Saltar para: Posts , Pesquisa e Arquivos 
Cancer the secret weapon?
US Senators Frank Church and John Tower examine
a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) poison dart gun that
causes cancer and heart attacks, during the US Senate Select
Committee’s investigation into the assassination plots
on foreign leaders in 1975.
The heart of the matter
Published: Monday, February 27, 2012
Charles Kong Soo
It was a case destined for the X-Files and conspiracy theorists alike, when Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez speculated that the US might have developed a way to weaponise cancer, after several Latin American leaders were diagnosed with the disease. 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), Chavez (undisclosed), former Cuban president Fidel Castro (stomach cancer) Bolivian president, Evo Morales (nasal cancer) and Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo (lymphoma cancer). What do they have in common besides cancer? All of them are left-wing leaders. Coincidence? In his December 28, 2011 end-of-year address to the Venezuelan military, Chavez hinted that the US might have found a way to give Latin American leaders cancer.
"Would it be so strange that they’ve invented the technology to spread cancer and we won’t know about it for 50 years?" Chavez asked. "It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some leaders in Latin America. It’s at the very least strange," he said. Chavez said he received warning from Cuba’s former leader Fidel Castro, who has survived hundreds of unsuccessful assassination attempts. "Fidel always told me, 'Chavez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat ... a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what'," he said.
Sounds far-fetched? WikiLeaks reported that in 2008 the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asked its embassy in Paraguay to collect all biometric data, including the DNA of all four presidential candidates. Right here in the Caribbean conspiracy theorists believe that the CIA also had a hand in the deaths of T&T’s own civil rights activist and Pan-Africanist Kwame Ture, Jamaica’s legendary reggae icon Bob Marley and Dominican Prime Minister Rosie Douglas. During the United States Senate Select Committee’s investigation into CIA’s assassination plots on foreign leaders in 1975 it was revealed that the agency had developed a poison dart gun that caused heart attacks and cancer. The gun fired a frozen liquid poison-tipped dart, the width of a human hair and a quarter of an inch long, that could penetrate clothing, was almost undetectable and left no trace in a victim’s body.
Kwame Ture or Stokely Carmichael, the radical former Black Panther leader who inaugurated the Black Power Movement of the 1960s went to his death claiming that the CIA had poisoned him with cancer. Ture died of prostate cancer at the age of 57 in 1998. His friend, multi-media artist and activist Wayne "Rafiki" Morris, said Ture said "without equivocation" that the CIA gave him cancer. "I knew Kwame from 1976 and for all the time I knew him he never drank or smoked cigarettes," Morris said. "He was a very good swimmer and exercised regularly, he didn’t have any medical condition and was very conscious of his health."
If the shoe fit...
Bob Marley died of melanoma cancer in 1981. He was 36-years-old. The official report is he contracted cancer after injuring his toe which never healed while playing football in 1977. The conspiracy theorists allege that Marley was given a pair of boots with a piece of copper wire inside that was coated with a carcinogenic substance that pricked his big toe by Carl Colby, son of the late CIA director William Colby. There is an eerie similarity between Marley and Castro involving poisoned shoes. Cuban ambassador to T&T, Humberto Rivero said the CIA and Cuban exiles tried more than 600 attempts to kill Castro from exploding cigars, injecting him with cancer, to a wet suit lined with poison. In the case of Marley the CIA allegedly used cancer in his shoes, for Castro they placed the highly toxic poison thallium salts in his shoes. After only eight months being elected as Prime Minister of Dominica, radical politician Rosie Douglas was found dead on the floor of his residence in 2000.
The cause of death was listed as a result of a massive heart attack. His heart was twice its normal size. Just like Ture and Marley, he exercised regularly. Douglas’ eldest son, Cabral insisted that his father had been murdered and also hinted at the involvement of the CIA. Moshood Abiola, the man widely believed to have won the 1993 elections in Nigeria, was reported to have died of a heart attack after he was given a cocktail which expanded his heart to twice its size in 1998. Jack Ruby, the assassin who killed US president John Kennedy’s alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, died from lung cancer in 1967. What was strange was the cancer cells were not the type that originate in the respiratory system. He told his family that he was injected with cancer cells in prison when he was treated with shots for a cold. He died just before he was to testify before Congress.
Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, developed terminal cancer. The leader of Canada’s left-leaning Opposition party, the New Democratic Party (NDP), Jack Layton died of an undisclosed form of cancer in 2011. It will appear that having leftist tendencies are hazardous to a person’s health. From 1953 the Russians were using microwaves to attack the US embassy staff in Moscow, Russia. One third of the staff eventually died of cancer from this microwave irradiation. Imagine how advanced and sophisticated assassination technology has become today.
(Para quem tiver seguido este blogue desde o início, o que digo não deverá ser nenhuma novidade. Mas visto terem, entretanto, surgido mais alguns seguidores e porque, de qualquer modo, não quero deixar de mencionar aqui esta hipótese, nesta altura já óbvia para muita gente, aqui vai então este aviso...)
Se um qualquer "ataque" por parte do Irão aos EUA, que ocorra nesta altura certa, que mais convém ao Ocidente, for anunciado pelos média controlados - que, convenientemente, não irão mencionar todo o historial de "ataques de bandeira falsa" feitos pelo governo estadunidense, com o objectivo de providenciar um pretexto para iniciar guerras no passado - podem ter a certeza de que foram os próprios EUA ou Israel quem orquestrou tal ataque.
Os iranianos não são estúpidos e têm feito tudo para evitar este conflito. Não têm nada a ganhar em provocar o Ocidente, que os esmagará numa possível guerra.
O Ocidente, por seu lado, tem grandes interesses em que tal ataque, supostamente iraniano, ocorra, para, desta maneira, camuflar os seus ataques, e possível invasão, como sendo meras respostas e um exercício de autodefesa.
Ao que parece, o início de uma possível guerra poderá estar planeado só para daqui a uns meses, quando o Ocidente esteja preparado para o bloqueio do Estreito de Ormuz. (Será que até que se estabeleça efectiva e temporariamente o oleoduto de Abu Dhabi-Fujairah como um ponto de trânsito, que permitirá evitar que o petróleo oriundo do Golfo Pérsico passe por este estreito?) Mas ainda que sejam tomadas certas medidas e que não haja guerra, mas apenas sanções e consequente bloqueio do estreito, é de esperar que o preço do petróleo suba consideravelmente...
Entretanto, os EUA continuam a colocar tropas perto da fronteira iraniana e a tomar outras medidas de preparação para uma possível guerra.
Quem quiser ir estando a par dos últimos acontecimentos, pode ir consultando os sítios na Internet de Alex Jones, o sítio do Centro de Pesquisa sobre Globalização, o sítio da Press TV iraniana e o sítio da RT, que deverão contextualizar devidamente o que for acontecendo.
Ex-Israeli Intelligence Officer: “Pearl Harbor” Style Attack Will Be Pretext For War On Iran
Jerusalem Post article implies US will stage provocation to justify military assault
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, January 13, 2012
Former Israeli intelligence officer Avi Perry writes that a “surprise” Pearl Harbor-style Iranian attack on an American warship in the Persian Gulf will provide the pretext for the US to launch all-out warfare against Iran.
Given the fact that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s office openly considered staging a false flag attack on a US vessel in the Persian Gulf to blame it on Iran as a pretext for war, Perry’s summation of how “2012 will see to a new war,” cannot be taken lightly.
Under the headline ‘The looming war with Iran’, Perry writes:
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.
Perry’s use of quotation marks around the word “surprise” comes across as a literary device to imply that the so-called “surprise” attack will not be a surprise at all.
Of course, the Pearl Harbor attack, which provided the pretext for America’s formal entry into World War Two, was not a “surprise” by any means, it was known well ahead of time.
Released Freedom of Information Act files prove that weeks before the December 7 attack by the Japanese, the United States Navy had intercepted eighty-three messages from Admiral Yamamoto which gave them details of precisely when and where the attack would take place.
It’s also completely nonsensical that Iran would actively seek to provide the world’s pre-eminent nuclear superpower with an easy excuse to justify an attack by deliberately targeting US warships in the Persian Gulf. Perry’s article seems to be a tongue-in-cheek admission that the US or Israel will manufacture such an attack.
