# We Killed Hugo Chavez?



## celtic_crippler (Mar 5, 2013)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/05/venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-dead-vp-says/



> The announcement came just hours after Maduro announced the government had  expelled two U.S. diplomats from the country.
> 
> Maduro also said "we have no doubt" that Chavez's cancer, which was first  diagnosed in June 2011, was induced by foul play by "the historical enemies of  our homeland."
> 
> ...



Say what?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

The crazy is strong in that one.
and this one:






I'm sure people mourned Hitler and Mao too...


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

Of course we didn't kill him. That would take balls.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 5, 2013)

> *Jose E. SerranoVerified account*     &#8207;@*RepJoseSerrano*
> 
> 
> Hugo Chavez was a leader that  understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the  powerless.  R.I.P. Mr. President.
> ...


The D behind his name may as well signify Douchebag


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Big Don said:


> The crazy is strong in that one.
> and this one:
> 
> 
> ...



Please do not mention that man's name again on here, it makes us throw up.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 6, 2013)

Aye, Mr. Galloway has some odd notions about politics and what is right and what is wrong.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 6, 2013)

Absurd.


----------



## MJS (Mar 6, 2013)

seasoned said:


> Absurd.



What he said!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

I suppose things like the 'umbrella' murder in London put such things in their minds. It's not unknown for countries to bump off other countries leaders and the CIA has an 'interesting' history when it comes to trying to dispose of leaders. The drones strike while not subtle are being used as political assassination attempts.
It may be unlikely the CIA bumped him off but I wouldn't totally dismiss it either, I bet someone suggested it and it was considered!


----------



## granfire (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I suppose things like the 'umbrella' murder in London put such things in their minds. It's not unknown for countries to bump off other countries leaders and the CIA has an 'interesting' history when it comes to trying to dispose of leaders. The drones strike while not subtle are being used as political assassination attempts.
> It may be unlikely the CIA bumped him off but I wouldn't totally dismiss it either, I bet someone suggested it and it was considered!



then again, if they were that good, they would have bumped the Sexiest man of Korea by now....


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-and-fbi-plan-to-assassinate-hugo-ch-vez/1296

True or not? Whatever, it's certainly plausible.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1910986,00.html


----------



## granfire (Mar 6, 2013)

I am sure they are planning away....hey, you never know when it pays off to be prepared, right!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 6, 2013)

Well lets see...

Hugo Chávez was given a diagnosis of cancer in June of 2011 and Hugo Chávez died of complications related to cancer February 6, 2013...yeah we must have killed him...otherwise he would have never made it 1 year and 8 months after his diagnosis.

combine that with the fact that neither he or the Venezuelan government never disclosed what type of cancer he had......yeah all fingers point to it being the USA's fault


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Well let&#8217;s see...
> 
> Hugo Chávez was given a diagnosis of cancer in June of 2011 and Hugo Chávez died of complications related to cancer February 6, 2013...yeah we must have killed him...otherwise he would have never made it 1 year and 8 months after his diagnosis.
> 
> combine that with the fact that neither he or the Venezuelan government never disclosed what type of cancer he had......yeah all fingers point to it being the USA's fault




It was reported as cancer in the 'pelvic region', I rather think it was actually testicular cancer and they didn't want to say because his testicles were removed. That doesn't look good to macho South Americans.
I suppose old habits of thinking people are trying to bump you off are hard to kick.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> It was reported as cancer in the 'pelvic region', I rather think it was actually testicular cancer and they didn't want to say because his testicles were removed. That doesn't look good to macho South Americans.
> I suppose old habits of thinking people are trying to bump you off are hard to kick.


The statistics on testicular cancer are horrific.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 6, 2013)

The technology to induce cancer in a target has existed in a variety of ways for more than 50 years.........just sayin'. Research doctors induce cancer in lab rats all the time. Radiological agents, PCB's and other chemicals, and a host of other mutagens and viral agents can induce an assortment of cancers. Sure-if the U.S. government or one of its agencies wanted someone dead of cancer-then that person could very well die of cancer.......


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 6, 2013)

It was you...wasn't it :uhyeah:


----------



## Tgace (Mar 6, 2013)

elder999 said:


> The technology to induce cancer in a target has existed in a variety of ways for more than 50 years.........just sayin'. Research doctors induce cancer in lab rats all the time. Radiological agents, PCB's and other chemicals, and a host of other mutagens and viral agents can induce an assortment of cancers. Sure-if the U.S. government or one of its agencies wanted someone dead of cancer-then that person could very well die of cancer.......



