Houthis Claim They Attacked Dubai Airport With Armed Drone

Donate

Houthis Claim They Attacked Dubai Airport With Armed Drone

Click to see full-size image, Via Google Earth

A source in the Yemeni Air Force [loyal to the Houthis] announced, on September 30, that a “Samad-3” armed unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) carried out a “series of airstrikes” on the Dubai international airport, which is located more than 1,200km away from Yemen territory.

Minutes later, the UAE’s General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) denied the Houthis’ claims and said that the Dubai international airport is operating as usual. Furthermore, flight monitoring sites didn’t show any delay in air traffic over Dubai, which confirms that the attack failed for some reason.

“They [UAE] will be forced to acknowledge bigger operations that will reach them one day as long as the aggression and siege continued on the Yemeni people,” a spokesman for the Houthis, Mohamad Abdu al-Salam said in a tweet commenting on the GCAA’s statement.

This was not the first time the Houthis attack the Dubai international airport. The first attack occurred on August 28 and was carried out with the same type of UAV. Prior to that, a Samad-3 was used to target the Abu Dhabi international airport.

The new attack will likely trigger a violent response from the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, because such operations have a huge economic impact on the UAE where shipping and transportation are a big sector of the market.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • You can call me Al

    It is time for Bahrain to man up and attack the Saudis from the West.

  • Smaug

    Maybe someone got cold feat and their boss declared victory in order to cajole them. Either way, it would have been bad news for the Houthis if they succeeded because the UN don’t take kindly to terror tactics.

    • IMHO

      It depends on who is using the terror tactics.
      In war there are no terror tactics, just war.

      • Smaug

        Allow me to discuss the gray area, the objective was to strike a civilian target to use fear in order to make the war unpopular in the UAE, that would fit into the classic definition of terrorism (violent extortion on a population scale) except it does have an indirect military objective. It could be likened to the Houthis rocket attacks on Riyadh or the Paris Gun of WWI or the Weatherman group where the objective was to intimidate a civilian population into ceasing a military campain, but in all those cases these schemes didn’t work.

        I choose my words carefully, I say this was a terror tactic instead of calling either side a terrorist entity.

        • IMHO

          What are you talking about. The bombing of cities, airports, and in the U.S. case any building standing, is just normal procedure in war and they are legitimate targets of WAR. We bombed North Korea until there were no buildings to bomb. We nuked two cities in Japan. Germany bombed cities, England bombed cities, etc… Israel is bombing airports and cities in Syria.
          Yet you call it terrorist attack just because…? Terrorism is a word used to demonize your enemy which has no real meaning during war.

          • Smaug

            I notice you are careful to phrase this in legal term now that we are discussing a nation you like.

            We overuse the word terrorist in modern culture to the point it means something like hostile insurgents. But what distinguishes terrorism from strategic bombing and/or precision bombings or assassinations is not what is bombed or where the attack took place but the intentions of the perpetrator.
            Terrorism was a word coined in order to distinguish Fatah’s methods from the Vietcong’s, it did not have negative connotation back then just know the Israeli’s coined the word.
            Strategic bombings look to devastate a region’s ability to wage war, like the crop burnings of ancient wars.
            Precision attacks and targeted killings are… just that. Intended to remove a troublesome person or thing.
            This attack is neither one, it is like the Weatherman bombings where fear is used as an instrument on the home front to make a particular policy unpopular. This is terrorism in all respects except the objective is to cause the UAE’s withdraw from Yemen.

          • IMHO

            “A nation I like”???? What nation do I like????

            “Strategic bombings look to devastate a region’s ability to wage war, like the crop burnings of ancient wars.” Correct.

            “But what distinguishes terrorism from strategic bombing and/or precision bombings or assassinations is not what is bombed or where the attack took place but the intentions of the perpetrator.” Again Correct.
            The Yemenis are not bombing to get a ransom nor political extortion. Which would make it terrorism.Yemen does not want anything from Saudi Arabia nor the UAE. Yemen wants the war to end and the aggressors to cease. It is not terrorism, it is a legitimate means of retaliation in order to provoke the end of conflict.

            If you want to talk terrorism then the U.S. is the biggest terrorist state there is.

          • Smaug

            Now you reveal yourself by spitting out derisive jargon, I have made my point and you have made no counterargument so I rest my case.

          • IMHO

            No, no, no. That is a cop out. You didn’t answer my question. What country do I like? Which is derisive jargon of your own making.
            And I did make a valid counter argument which apparently you cannot rebut. What makes it terrorism? Read my above reply.

          • Zionism = EVIL

            You are an IDIOT and quite entertaining for trailer trash :)

          • Selbstdenker

            IMHO, you should read the Hague agreement of warfare, before stating such nonsens. All signing countries should follow the agreements terms, but for some countries non-obeyance is war crime, for other countries it is acceptable and justified. Bombing of civilian population is forbidden there as well as any retaliation against civillian population.
            How does the US or Israel for example deal with this?

          • IMHO

            The Hague agreement means nothing. All these agreements on war rules are just to give one side an advantage, real or seemingly. Just look at how they are enforced. Same with current agreements such as Minsk or anything that comes out of the U.N. which never seems to apply to the U.S. or Israel.
            Rules of war is a ridiculous concept. All is fair in war. All the rest is just politics.

    • ruca

      Israel constantly uses terror tactics. How many UN resolutions have they ignored?

      • Smaug

        Define terrorism.

        • Zionism = EVIL

          US military of cowards and fat homosexuals.

      • Hisham Saber

        Israel is in direct, blatant violation of 70 U.N. Resolutions. The last one being Resolution 2334. Israel is also in constant violation of international conventions and civilized norms. Israel is a rogue state. The overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews (90%) are not even Semitic, but Euro-Russian Khazar ancestry. Israel is a shape shifting entity that has no traditional borders, but always changing, expanding, like a very aggressive malignant cancerous tumor that must be removed as soon as humanly and internationally as possible.

    • Zionism = EVIL

      US is causing a lot of terrorism in the region and that is true.

  • Zionism = EVIL

    The Ansarollah should concentrate in destroying and shutting down Dubai airport as it is a major Wahhabi and Zionist terrorist hub. There should be daily missile and drone strikes at this airport.

    • Selbstdenker

      For the uninformed: Dubai has 2 big airports: Al Makhtoum International an Dubai International.
      Question is: which one was attacked?