This presumption need not delve into the murky realm of conspiracy theories – history tells us that fake naval attacks have been staged on numerous occasions to hoodwink the American people into supporting wars of aggression.
Remember the Maine? The battleship USS Maine blew up while it was stationed in Havana harbor in February 1898. Although a Navy investigation could not find the cause of the explosion, the American media, led by pioneer of “yellow journalism” William Randolph Hearst, immediately blamed Spanish saboteurs, whipping the public into a war fever.
When Hearst sent his reporter Frederick Remington to investigate, little of note could be established about the disaster. When Remington asked to be recalled, Hearst told him, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.”
“Hundreds of editorials demanded that the Maine and American honor be avenged. Many Americans agreed. Soon a rallying cry could be heard everywhere — in the papers, on the streets, and in the halls of Congress: “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.”
As a result of an incident that many consider to either be an accident or a deliberate false flag attack by the US on its own ship, the US was at war with Spain within months.
Over 60 years later, another staged naval event, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, was used as a pretext for the United States to launch the Vietnam war.
President Johnson told the American public that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf. Leaked cables and recordings of White House telephone conversations later proved that the incident was completely manufactured, and that “our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there,” according to Navy squadron commander James Stockdale, who was flying over the scene that night.
There was almost a 21st century version mirror of the Gulf of Tonkin incident in January 2008, when the US government announced that it had been “moments” away from opening fire on a group of Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz after the boats allegedly broadcast a warning that they were about to attack a US vessel.
The Iranian warning later turned out to be of dubious origin, but the incident led to a discussion in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office about how to start a war with Iran by launching a false flag attack at sea, according to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh.
The January 2008 Strait of Hormuz incident taught Cheney and other administration insiders that, “If you get the right incident, the American public will support it”. Hersh said: “There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build, we in ‘our shipyard’, – build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives”.
Given the dangerous nature of overlapping Iranian and US/Israeli naval drills set to take place in the same region at some point within the next two weeks, the potential for another staged incident at sea that will be exploited as a pretext for war remains a potent threat.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for PrisonPlanet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
(Bem a propósito do que dizia sobre recolocar ou não aqui informação publicada nos sítios aos quais recomendo uma consulta regular, aqui vai a primeira excepção à regra...)
Mais uma previsão que fiz no passado, que acaba de se concretizar.
Há anos questionava, a propósito de um alerta que tinha sido emitido e que se traduzia numa autêntica declaração de guerra, por parte do governo norte-americano, ao fenómeno do activismo em si - numa colocação que, aliás, mereceu destaque na página principal de uma rede internacional de sítios de notícias para activistas - quanto tempo faltaria até que, de serem equiparados e colocados no mesmo saco que a al-Qaeda, os activistas norte-americanos (ambientalistas, de esquerda, que fazem campanha pelo perdão das dívidas dos países de Terceiro Mundo etc.) fossem considerados eles próprios terroristas.
Questionava também, dado o evoluir das coisas na Europa - com um partido político a ser ilegalizado no nosso Estado vizinho e com grupos de apoio a detidos, nesse mesmo território, a serem incluídos na lista de organizações terroristas da UE - quanto tempo faltaria até que todos os activistas mais incómodos fossem considerados terroristas. Assim como, avisava que a óbvia estratégia, por parte do poder estabelecido, era "a da extensão do conceito de terrorismo à própria dissidência política".
De tão ridícula que era a declaração em causa do governo norte-americano, gozava até com a situação, num comentário em que fingia citar um telefonema de alguém para o FBI a denunciar o vizinho por ser anarquista e por ter falado em ir à próxima grande manifestação que iria haver em Washington, DC...
Mal sabia eu que iria ser esse mesmo tipo de denúncia o que iria ser literalmente incentivado no futuro...
Chegou o inacreditável, o absurdo e o surreal.
Chegou há anos a Portugal, relativamente a certas acções de certos grupos - como foi o caso da acção directa, que houve em Silves, contra os transgénicos - e chega agora ao Reino Unido, relativamente às ideologias de certos grupos.
