HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Venezuela to expel US Emb...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 01:58 PM

Venezuela to expel US Embassy official

Source: Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela's vice president, Nicolas Maduro, says the government of President Hugo Chavez plans to expel a U.S. Embassy official for meeting with military officers and planning to destabilize the country.

Maduro identified the American as the Air Force attache and said he had been spying on the military.

He said the official has 24 hours to leave the country.

Embassy spokesman Greg Adams identified the attache as David Delmonaco.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_VENEZUELA_CHAVEZ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-05-13-34-00

51 replies, 3937 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply Venezuela to expel US Embassy official (Original post)
jsr Mar 2013 OP
COLGATE4 Mar 2013 #1
JDPriestly Mar 2013 #7
Tempest Mar 2013 #10
brooklynite Mar 2013 #12
ConcernedCanuk Mar 2013 #23
Carolina Mar 2013 #46
COLGATE4 Mar 2013 #13
JDPriestly Mar 2013 #40
Ken Burch Mar 2013 #28
bluedigger Mar 2013 #2
PDJane Mar 2013 #3
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2013 #4
PDJane Mar 2013 #5
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2013 #6
PDJane Mar 2013 #8
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2013 #9
Peace Patriot Mar 2013 #24
Earth_First Mar 2013 #25
idwiyo Mar 2013 #51
Kingofalldems Mar 2013 #11
timdog44 Mar 2013 #14
Brother Buzz Mar 2013 #15
timdog44 Mar 2013 #16
Catherina Mar 2013 #17
SpartanDem Mar 2013 #19
Ken Burch Mar 2013 #29
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #34
Ken Burch Mar 2013 #47
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #50
Peace Patriot Mar 2013 #31
David__77 Mar 2013 #22
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #36
Judi Lynn Mar 2013 #37
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #39
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2013 #18
Ken Burch Mar 2013 #27
Bacchus4.0 Mar 2013 #33
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #35
Judi Lynn Mar 2013 #38
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #41
Judi Lynn Mar 2013 #42
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #43
Judi Lynn Mar 2013 #44
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #45
Ken Burch Mar 2013 #48
geek tragedy Mar 2013 #49
rachel1 Mar 2013 #20
Pterodactyl Mar 2013 #21
Ken Burch Mar 2013 #26
darkangel218 Mar 2013 #30
bitchkitty Mar 2013 #32

Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:07 PM

1. Sounds like Maduro is getting a

little nervous about the Venezuelan Army's 'dedication' to the Bolivarian revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:59 PM

7. Have you seen The Revolution Will Not Be Televised?

It's possible that members of the Army told the Venezuelan government to throw out the diplomat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:13 PM

10. That would also be my guess

Especially after the U.S.' involvement in the 2003 coup attempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tempest (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:30 PM

12. Last time I checked, the Bush Administration was no longer in power...

...unless it's your presumption that President Obama wants to overthrow Chavez as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:46 PM

23. In my opinion most US presidents have been/are puppets

 

.
.
.

figureheads, whatever for the Industrial Military Complex

ya know

PNAC

The last President that stood up to the PNACers was assassinated in '63

USA has over 700 military bases in other people's countries

They use drones operated by Nintendo pilots safe on US soil to slaughter those they have an issue with

Maybe I'm missing something -

How many other countries are waging war all over the globe?

In the last decade, I see none,

other than the USA.

IMO

payback is gonna be a bitch

not sure I wanna still be alive to see it

Canada is sure to receive some of the fallout



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ConcernedCanuk (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:50 AM

46. Bravo Concerned Canuk

Your post is right on target.

While the US is falling apart from within, it continues to use its military might throughout the world in ways that have caused, and will continue to reap, blowback!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:54 PM

13. At this stage of the game I don't think you can

tell the players, even with a scorecard. Entirely possible what you suggest. What role the Army is going to play in a post-Chavez Venezuela is one of the big unknowns right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #13)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:27 AM

40. Yes. Venezuela is, at this point,

a big question mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:49 AM

28. Bullshit...if anything, it's the army that ratted our Air Force guy out.

And rightly so...we should NEVER have our military attache's sounding out any country's military about the possibility of a coup.