With one shot vs gallons of chemicals or days/weeks/months of exposure? I doubt it.


----------



## granfire (Mar 6, 2013)

tgace said:


> with one shot vs gallons of chemicals or days/weeks/months of exposure? I doubt it.



hpv


----------



## elder999 (Mar 6, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> It was you...wasn't it :uhyeah:


I had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and don't _know_ one way or the other; I only know it's possible. One of my son's ex-girlfriends used to threaten him with cancer from her mom's lab quite frequently....:lol:                                                                   





Tgace said:


> With one shot vs gallons of chemicals or days/weeks/months of exposure? I doubt it.


 Doubt you might, but know you would not....remember I come from an industry where someone was murdered with a radioactive source the size of a pencil eraser being placed in the middle drawer of their desk, and that several other agents really might require only one exposure-or a prolonged exposure along the nature of the middle drawer of one's desk-both the chronic exposure that you speak of, as well as acute exposures to induce cancer are more than possible. Frankly, I'm fairly certain that cancer could be induced with a single meal-but I'm not a cop, like you, I'm a scientist.........a *mad* scientist:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:. Ask an oncologist, or an epidemiologist, or a toxicologist-if they tell you otherwise, it's simply because they lack the imagination, and the necessary evil bend of mind, not because it's impossible, or even unlikely.  It's entirely possible, and probably has been done once or twice in the last 50 years. Deal with it.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 6, 2013)

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...s_gave_him_cancer_is_that_even_possible_.html


----------



## elder999 (Mar 6, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...s_gave_him_cancer_is_that_even_possible_.html





			
				Tgace's funky liberal blogpage said:
			
		

> *Brian Palmer*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


                                                                                                                                                           Wonder what kind PhD. is required for the position of "chief explainer." :lfao: Oh, and here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation-induced_cancer- which is probably the way I know the most about, but-and I *won't* go into detail-there are quite a few other ways, both chronic and acute.


----------



## granfire (Mar 6, 2013)

elder999 said:


> I had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and don't _know_ one way or the other; I only know it's possible. One of my son's ex-girlfriends used to threaten him with cancer from her mom's lab quite frequently....:lol:                                                                    Doubt you might, but know you would not....remember I come from an industry where someone was murdered with a radioactive source the size of a pencil eraser being placed in the middle drawer of their desk, and that several other agents really might require only one exposure-or a prolonged exposure along the nature of the middle drawer of one's desk-both the chronic exposure that you speak of, as well as acute exposures to induce cancer are more than possible. Frankly, I'm fairly certain that cancer could be induced with a single meal-but I'm not a cop, like you, I'm a scientist.........a *mad* scientist:lfao: :lfao: :lfao: :lfao:. Ask an oncologist, or an epidemiologist, or a toxicologist-if they tell you otherwise, it's simply because they lack the imagination, and the necessary evil bend of mind, not because it's impossible, or even unlikely.  It's entirely possible, and probably has been done once or twice in the last 50 years. Deal with it.



Listening to you is always so reassuring!


----------



## elder999 (Mar 6, 2013)

granfire said:


> Listening to you is always so reassuring!


                                                                                                                                                   And rest assured-I'm by no means asserting that Hugo Chavez didn't get cancer from smoking Havana cigars-for all I know, *Fidel* gave him cancer! :lfao: I'm just saying that the assertion that the cancer was induced is not nearly as absurd as some would believe-I'm not sure it did or didn't happen to Chavez, but I'm pretty sure it's happened before, and will happen again. "Give 'em cancer." Can't be a more fool-proof, untraceable assassination method than that.....:lfao:


----------



## granfire (Mar 6, 2013)

elder999 said:


> And rest assured-I'm by no means asserting that Hugo Chavez didn't get cancer from smoking Havana cigars-for all I know, *Fidel* gave him cancer! :lfao: I'm just saying that the assertion that the cancer was induced is not nearly as absurd as some would believe-I'm not sure it did or didn't happen to Chavez, but I'm pretty sure it's happened before, and will happen again. "Give 'em cancer." Can't be a more fool-proof, untraceable assassination method than that.....:lfao:



I am off to vacuum the middle drawer of my desk now....


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 8, 2013)

I think I could more readily accept the cloak & dagger approach a few decades ago, but in today's environment we (the US) don't seem to give a damn who will kill and would much prefer to just get it over with. Our government is just as much a victim of "instant gratification" as the rest of our culutre has become. Who needs cancer when you got drones, baby!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 8, 2013)

Here's the answer...


----------