Qualquer anarquista, pelo simples facto de o ser, é agora considerado como possível terrorista no grande Estado do Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda do Norte.
Se isto não chega para vos abrir os olhos, então não sei o que o fará.
Acordem para o mundo real em que vivemos. Por vontade de quem nos controla a todos, os mais fundamentais direitos e liberdades, que até agora vocês tomavam como garantidos, no futuro, não irão simplesmente existir.
Briefing conflates dissent against the state with Al-Qaeda
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, August 1, 2011
The London Metropolitan Police is encouraging businesses and the general public to immediately report anyone who holds anti-government political beliefs to the authorities as terrorists, calling on people to become volunteer informants as the state prepares for widespread social unrest.
“This was the surprising injunction from the Metropolitan Police issued to businesses and members of the public in Westminster last week,” reports the London Guardian. “There was no warning about other political groups, but next to an image of the anarchist emblem, the City of Westminster police’s “counter terrorist focus desk” called for anti-anarchist whistleblowers stating: “Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police.””
In also calling on people to report Al-Qaeda paraphernalia to police, the briefing conflates “anarchists” with terrorists.
“It unfairly implies that anyone involved in anarchism should be known to the police and is involved in an dangerous activity,” said Jason Sands, an anarchist from South London. “There is nothing inherently criminal about political philosophy whatever it is. The police work under the convention on human rights which disallows discrimination against people because of their political beliefs and even the request for information would seem to be in breach of that.”
Of course, the “anarchist” label could apply to a whole range of political beliefs, but the fact that the state is now openly criminalizing anti-government sentiment and encouraging people to report on their neighbors for expressing dissent or displaying any sign of their political philosophy is a clear indication of how paranoid the British government has become of its own citizens.
As anarchist Sean Smith told the Guardian, “It’s pretty absurd, but not surprising, when the state seeks to criminalise ideas it deems to be dangerous to its own survival.”
Indeed, if you want an insight into where the British government thinks this is all heading, look no further than a 2007 Ministry of Defence report which foresaw “the middle classes becoming revolutionary” and “taking on the role of Marx’s proletariat” within three decades.
“The world’s middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest,” warns the report, predicting mass unrest and social dislocation.
This is why the authorities are already putting the squeeze on any kind of political beliefs that could be construed as anti-government. They are aware of the fact that the increasingly dangerous, unjust and economically deprived post-industrial revolution now being used to eviscerate the middle class in the west will provoke a hostile and radical reaction.
Encouraging people to report on each other for political beliefs deemed undesirable by the state is precisely what happened in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
One common misconception about Nazi Germany was that the police state was solely a creation of the authorities and that the citizens were merely victims. On the contrary, Gestapo files show that 80% of all Gestapo investigations were started in response to information provided by denunciations by “ordinary” Germans.
“There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors,” wrote Robert Gellately of Florida State University.
Gellately discovered that the people who informed on their neighbors were motivated primarily by banal factors – “greed, jealousy, and petty differences,” and not by a genuine concern about crime or insecurity.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for PrisonPlanet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
Com esta última evolução, são já duas as organizações consideradas como possivelmente terroristas (e suponho que o termo "possivelmente" também já não dure muito tempo) a que já pertenceu o autor deste blogue. Sendo uma delas a anarco-sindicalista Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores, que é mencionada no artigo do The Guardian e que tem a ousadia de reivindicar melhores condições de trabalho e mais direitos para quem é trabalhador por conta de outrem, e a outra um mais informal e independente grupo Food Not Bombs, que pratica o imensamente terrorista acto de oferecer comida vegetariana a pessoas sem abrigo e em dificuldades (e, ocasionalmente, também a pessoas que participam em manifestações).
Bom trabalho, polícia e restantes agências de vigilância do Estado. Isto é que é verdadeiro serviço público e dinheiro dos contribuintes bem gasto. Toca a vigiar e a prender essa cambada de terroristas e a obedecer cegamente à vossa hierarquia ou a conscientemente fazer o que vocês sabem ser completamente errado. Pois o vosso governo, como sempre e melhor que ninguém, zela pelos nossos interesses e sabe bem o que está certo e o que é melhor para todos.