U.S.-backed coups never have non-ugly and non-lethal results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:17 PM

2. Showing the country the government is firmly in charge.

Keeping everyone united by focusing on external aggression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:23 PM

3. The US has done stuff like this throughout the Venezuelan history.

The efforts have redoubled since Chavez took power.

There were 10 elections in eight years; mostly because of US intervention. He won all of those elections. He is a threat to American domination, and the American government will continue to try to overthrow him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:29 PM

4. no, they lost the referendum in 2007 but simply held another one

to make sure the people voted for what they wanted. In this case it was removing term limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:30 PM

5. And this is such a terrible thing?

Term limits are a mostly American idea, and frankly, he's a much better choice than anything the US has installed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:34 PM

6. yes, its a bad thing that they simply ignored what the people voted on n/t

s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:07 PM

8. I'm not sure that's the case.

I don't think we have enough information on how both sides manipulated that vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:12 PM

9. its actually pretty clear they reintroduced the eliminating term limits measure

after the 2007 defeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:09 AM

24. They lost the vote in 2007 because there were 69 amendments on the ballot...

...and also because it included equal rights for women and the fascist Catholic upper clergy got involved and said that Chavez was going to take children from their mothers.

Lifting term limits was just one of the 69 amendments proposed, that had to be voted up or down as a package (or as two packages, to be precise). Some amendments were economic. Pensions for street vendors was one; various economic economic powers for the president was another, and a variety of governance issues, and that "hot button" women's equality issue. The package lost very narrowly (by only 0.05%, as I recall) and some voters complained that it was just too confusing (too many amendments, too many different issues).

A year later, the term limit issue was revisited, and, as the sole issue on the ballot, won, hands down.

I'm glad they did this--put this one issue on the ballot--to clear up any confusion about what the Venezuelan people wanted to do, on this issue.

The issue was also broadened and included state governors. There were quite a few rightwing state governors at the time, but that changed, recently, with the chavistas' near sweep of the gubernatorial elections, just after Chavez was re-elected--in an election system, we should all note, that Jimmy Carter recently said is "the best in the world."

A term limit on the president was considered undemocratic by our own Founders and they quite deliberately did not place such a limit in our Constitution. 175 years later, in the mid-1950s, the Republicans rammed through an amendment limiting the president to two terms, in order to prevent a "New Deal" from ever happening here again, and to begin to dismantle the one we had (which they have very nearly accomplished). FDR was elected to FOUR terms in office which ensured that his "New Deal" would last quite some time. That was clearly the intention of our grandmothers and grandfathers--to pass the "New Deal" on to us: Social Security; strong bankster regulation (no more Great Depressions); strong labor unions, good jobs, good wages--the "American Dream" for all--curtailment of the greed of the 1%; fair, that is, progressive taxation, and so on--all the great things of our once great democracy, that we have now lost or are losing, were the legacy of the president having the time in office to implement and solidify those gains.

These things--fairness, curtailing greed--TAKE TIME. The rich have their money, their clubs, their power, their entrenchment. All the poor have is time. And once the poor majority manages to elect a president who genuinely represents their interests and attends to the common good, that leader has first to contend with all that money, power and entrenchment, in order to serve the people.

This is why term limits are bad--if the democracy is otherwise healthy and the elections are honest. Elections (if honest) are the best check on untoward power. If the people end up disapproving those whom they elected, they can "throw the bums out," as the old saying goes.

Term limits are an artificial and arbitrary check on power--throwing out the good with the bad--and were and are yet another rightwing/Corporate connivance to bust up "New Deal" alliances and end progressive, democratic policy. Term limits are a prescription for MINORITY rule--rule by the rich.

In any case, Venezuelans were able to vote on term limits as a stand-alone issue--no confusion--and voted against them, by a big majority. That was their free choice. Bacchus4.0's effort to paint this vote as UNdemocratic is absurd. It could not have been more democratic or any clearer as the will of the Venezuelan people.

It is rather the democratic glory of the Chavez administration that they put so many important things to a vote of the people. They even have a presidential recall provision--which the USAID tried and failed to use to topple Chavez. He won the recall vote, by a big majority, as he did all of his presidential elections. Why? Because he was a damn good president and implemented a "New Deal" for Venezuelans.

