Venezuelan Vice President "Chavez Was Infected with Cancer by Foes (USA)"

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

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.



Here's the problem with that theory - it's the part that says "a peculiar fibrotic tumor at the site of application". That's what is referred to as a "signature", in the same vein as a bullet hole in the head is a "signature" of someone having been shot. That signature is sort of a dead giveaway that there is something nefarious afoot. How many people sprinkle beryllium on their wheaties in the morning? It goes against the notion of a clandestine hit, since there aren't any particular advantages of using that signatured method over something more direct, faster, permanent, and certain. That could be why it's found in a memo, and not in a morgue.




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


I once lived in a place where almost exactly 50% of my neighbors died of cancer in a two year period. At no point did I think it was a warning from the CIA that I shouldn't talk or rock the boat. Stuff happens. Folks get cancer. I personally think they ought to test the ground water there for contaminants, but I seriously doubt it was a CIA plot to X-out that little beleaguered community. High levels of background radiation and uranium deposits are a bit more likely as culprits.




edit on 2013/3/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

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?


I guess we'll know more about that AFTER the elections.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

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.


I've seen posts showing that cancer was discussed as an assassination weapon, but none where it was used as one. Have I missed something? it's entirely possible that I did, which is why I ask.

edit on 2013/3/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008



Ummm... I dunno... maybe, you know, being put out by OFFICIALS? Just a random thought here... probably way off base...
reply to post by nenothtu
 


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.



I dunno. When I get correspondence on official letterhead, there usually aren't all that many officials involved, and even then the ones that are involved aren't very far up the food chain. Still, If I ignore that correspondence, I sometimes get into a world of hurt over it, what with them claiming it's official and all. I think next time I'll use your trick, and tell them it wasn't official because there weren't enough officials involved, and see what sort of mileage that gets me.

It could work, right?

Maybe I'll tell Joe Biden to go pound salt, I'm not buying a scattergun on his say so because he's only a VP, and therefore hasn't got anything official to say.

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?"

(Answer: none - screwing in light bulbs and shredding documents is what they have underlings for)


edit on 2013/3/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   


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?"
reply to post by nenothtu
 


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



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


I suppose we could go through your posts in this thread point by point, and see if we can't find the reason I have that impression and where the tracks for that "train of thought" you mention actually run. Would you like to do that?

It would be one sure way to find out if I'm "cherry picking" as accused or not. How 'bout it? Are you game? I am.


edit on 2013/3/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Sure I'm game.

Then you can come back and show the cherry you picked.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Fair enough then. Let's begin.

First Post


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.



Now, the post you were responding to when you said that was the OP, which said specifically :




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.


This pretty clearly demonstrates that you've bought into the "Official Story" from the Venezuelan officials. There's cherry one for ya.

Moving on, Post Two


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.


Here we have you - again - buying in to the Official Venezuelan Story, complete with a direct quote of what you were responding to right there in your post. Same cherry, I suppose, but then that isn't my fault - YOU are the conductor on that particular train of thought.

On down the train of thought to the next post.


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.


Here's a bit of a sidetrack, muddying the waters. Now we are throwing Monsanto in with the CIA on the assassination car of the train of thought. Still the same track, though. There's a lot to be said for focus - otherwise known as a "one track mind". No doubt you are on the same track, the same train of thought, just sitting on the siding a bit here, here, I reckon. Same cherry, though - the "CIA killed Chavez with cancer - but now Monsanto helped" cherry. maybe it was some genetically modified cancer, eh?

There is no doubt that Chavez had cancer, not a bullet hole, so that is the only logical delivery vehicle for an assassination. Therefore, that MUST be what you are referring to here when you speak of assassination.

On to the next, found here.


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.


Here we have you SPECIFYING your belief in the Official Venezuelan Story of "The CIA gave Chavez cancer to assassinate him". You mention "corporate interests", but I think we can safely assume "Monsanto", based upon your specification above, taken together with your insistence on "train of thought", I must presume you are still on the same train.

More to come. LOTS more - and I promise you, were not going to leave the track that your "train of thought" is running on.


edit on 2013/3/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Forging onward down the track - Fifth Post


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?


Now, here we have another sidetrack, but no doubt the same train of thought. After the events of the above posts, you are called on your purchase of the Official (Venezuelan) Story, to which you respond "what makes it official?", apparently failing to realize that Venezuelan officials are Officials, too. Just being officials of another country doesn't make them any less "official" - they are not "unofficial officials" simply by virtue of running Venezuela... but I digress.

Post the Sixth


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.



Now here we have you speaking of "the folks in office in Venezuela", but somehow seem to miss that the "office" makes them "official", because you obviously believe them, yet claim in the same breath that you "tend not to believe official anything". Confused much?

Now, have I picked another cherry, or is your train of thought getting sidetracked? I'll let you decide.

Next post, found here.


Originally posted by Witness2008



Ummm... I dunno... maybe, you know, being put out by OFFICIALS? Just a random thought here... probably way off base...
reply to post by nenothtu
 


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.



