this marks the first attack on the airport since the resumption of hostilities with Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Houthi group, which controls much of Yemen and fights against the government supported by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia, has not claimed responsibility for the attacks. Residents of Riyadh were alerted to a potential attack in the early hours of Saturday, followed by two loud explosions. Later in the day, residents reported hearing another series of explosions coming from different parts of the capital.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about explosions near a major Saudi Arabian airport, including witness accounts, fire department actions, and updates on air traffic. It mentions the involvement of Houthi rebels without taking a stance on their culpability or the broader conflict. The lackof
Why factuality (75): The article contains conflicting information, stating that the Houthis did not claim responsibility for any attacks in the last few hours, which contradicts the earlier claims made in other sources. This inconsistency reduces its factual reliability. It also includes a tweet from The Hormuz Letter t
Why objectivity (65): The article shows a noticeable bias by highlighting the significance of the attack on King Khalid International Airport and mentioning the loss of a fighter jet, which frames the event in a way that emphasizes the Houthis' capabilities. The inclusion of a third-party tweet further introduces potenti
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Croatia