In the "best election system in the world"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:34 AM

25. +100

I wish I could reccomend this post alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 07:40 PM

51. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 03:29 PM

11. Kick and rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:29 PM

14. Whether this is true or not,

and it probably is, there are unlimited instances of the US nosing in on other governments affairs. No wonder we are not respected in many places. It seems our resources would be better spent at home. Or better spent at trying to get along with these countries. Again, the $ agenda raises its ugly head. Always looking to protect corporations looking for the easy resources instead of developing resources at home to make us more independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timdog44 (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:42 PM

15. If not US officials, certainly NGO's are carrying the water

To wit:

NED (National Endowment for Democracy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy


Here's an article that has a bias, but nevertheless, the information is out there; our tax dollars hard at work:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/NED_Targets_Venezuela.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 04:59 PM

16. Thanks for the articles.

As I suspected, actually I knew.

It seems that we want to push for democracy, unless it really works and someone "we" don't like is democratically elected. That's when the naysayers appear and say the elections were rigged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 05:08 PM

17. Chavez just died. Throw them all out.

The US is up to no good in Venezuela and the rest of Latin America. Toss them out. Toss them all out. And shame on the US media. Chavez' body is still warm and our media can't stop bad mouthing him and talking about investments, investments, investments.

"meeting with military officers and planning to destabilize the country".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 05:32 PM

19. Do you also believe we poisoned him?

because they said that too. Maybe you should take what they say with a grain of salt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:52 AM

29. Why do you assume that's impossible?

An extensive autopsy will be performed...and deservedly so.

Face it, our CIA is perfectly capable of doing something like that...they didn't change at all after the Church Committee hearings in the Seventies...all the old cloak-and-dagger bullshit is still being done. I know it...you know it...why pretend otherwise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #29)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:41 AM

34. He died from cancer. Not poison, cancer. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #34)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:55 PM

47. ...which can be caused by exposure to toxins, among other things...

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #47)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 07:05 PM

50. Long-term exposure in great quantities, yes.

But there isn't a substance that'll give a person cancer in one or two doses without killing him from straight up toxicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 07:26 AM

31. Considering what the CIA/MIC have done in collusion with local fascists in Latin America...

...nothing would surprise me, even the poisoning of Chavez.

Their long crime wave over the last half century, and recently--includes the torture and slaughter of tens of thousands of labor leaders and other advocates of the poor (many of them recently, in Colombia and Honduras) and untold others (TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers in Guatemala during the Reagan holocaust alone--plus thousands in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras), brutally overthrowing democratic governments, brutally displacing FIVE MILLION peasant farmers (recently, in Colombia), bombing a Cuban airliner full of athletes (past), bombing a FARC guerrilla peace negotiation camp on Ecuador's border (slaughtering 24 sleeping people and nearly starting a war between Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela--in 2008)--thousands of violent acts, untold dirty tricks, past and recent, the spreading of lies and propaganda, deliberately destabilizing countries, deliberately inflicting their "shock doctrine" to bludgeon them into line for U.S. corporate rape and plunder and on...

...and on...

...and on...

...So it would not surprise me in the least if they contrived to poison Chavez, whom they couldn't bring down democratically, by coup or by non-stop propaganda, so immensely popular was this leader and his government and so well-supported by the people of Venezuela. The CIA/MIC seethed with hatred of Chavez and his "New Deal" for Venezuelans. They really would do anything to stop it--both for the oil and for the example to others of a successful social justice government. And whether they poisoned him or not, there is no question that they are quite busy right now trying to capitalize on Chavez's death to accomplish an overthrow of this elected government by any means necessary.

As for the poisoning accusation, I would trust Maduro's word (Chavez's VP) over the Chavez-haters and the democracy destroyers. The Chavez haters and democracy destroyers have no credibility with me whatsoever. Maduro, on the other hand, is the leader of one of the best governments in the world--one of the most democratic and one of the most responsive to the will of the people. I don't know much about this particular thing (for instance, what this accusation is based on), and he could just be upset and fearful--totally understandable--or fell prey to poor intelligence or to planted intelligence. But my inclination is to trust his word as opposed to all those arrayed against him, bent on destroying his government and installing Corporate puppets. The latter have lost me entirely. I don't believe anything they say about the Chavez government, from their lying denials of interference to their lying bullshit about "Chavez, the dictator." Would they poison him? Damn right they would. Did they? Dunno.