Here, evidently feeling trapped like a rat or something, you want to split hairs on how many officials it takes to officially screw in a light bulb. Maybe I threw a switch in the track your train of thought is running on or something. Even so, I'll run right down that same track with you - I'm following your train of thought here, see?

Onward, ever onward, to this post.


Originally posted by Witness2008



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?"
reply to post by nenothtu
 


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



I think you may have finally jumped the rails here - you're saying you don't pay attention to official anything while paying attention to official Venezuelans. Can't confuse me that easily. I'm tracking that train of thought, even when the rails split.

Ok now, were coming into the station now, with this post


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?


No, as seen above it wasn't an "inclination", it was a full on belief, and AGAIN mentioning the folks down south in office (i.e. "the officials" down south) while simultaneously STILL denying a belief in "the official story". This is known as "cognitive dissonance", the simultaneous belief in two opposing things. It's not me losing the train of thought, it's you splitting the track in an attempt to prevent tracking. Luckily, I can multitask.

Even while picking cherries.

And NOW, here we are at the station.


Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Sure I'm game.

Then you can come back and show the cherry you picked.



I was game, you were game, and that's game, set, and match. No charge for the cherries.







edit on 2013/3/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


With what I know about the brutal corruption of the CIA, I would hardly need the "official" story....hell, I'd believe the story if Chavez's dog had told me. Like I said in an earlier post, I tend not to believe anything "Official". Kinda like figuring things out for myself.

Nice try though.



posted on Mar, 8 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 


Now you've piqued my curiosity. What is it you think you know about "the brutal corruption of the CIA"? No, seriously - teach me something here. Teach me something I don't already know.

let's get beyond this "official story" business - you're never going to be cured of that bit of cognitive dissonance. Instead, teach me what you think it is you know of the CIA. If it's good, though, I'm going to ask you how you know it, so be prepared for that. Please be able to tell me it's not something you've read on the internetz.

This ought to be good - unless, of course, you're just tossing out random red herrings now.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Funny how allegations were turned into an "official" story in this thread.

Let us start with this. CIA internal documents
www.gwu.edu...
www.gwu.edu...

You may want to read John Perkins CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN. it would give you a basic understanding of the corporate and political agendas when employing the CIA to do their dirty work. Here are just a few that we know of......

Fidel Castro of Cuba (unsuccessful)en.wikipedia.org...
Patrice Lumumba of Congo (not as planned but successful)en.wikipedia.org...
Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran (successful coup)en.wikipedia.org...
Salvador Allende (died during 1973 CIA orchestrated coup) www.gwu.edu...

Here is a link that will provide you with an overview of the general meddling of the U.S and their pit bull dogs (CIA) inside of Latin America.
www.gwu.edu...

Given the disdain of the U.S for Chavez and their failures to control him, I can certainly see assassination as an alternative.

I have plenty more where this came from. Just putting two and two together.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Funny how allegations were turned into an "official" story in this thread.



When an "allegation" is a... story... told by... officials... it tends to put a different complexion on it than if it were, for example, an allegation made by the lady selling fruit down on the corner. Compounding that is the fact that they took this seriously enough to expel diplomatic personnel, a fairly robust move for a mere "allegation".

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. With that in mind, I have to ask what their purpose is. What is it you are trying to say with them?

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. We can go with speculation (well, this IS a conspiracy website, so I suppose that's to be expected) or we can go with stated objectives and the political turmoil of the times. I know what I believe, and I can see what you believe. I'm fairly certain neither is going to convince the other.

I'm well aware of the activities of the CIA in Latin America, although I'm most familiar with their activity in Central America specifically, rather than Latin America in general. Calling them "pit bulls dogs" serves only to betray a political bias.




Given the disdain of the U.S for Chavez and their failures to control him, I can certainly see assassination as an alternative.



I could sort of see assassination as an alternative, but not very serious consideration of it. He simply wasn't that important, merely irritating. Now, even though assassination is a possibility, assassination by CANCER is ludicrous. If they had wanted Chavez dead, there are much, MUCH more efficient means for accomplishing it. Since those means were not employed, I'm not seeing an assassination as having been carried out.

"Disdain" is not an affirmative justification for an assassination. "Failure to control him" might have been - if there were any NEED to control him. There wasn't. He wasn't dangerous enough to need controlling.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm guessing that you did not investigate the links.



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.


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.

edit on 9-3-2013 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm guessing that you did not investigate the links.


You guess wrongly, then. I investigated each of them. Some I was already familiar with, and some I have copies of the documents already (the 1983 HRE manual, for example). In none of them is there to be found the specific things I mentioned in my previous post, which I presumed you were trying to support with 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.



Those two things are absent. It could be that I presumed your intent wrongly, and there was a different purpose to the links altogether. this is why I asked you specifically what you were trying to say with them. they do not support your premise.




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.



I missed the confessions of the CIA insiders stating that the stated reasons for the assassinations and attempts were NOT the (actual) reasons for the assassinations and attempts. Where are they? Without such, it's all just speculative fiction, just as I said, and the documented reasons are what I'm going to go with.


edit on 2013/3/9 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join