It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrWendal
But let us talk about the possibility of causing cancer...According to Philip H. Melanson such a thing is possible and has been since the 1950's.
During the 1950s the CIA developed cancer-causing drugs for use in political assassination - drugs that would produce what appeared to be 'natural' death. A 1952 agency memo reports on the cancer-inducing uses of beryllium: 'This is certainly the most toxic inorganic element and it produces a peculiar fibrotic tumor at the site of local application. The amount necessary to produce these tumors is a few micrograms.' The same memo talks of the possibility of developing techniques for getting beryllium into the victim's lungs by having it inhaled in small doses.
Source You can find the quote on page 4- about half way down.
As I have clearly shown, the idea of weaponized cancer is not new at all. So why would it be so far fetched to think it possible? Especially when one considers just how many South American Leaders do have cancer. The list includes former Argentine president, Nestor Kirchner (colon cancer) Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff (lymphoma cancer), her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (throat cancer), former Cuban president Fidel Castro (stomach cancer) Bolivian president, Evo Morales (nasal cancer) and Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo (lymphoma cancer).
But I am sure it is all just one big coincidence and anyone who suspects foul play is probably just insane
Originally posted by MrWendal
Originally posted by FlyersFan
3 - Venezuela wasn't a big problem. If this story had said N. Korea or Iran ... then I'd be more inclined to go along with it more easily. But Chavez?? It's not like he was a major problem. His hand picked sucessor is going to be just like him anyways, so there is no point to kill off Chavez.edit on 3/6/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)
How much of a hand picked successor was he if there is already a plan to hold elections very soon?
Originally posted by MrWendal
Like it or not, the "proof" is out there and even posted in this thread and the FACT is Cancer has been used as an assassination weapon. Was it used on Chavez? I have no idea, but what I do know is that to dismiss the idea of out hand is simply foolish.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
Ummm... I dunno... maybe, you know, being put out by OFFICIALS? Just a random thought here... probably way off base...
Does it take one official to make it official? What sort of consensus makes something official?
I'd say that you are way, way off base.
reply to post by nenothtu
Just out of curiosity, how many officials have to be involved before YOU think it might be official? Careful - that could be a trick question... something like "how many officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Witness2008
yet you snap up the "official story" promulgated by Venezuelan officials as if it were made of ice cream. Interesting.
Yawn right back atcha.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by FlyersFan
The CIA is more than capable of such things. In fact it would be the more logical and cost effective way of getting rid of someone. I don't see it as far fetched at all.
This is nuttier than squirrel poop. Washington DC can't even pass a budget and it can't get anything done. How on earth do they seriously think that our government can give Chavez cancer?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ... and sometimes a man getting cancer is just a man getting cancer.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by FlyersFan
Simple assassination. A bullet through the head during one of his rallies. Poison that takes immediate effect. A heart attack drug in his drink that kills him on the spot. Airplane crash over the ocean. Lots of things.
But all of those things scream assassination. Ya know....given the track record of the lunatics that make up our government and their little alphabet agencies, I am inclined to believe this story.
Originally posted by Witness2008
I think Chavez having a hand in uniting the South American countries against Monsanto was enough reason to have him assassinated.
Originally posted by Witness2008
Originally posted by FlyersFan
31% of the world population will get cancer
World Health Organization - World Cancer Rates Will Jump by 50%
Cancer happens. It happens to A LOT of people naturally.
1/3 of us will get cancer. I'm 50 and I've had it twice. My husband has had it once.
I'm not prepared to buy the 'The USA Gave Chavez Cancer' thing when the fact is that a LARGE number of people on the planet get cancer without them being infected on purpose by the US government ... AND the fact that Chavez wasn't on the radar screen as a big threat. He just wasn't. N. Korea and their nuke missile launches .. sure. Iran and them causing instability in the Middle East and Persia .. Sure. But Chavez?? IMHO - NO. Natural cancer. Or I should say .. not purposely infected cancer. For all we know he could have gotten it from Fukishima fallout that went around the world ....
The government gives anyone that stands in the way of corporate interest cancer. Remember Corexit?
Chavez is a much greater threat to U.S Corporations than N. Korea. It is always about corporate interests.
Originally posted by Witness2008
Originally posted by DJW001
Of course the Venezuelan government has accused the United States of giving their late President cancer! If you believe this, just say: "I believe the Official Story."
Just what is it that makes a story official?
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by DJW001
Perhaps the folks in office in Venezuela know something the rest of us don't. I tend not to believe official anything. Putting two and two together, with a big dash of common sense does it for me.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
Ummm... I dunno... maybe, you know, being put out by OFFICIALS? Just a random thought here... probably way off base...
Does it take one official to make it official? What sort of consensus makes something official?
I'd say that you are way, way off base.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
Just out of curiosity, how many officials have to be involved before YOU think it might be official? Careful - that could be a trick question... something like "how many officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
Like I said in an earlier post....I tend not to pay any attention to "official" anything. Was mildly interested in DW's post.
Yawn
Originally posted by Witness2008
Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Witness2008
yet you snap up the "official story" promulgated by Venezuelan officials as if it were made of ice cream. Interesting.
Yawn right back atcha.
I stated that given the track record of the crimes committed against S.A countries and their leaders by CIA economic hit men that I was inclined to believe that Chavez was assassinated, and perhaps the folks in office down south knew something that we don't. I don't see how that as buying the official story.
When following a members responses here, or anywhere for that matter try to use "train of thought". Cherry pick much?
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
Sure I'm game.
Then you can come back and show the cherry you picked.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
Funny how allegations were turned into an "official" story in this thread.
Given the disdain of the U.S for Chavez and their failures to control him, I can certainly see assassination as an alternative.
For all of the assassinations and assassination attempts you list, it's a "he said, she said" situation - there are alternate explanations for motivations in those matters.
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
I'm guessing that you did not investigate the links.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Reading through your links, there are two glaring absences - one, there is no evidence of "the brutal corruption of the CIA", and two, there is no evidence of cancer ever having been employed by the CIA as an assassination tool.
He said, she said? So internal investigations, and the confessions of insiders (CIA) are just he said she said? You're hilarious.
Have a nice day.