I want to see this bus driver succeed as president of Venezuela. If he's stumbled over this, I forgive him. It's a rare country, these days, where a poor man--a bus driver--can rise to such heights. He doesn't have Chavez's charm, chattability and open and ready smile. But he is smart as a whip, like many in the Chavez government. He was very smart to expel U.S. operatives and I hope he identifies and expels them all. It is a delusion to think that Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Panetta and Hagel intend anything better for Latin America than the Bush Junta intended. They have the same goals--complete U.S. domination of, and dictatorship over, Latin American governments and peoples--though some of their methods might be different and subtler. In any case, Obama has only very limited powers, in my opinion, and, if, say, Exxon Mobil and its operatives within our government wanted to poison Chavez, they would do it, permission or no permission. They won't let a president get in the way of their grand strategy of controlling all the oil in the world. And, believe me, Exxon Mobil in particular hates Chavez. He threw them out of Venezuela, bless his soul!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 10:14 PM

22. Yes, I'd throw them all out immediately.

All actual and suspected agents of the US. Strike against the plotters now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:43 AM

36. So, Venezuela should break off diplomatic relations with the US

and close down their consulates and embassy in the United States?

that seems a bit rash

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #36)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:22 AM

37. Conditions between the US and Venzuela have been ugly since before Nixon's visit in 1958

when he caused a riot by showing his slimy face in their country.










It's always a shock learning there are U.S. Americans who actually don't know about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #37)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:25 AM

39. That wasn't my question. The question is breaking off all diplomatic

relations with the US. If he expels all US diplomatic personnel, that means the US shuts down the Venezuelan embassy and consulates. Only their UN delegation would remain in the US.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 05:30 PM

18. just a bunch of BS to coincide with Chavez's death

the VP said Chavez was inoculated with cancer by "enemies"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bacchus4.0 (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:46 AM

27. The word you're looking for is "infected", not "inoculated".

"Inoculated" means you're injected with something to protect yourself AGAINST something else. And knowing the CIA, you can't be sure it's not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:30 AM

33. Maduro: "Investigaremos si le fue inoculada la enfermedad a Hugo Chávez"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #27)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:42 AM

35. You can't infect someone with cancer. It's not a virus or a bacteria.

It's a person's own cells doing the damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #35)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:24 AM

38. Really? How do they get labratory animals to suffer from cancer?

Do you ever take the time to think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #38)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:28 AM

41. They test animals with carcinogens. They don't have a magic cancer

drug they inject into them.

Sorry, but it is paranoid lunacy to claim that Chavez's cancer is a US/Zionist/Freemason/Lizard people plot. Period.

If you want to write science fiction, go ahead. But in the realm of political discoures, it's plain old crazy talk akin to "no plane hit the Pentagon" and "Obama was born in Kenya."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #41)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:35 AM

42. 83 Died in U.S.-Guatemala Syphilis Experiments:

83 Died in U.S.-Guatemala Syphilis Experiments: “We’re talking about intentional deception.”
By: Jeff Kaye Monday August 29, 2011 7:41 pm

It made headlines when historian Susan M. Reverby of Wellesley College discovered a decades-old program run from by the U.S. Public Health Service’s studies in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948. That’s because the researchers deliberately inoculated subjects with syphilis in order to study sexually transmitted disease, and they did so without informed consent for the procedure.

Subjects were “not told what the purpose of the research was nor were they warned of its potentially fatal consequences.” Furthermore, “U.S. government researchers must have known they were contravening ethical standards by deliberately infecting mental patients with syphilis.”

The researchers, led by U.S. doctor John Cutler, who had also been involved in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments on African-American men that ran from 1932 to 1972, utilized mental patients, prostitutes, prisoners and soldiers as their guinea pigs. Today, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues issued their findings of a study undertaken in the aftermath of the scandal.

According to news reports, at least 83 Guatemalans died after being infected with both spyhilis and gonorrhea. Over 1,300 were exposed to the venereal diseases.

More:
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/08/29/83-died-in-u-s-guatemala-syphilis-experiments-we%E2%80%99re-talking-about-intentional-deception/

That's when they were still in the "learning" mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #42)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:41 AM

43. You apparently don't understand the difference between pathogenic disease

and cancer.

