The other day when I opened my regular news webpage I read a few funny lines, and here are the 3 to keep in mind;
– “USA might be responsible for cancers affecting Latin American leaders”
– “Would it be strange if they had developed the technology to induce cancer?”
– “difficult to explain using the law of probabilities”
All these sentences were made by Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, a beautiful and capable country, north of Brazil in South America.
Hugo Chavez did say he was thinking out loud and not accusing per say, subsequently I have to give him that freedom, so go ahead and think aloud Mr Chavez. But does Mr Chavez understand the implication of the words and sentences he uses and says? Why would a president make a remark of such size with no pedestal?
How can a president, a leader with no military investigation or backup, no proof whatsoever, talk about the possibility that another country may be giving cancer to leftist leaders? These are pure child level play, and no one questions? He is not retired, not part of a book he is writing, not making a comment after a factual case, he’s just thinking aloud at an international level, that’s all, without even thinking of the repercussions?
When Chavez says the USA can potentially build or use such technology, did he ever think the USA could have built easier killing devices or use better astute? Why cancer? Why not invent something that is sure to kill? Cancer nowadays can be defeated on a regular basis, all depending on the cancer type, but since not all were affected by the same cancer, making these types of killing astute even less likely as we have now at least 2 types of research to complete, as each cancer acts and defends itself differently. But at the end, one should also ask; why would the USA spend time, effort and money into a method that is so unreliable? Probability wise, sending someone physically would have a greater chance of murdering one of these leaders.
And since we are talking of leaders, what kind of leader is Chavez? By stating this untactful and illusory statement, he creates a feeling of mistrust within is own circle, did he ever think about this one? The possibility that someone very close to these leaders is doing actions of installing or triggering cancer is in mind. Because how can you explain all leaders having cancers and no one else around them being affected, this means pin point targeting, thus inside job theory becomes plausible to a greater extent.
Nevertheless, how can the USA or any other nation out there achieve multiple infiltrations at this HIGH LEVEL at the “same time period”, while administrating something having little to no chance of succeeding, again, the question remains; why do all that research and preparation, with the amazing luck in achieving total infiltration synchronisation, to perform a “perhaps” kill?
But is this the only question we should ask ourselves to escape foolishness? Not yet, my true question would be this; Why South American leaders? As far as I am concerned and with all my thoughts and military assessments, including plot theories with other far nations, I just cannot see the priority, it’s that simple. Because priority is directed by concerns, while we do have to be careful how some of these leaders are and act, especially Chavez, at the end they pose no true immediate concerns to the point of killing an entire leftist clan, especially not with present leaders, with their will and capabilities, including Chavez, which he can be quite rational, believe it or not. But I also think the pentagon is doing well concerning South America, which is none lethal pressure, I just cannot see otherwise.
When does the USA kill foreign state leaders? When was the last time you heard of a slaughtered, poisoned or dead from cancer leaders? I think some of these latest revolutions around the world produced such metaphor, don’t you think? Dead leaders, be it by cancer or mysterious deaths do not come often in the news, do they? And if we take Chavez’s sentence; “difficult to explain using the law of probabilities”, then we can say the same about the possible probabilities of such coincidence, as it is possible due to the improbability of probabilities itself. Discrediting the very fact it is possible, shows that one does not understand the “laws of probabilities” to start with. For me, it is the same as saying it is too complicated to be the work of a blind man, non sense.
And above all, let’s not forget all of those who did not get cancer and are leftists in power and friends of Chavez, what about them? And to not be confused with old age cancer possibilities, lifestyle is also to be considered, remember being a politician is not necessarily good for ones health, as we know cancer do have tendencies to affect nutrient defective bodies, not a rule but some type do get triggered by low “substance-X” or even the opposite, being triggered by “higher” substance-X, anyway this can get quite complicated and not for this topic.
Ultimately, Chavez’s theory could easily be shut down by saying; show me proof, show me the dead bodies and show me the dead body of Castro and other higher priority leaders that are still alive!
(To take note, the Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner did not have cancer after all; news agencies reported today, January 7 2012)