Haley to Russia on Syria’s Chemical Weapons: ‘We Know Who Did This’
If Russia kept its promise to remove chemical weapons from Syria, “we would not be here today.”
As much as I dislike the United Nations, it’s wonderful to hear Ambassador Nikki Haley shove the truth in Russia’s face for everyone to hear.
Last weekend, a chemical attack in Douma, Syria, killed dozens of people and injured many more. Syria blames Israel while Russia insists that the chemical attack was staged. Haley had no time for that crap and reminded Russia that no one believes them. She also told Russia if it had done its job then Assad wouldn’t have these weapons.
Russia is one of Assad’s last allies and has used its place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to vote in ways that favor Assad.
From CBS News:
“The Russian Federation has asked us to discuss what it calls ‘unilateral threats’ related to Syria,” Haley said at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Friday. “What is strange is that Russia is ignoring the real threat to international peace and security that has brought us here. And it is ignoring its own unilateral responsibility for it. What we should discuss today is the use of deadly chemical weapons to murder innocent Syrian civilians.”
Haley continued to say that the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, which is led by Bashar al-Assad, constitutes “one of the most blatant and grotesque violations of international law in the world today.”
I’ve honestly lost count how many times those in Syria have suffered a chemical attack since the war against Assad began years again. This attack caused 500 people to experience symptoms one has after such an attack: “burning eyes, breathing problems and white foam coming from their mouths and nostrils, according to several independent medical and rescue groups.” 70 people have died.
Videos and pictures from the area show people swarming into medical centers while others show attacked bodies inside homes.
We do not know what kind of chemical was used in the attack.
International law has barred chemical weapons since 1925. Syria and and Russia both signed the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, a treaty that outlawed countries from producing, holding, and using chemical weapons. CBS News continued:
“So, in theory, all of us agree on the core principle at stake today: no country can be allowed to use chemical weapons with impunity,” Haley said. “Now that we have established what we all agree on, let’s ask ourselves what we should be condemning here today.”
She went on to accuse the Russian government of using its veto power at the Security Council “to defend the Syrian regime’s multiple uses of chemical weapons.” She also noted that Russia had agreed to guarantee the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons, and had they followed through with that promise, “we would not be here today.”
BAM. If Russia kept its word then Assad wouldn’t have these weapons and these attacks wouldn’t happen. It hasn’t been officially determined who committed the attack, but it also doesn’t take a moron to know the truth:
“[W]e know who did this. Our allies know who did this. Russia can complain all it wants about fake news, but no one is buying its lies and cover-ups,” Haley said.
“It is those who act to violate the prohibition on chemical weapons who deserve our condemnation,” Haley said in conclusion. “Those who act to defend it deserve our support. The United States and our allies will continue to stand up for truth, accountability, justice, and an end to the use of chemical weapons.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
not buying any of it.
It may have been a chemical attack. We do not know who carried it out. We know that chemical weapons were unsecured in Iraq and that they likely migrated. We know that the Libya-ISIS Affair armed the opponents of the Assad regime. We know that there was collusion between Western regimes, Kiev, and hostile factions in Russia, not only to influence the election in America (i.e. Obama/Clinton/DNC axis), but also to force a coup (a la Kiev, Libya, etc.) in Russia.
What is Assad’s motive?
With Russia’s support, and after America’s change of heart, he has won the war against the “separatists” (a la Ukraine) and the region’s ISIS factions alike.
We do not know what kind of chemical was used in the attack.
But “everybody knows” who used them.
I want to know why the US is involving itself in these internal Syrian affairs. Yes, chemical attacks are terrible. Yes, Jerry Seinfeld and Paula Abdul are much loved. Yes, lots of people like Apple products (Steve Jobs).
But why should America shed any blood over this chemical attack? Does Halliburton need more war, hasn’t it made enough taxpayer money?
I can only attribute the stupidity of the comments above to Leftist trolls.
I don’t think the above comments are stupid at all. How many times are you going to try to kick Lucy the Neocon’s football? Pretty soon we’ll run out of countries to destroy, and to what end?
Well, if we KNOW who did this, why don’t we show the American people some PROOF of who did it? Then, let’s give a clear explanation WHY the US should spend hundreds of millions of dollars and risk a war with Russia over 40 dead people in a third world country which is of little strategic interest to the US, when the Syria forces killed at least that many with conventional weapons.
No, is better to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Understand that dead is dead even in a hell hole. Burning to death in Tokyo or being nuked have the same outcome during WWII. US planned gas warfare in Japan if the invasion had happened.
Are we seeing picking this fight as a way to avoid a bigger fight?
In Yemen, they’re dying from starvation. Thankfully, I haven’t had to look at photos of them.
But there’s a thousand places that could use a white knight. We are a very small percentage of the world’s population. We have unfathomable debt. We can’t do it all; we’re not God.
The Democrats will say this proves collusion as Trump launches missiles against Syria to cover up for the election. If he didn’t do anything, then that would also prove collusion. Can’t win.
I can’t say how they know the attack was from the Syrian government, BUT I know how I would verify it: 24/7 surveillance by drone and radar.
If they have a helicopter trace from the Syrian government airport over to the bombing area and back that matches the time of the bombing, that would be about as much proof as anybody could possibly need to prove it was a government attack.
It is an interesting predicament that Trump finds himself in. He knows for a fact that our intelligence agencies often provide “trumped up” intelligence because they did so against him. Yet he has to rely on those same agencies whose lies he has experienced firsthand when making key decisions in other areas because he simply has no other source to consult.
This is what happens when all of your government agencies are corrupted. No on trusts a word they say. My inclination is to believe that Syria did it. But then I consider how our intelligence agencies have acted recently and can come to no other conclusion than it would be foolish to give any credence to anything they say.
“Yet he has to rely on those same agencies…”
No, he has military intelligence to rely upon. That is not the same thing. Not at all.
Like most Americans I’m sick of these endless incursions. I understand we don’t want these weapons getting around. But I am suspicious of these intelligence sources. While it makes no sense to me that Assad would do this while he has already won the war, I’m willing to look at evidence that tells me I’m wrong. McCain saying bomb Syria isn’t evidence; Haley at the UN pointing a finger at the Russians isn’t evidence. Photos? Please. Remember the little boy the Israelis shot right in front of his father, a story that was peddled by the French? It was on film! On the ground sources? Who?
So, if anyone knows precisely the source, in the way that asshat Gorka was shouting he knew beyond any doubt on Laura I last night, please, I’m all ears.
Otherwise this remains a he said she said. And no, I don’t believe the British did a false flag.
Still trying to understand why I, and the USA, should care enough about some third world sh*thole murdering each other. What is our pressing national interest here in maintaining the post-WWI arbitrary nations created from the vacuum of the dead Ottoman Empire?
See National Security Statement, Pillar 1, on responding to use of chemical weapons. See past NSS’s of other presidents. We’re executing our stated national security strategy.
Presidential material there . . .
To all the Know-Nothings above.
1. There is no such thing as the “internal affairs” of other countries, as if they can do whatever they like so long as it doesn’t directly affect us. That’s the Kitty Genovese theory of foreign policy, and it’s disgusting. As human beings we have a general responsibility to all other humans to rescue them from murder if we can.
2. No, we can’t be the world’s policeman. There’s a limit to what we can do. But just because we can’t be there for everyone doesn’t mean we should be there for no one. You can’t stop all crime in your neighborhood, but if you see someone being attacked you do not turn aside. You do what you can, if you can.
3. All of that aside, in the case of chemical weapons we have a direct interest in enforcing the international ban on their use, anywhere in the world, by anyone. Because international “law” is only as good as its enforcement. If we let Syria get away with it then the ban will collapse.
1) BS. The recognized government of Syria is under armed attack from within. It is classified as a civil war. People, both combatants and non-combatants, die in a war. So, this is not MURDER, it is collateral damage on the battle field. Don’t want people to die violently in a war, don’t start one. Now, if the US wants to take sides and invade or militarily attack the recognized government of a sovereign nation, on behalf of part of that nation’s citizenry, it is operating outside the norms of recognized international behavior. If it was the norm, thsn any nation, or group of nations could attack or invade any other nation simply because the treatment of the nations, so attacked, does not meet the standards of the attacking nation. How do we spell international diplomacy? L-A-W-O-F-T-H-E-J-U-N-G-L-E.
2)This is horrible simplistic. If you see a a man lying dead on the ground from a gunshot wound and another man standing over his with a gun in his hand, do you simply shoot the man with the gun? Or, do you investigate the incident and clearly determine who shot the man on the ground? Could it have been a third party? Could it have been a suicide? Could the man with the gun have come upon the man on the ground and picked up the gun, after the fact? Did the bullet which killed the man actually come from the gun held by the man standing over him? Think about it.
3)Ridiculous. There is no way to control weaponized chemicals. We can do a pretty good job of controlling sophisticated chemical agents, such as nerve agents, but common poisonous chemicals are everywhere. Many local water treatment plants house significant quantities of chlorine gas. And chlorine gas can be produced by simply mixing two common household chemicals. Even large quantities of some pesticides can be acquired commercially and used as chemical weapons. Of course, with “enforcement” of any ban on the use of chemical weapons, who is responsible for such enforcement? Which nation, or group of nations, has been granted the authority, by the international community, to use force to “enforce” these bans?
You are trying to justify an action for which no clear justification exists. And, you are attempting to do so un the basis of emotion and “feelings”. As different people have different feelings on any issue, justification has to be based upon objective standards, nor subjective ones.
You keep harping on “recognized government”. Do we still recognize it? If we do, then we should stop. As far as I’m concerned, and I think as far as most people are concerned, Assad is not a legitimate ruler and has no right to put down rebellions.
You also keep insisting that what happens inside a “sovereign nation” is nobody else’s business; that they can be torturing babies to death and nobody else has the right to interfere. That is disgusting nonsense, and has been utterly rejected. Only vicious dictators pretend it exists.
There is no real doubt here about what happened. We know Assad has used chemical weapons, not once or twice but dozens of times. He has to be stopped, if only for the sake of maintaining the international ban on such use.
There may be no way to control the possession of chemical weapons, but there is a way to control their use — respond with force when they are used. Who’s responsible for such enforcement? Anyone who can, that’s who. If you see someone being attacked you respond, whether it’s “your job” or not. It’s everyone’s job. And just because you can’t stop them all is no reason not to stop the ones you can.
What’s Assad’s motive? To kill his enemies. That’s all the motive he needs. He thinks that so long as he has Russia protecting him he can do whatever he likes, so why not use them. Now he knows why.
Possible. Now prove it. In the absence of proof, all we have is conjecture. And if you are going to use force against another, your conjecture had better be correct.
” all we have is conjecture”
That’s all you have. That does not mean the administration has conclusive evidence that they are not willing to share in order to protect sources and methods.
reword that a bit:
That does not mean the administration does not have conclusive evidence…