Venezuela's Situation According to an Expert who's Studied it

Fri, 2019-02-22 23:53 — danmanjones

An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose Coup

UN investigator and human rights rapporteur Alfred De Zayas studied Venezuela's situation in 2017 & produced this report.

Why has he never appeared in the MSM?

Abby Martin is an indepependent journalist and board member of Media Freedom Foundation which manages Project Censored. Abby has worked for Russian & Venezuelan state TV & has been called a conspiracy theorist by BuzzFeed News & the NYTimes.

There's a showdown happening in Venezuela this weekend at the border with Colombia. Marco Rubio & Juan Guaido are going to try to breach the closed Colombian border to deliver humanitarian aid.

Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

boldfart
(Long Spike)

Image result for mr pastry

Sat, 2019-02-23 04:00 |

link to comment

Fullauto223cal
(Old Spike)

Yea, you lost me at "UN investigator".

UN Watch denounced in 2012, when Zayas was named as an independent expert, the alleged disrespectful verb used by the expert against Jews, including attacks to their history and their religious culture. Likewise, other non-governmental organization voiced the irresponsabilities of his declarations against the Nuremberg trials, which he qualified as a "Pharisee court". On 29 September 2017, de Zayas, alongside another UN independent commissioner, David Kaye, issued a statement in which they considered the attitude of the Spanish government as "violated of fundamental individual rights, limiting the flow of public information at such a critical moment for the Spanish democracy" during the 2017 Catalan independence referendum.^[134] During the 167th sessions period of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, during the audience regarding health and nutrition in Venezuela, the State representative screened an interview of Telesur to de Zayas, in which he assured there was not a humanitarian crisis in the country and that to solve the economic problems the "economic war" must end and that the "unilateral actions" should be suspended. As a response, Susana Raffalli, advisor to the Caritas Organization of Venezuela, voiced her concern and declared that during his visit to the country, de Zayas only took pictures of the counter of the charcuterie in front of his hotel.^[135]

^{So he doesn't like Jews, no surprise there as you are promoting him.}

^{He disagreed with holding the Nazis accountable and implied it was all controlled by the Jews.}

^{He doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about concerning Venezuela as barely left his hotel during his visit.}

Expert comments on Alfred de Zayas:

• Dr. Bernward Dörner, German historian specializing in antisemitism: Zayas ignores decades of research in his quest to absolve the Germans of having known about the Holocaust, and his evidence and reasoning are faulty. (Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 18, 2011, review of Zayas’ most recent book Völkermord als Staatsgeheimnis – Vom Wissen über die “Endlösung der Judenfrage” im Dritten Reich (Genocide as State Secret – on Knowledge about “the Final Solution to the Jewish Question” in the Third Reich).

• Professor Frank M. Brucher, in 1993 German Studies Review article: Zayas “makes no attempt to integrate his work with that of existing historiography on World War II, Nazi Germany or war crimes in general.”

• Main-Taunus-Kurier, 17 September 2011, article by Willi van Ooyen: “Controversial international law expert Alfred de Zayas operates in the discourse of the extreme right.”

• Frankfurter Rundschau, “Revanchismus an Schulen; Vertriebenen-Thesen für Abendgymnasien,” 15 September 2011: German historian Wolfgang Wipperman accuses Alfred de Zayas of historical revisionism.

• Rainer Ohliger, German social scientist and historian, reviewing Zayas’ book “A Terrible Revenge” in 1997 German historians’ forum: The “murderous Nazi-German foreign policy that was in place between 1938 and 1945. . . is starkly underemphasized [by Zayas’] book and arouses suspicion that we are dealing with a historical revisionist work.”

Sat, 2019-02-23 07:31 |

link to comment

thegent
(Old Spike)

So what did he say in this interview that is not true or brings up some questions for you?

You didnt attack his argument at all by the looks of things. You only attacked his character.

Sat, 2019-02-23 09:52 |

link to comment

danmanjones
(Old Spike)

UN Watch is a joke. They lie about being controlled by the American Jewish Commitee. [source] One of their aims is to push for Holocaust reparations so they're not neautral on that subject but most of their time is spent trying to bury criticism of Israel...

The main activities of UN Watch

Monitor UN activities, resolutions, or official statements that are construed to be critical of Israel.

Lobby for the removal of UN personnel who are considered critical of Israel

Forming coalitions to leverage influence at the UN. This also entails assisting the interests of other groups to later count on their support.

Lobby for the inclusion of AJC approved personnel; this is a standard operating procedure by the American Jewish Committee

source

De Zayas is a professor of international law & has a doctorate in history. A link to his bio is in the description. Wikipedia says:

[de Zayas] is an American lawyer, writer, historian, expert in the field of human rights and international law and retired high-ranking United Nations official.

Since 2012, he has been the UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order (appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council).

...

and formerly worked with the United Nations from 1981 to 2003 as a senior lawyer with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Secretary of the Human Rights Committee, and the Chief of Petitions.

A link to his report is also in the description, it details the methodology used...

6. He listened to hundreds of stakeholders, including representatives of United Nations agencies and the Organization of American States (OAS), and received a wealth of information. The visits included meetings with ministers of both countries, ambassadors, diplomats, government officials, church leaders, academics, economists, students, and civil society organizations. In particular cases, he was approached by, and heard the stories of, individual victims. He balanced his meetings between different groups and was proactive in demanding targeted information. After the mission, he requested and received additional information, which he duly reflected, confident that the dialogue begun with each Government will continue through the visits of other rapporteurs.

7. His methodology followed the principle audiatur et altera pars (listen to all sides), and the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council, article 3 (a) of which stipulates that mandate holders shall act in an independent capacity and exercise their functions in accordance with their mandate. Article 6 requires mandate holders to establish the facts, based on objective, reliable information emanating from relevant credible sources that they have duly cross-checked to the best extent possible; take into account in a comprehensive and timely manner in particular information provided by the State concerned on situations relevant to their mandate; evaluate all information in the light of internationally recognized human rights standards relevant to their mandate, and of international conventions to which the State concerned is a party. In assessing the evidence, the Independent Expert was critical both of governmental and civil society sources, conscious of the possibility of distortions and suppression of evidence. He considered whether specific cases were representative and avoided extrapolation. He kept an open mind, ready to change perspective in the light of evidence received from stakeholders on all sides.