People have been injecting each other with pathogens for centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biological_warfare


I guess some on the left are anti-science when it suits their ideology.


http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2011/12/hugo_chavez_suggested_the_united_states_gave_him_cancer_is_that_even_possible_.html

Can you give someone cancer?

Not reliably. Injecting cancerous cells into a person isn’t enough to give him the disease—the abnormal tissue has to penetrate and grow in other areas of the body. If you injected someone with live cancer cells, his immune system would almost certainly attack and destroy the foreign tissue. In theory, secret agents might be able to induce cancer in a leftist South American president with a severely weakened immune system. Or perhaps they could harvest tissue from him, expose it to a carcinogen, and then reintroduce it into his body. As far as the Explainer knows, however, these techniques have never successfully caused cancer in a human.

While it’s tough to induce cancer in an enemy, it’s certainly possible to increase his chances of developing the disease. The most effective option would be radiation. Oncologists implant radiation-emitting devices the size of a seed into some patients to combat existing cancers. It’s hard to say just how much the device would increase a healthy individual’s risk of cancer, but leaving a high-intensity model inside the body for weeks or months would result in a significant dose of radiation. The victim would likely notice the implant, though. They’re too big for an ordinary needle, and need to be inserted through a catheter.

Advertisement
You could, alternatively, contaminate the victim’s diet with high levels of aflatoxin, which is associated with liver cancer. Or you could infect him with any of a number of cancer-causing biological agents. Helicobacter pylori contributes to the development of gastric cancer, and human papillomaviruses can cause cervical, anal, and a few other forms of cancer. But these tactics probably wouldn’t produce cancer in the short term and aren't guaranteed to have any effect at all. In countries with high aflatoxin exposure, like China and parts of Africa, fewer than 1 in 1,000 people develop liver cancer.

Most of the research on infusing cancer into humans is decades old. In the 1950s, Dr. Chester Southam gained notoriety by injecting hundreds of cancer patients and healthy prison inmates with live cancer cells. Southam wasn’t trying to give his subjects cancer. Rather, he was testing the efficiency with which the patients’ immune systems would reject the cells. He was so confident that the patients would fight off the invaders that he thought it unnecessary to tell them what he was doing. None of Southam’s patients seem to have developed metastatic cancer from his injections, and most modern oncologists believe the experiment posed little risk to the subjects. (One of the patients showed signs of a potentially spreading disease before dying of a separate illness.) Southam was sanctioned for fraudulent practices, however, and the case helped establish modern informed consent standards.


But, don't expect the rational folks to respect your crazy talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #43)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:44 AM

44. The US doesn't "do" assassination? Is that right? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Reply #44)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:48 AM

45. No, it's that it's medically not possible to give someone cancer.

Unless you expose them to massive doses of carcinogens or radiation over an extended period of time.

There are thousands of ways to poison someone or give them a disease to make it look like they've died of natural causes.

Cancer is not one of those ways.

That is not how the disease works. Cancer is the body's own tissues going crazy against itself. It's genetic, with possible influences from environmental factors.

There is no "give him cancer" drug.

If you inject someone with cancer cells, the body's immune system will attack them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #45)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:56 PM

48. Cancer can be caused by exposure to toxins.

There have been a number of links made between cancer and exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #48)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 07:03 PM

49. Less than 10% of lifetime cigarette smokers get lung cancer.

So, yes, there is a causal link between chemicals and cancer rates, but no it's not conceivable that they managed to inject him (he did have security) with a chemical so toxic it was guaranteed to give him cancer without him becoming violently and immediately ill in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 05:51 PM

20. Embassies have always been used as spying bases so I'm not surprised

if the claim is proven true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Tue Mar 5, 2013, 09:31 PM

21. Wait until Kerry hears about this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:45 AM

26. Our country would do the same to a foreign military attache who pulled that shit.

Can you blame them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 06:52 AM

30. OK, im going to be honest.

I LOVED Chavez. I think he was an honest, good hearted man. He told Bush off, he was the only country leader to have the spine to stand up for what's right.

I'm so sorry he passed. I hope he has found peace. I will light up a candle for you , Mr Chavez. You have tried your best. Too bad greed and warmongering are winning ad infinitum. You were one of the special people , who cared for the needy , no matter where on earth they were located. I loved you and I'm shedding tears for you :'(

RIP to a great man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 10:23 AM

32. Circling the wagons. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread