Noriega = Hussein = Bin Laden?

What do Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden all have in common?

They all used to work with, or even for the United States.

And for some reason, they all had a falling out with U.S. (o)operatives.

Is there a pattern here?

Let's see.

Manuel Noriega:

The official story is that Manuel Noriega was some kind of narco-terrorist, or at least a brutally corrupt Central American strong man; guilty of taking bribes from narco-trafficers. Like that's a rarity in Central America. (Remember the Contras - the illegally U.S. backed Honduran forces that make Noriega look like a Boy Scout?) If this were actually an effort to clean up Central American politics, it was the lamest effort I've ever seen. No, somehow Manuel Noriega wasn't doing what he was told.

(I've also heard that Manuel Noriega was ousted because he had turned over U.S. secrets to the Soviet Union... But of course, the Soviet Union had collapsed years before. So, why bother?)

“According to Larry Burns, director of the Washington based Council on Hemispheric Affairs,... Noriega told Burns … he had had a spat with Vice President Dan Quayle when he refused to commit Panama to a more confrontational role in fighting against Washington's Central American Enemies.”

(Translation: Noriega wasn't being violent enough.)

Could it be that Manuel Noriega, who was apparently placed into power by U.S. (o)operatives to violently keep control of the Panama Canal, was removed by U.S. forces for not being oppressive enough?

Saddam Hussein:

The official story is that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator/terrorist supporter who had weapons of mass destruction, and he might someday carry out a nuclear attack on America. Well... first, and almost never mentioned; is that America has had thousands of weapons of mass destruction. And if we ever really wanted to, we could wipe Iraq clear off the map – literally. It would be silly stupid to attack the U.S. with one nuclear weapon. Second, those weapons of mass destruction likely came from the U.S. – when Saddam Hussein was our “friend” (before Kuwait).

Of course, there was that oil thing. Iraq had it. The rest of the world wanted it. America took it... at least for a while. But I have heard that Saddam Hussein, at the last minute before the second invasion of Iraq, was willing to deal on the oil fields. He may have even been willing to go into exile. Which begs the question, why bother invading Iraq when we already could get most everything we wanted?

Which leaves only one thing left to suspect. The Iraqis had done something so heinously offending to the U.S. that total control of the country was deemed necessary. What could that possibly be? Was it that Iraq was rebuilding its military arsenal? United Nations inspectors didn't believe so – and they turned out to be right. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

So think about it. What was the one thing that Iraq could do that would get the powerful in America so up in arms? Which begs the question; who are the most powerful people in America? The people? Not a chance. (At least not yet.)

Who really runs America? That's easy. Who gets the most benefits? We found out in 2008, when America's biggest banks were bailed out for gambling with our money – all along knowing that eventually the American people would lose – and have to pay for it - and the bankers bonuses. The big banks are the biggest of America's oligarchs. And any threat to them would be a threat treated with the highest priority.

Senator Ron Paul said; “In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar...”

Apparently, some very powerful bankers in the U.S. wanted to be very sure that no other Iraqi ever has Saddam Hussein's arrogance.

Osama Bin Laden:

So, here's a wealthy pious Saudi who helps the Afghan Mujahiddin defeat the Soviet Army (with hi-tech American weapons). For a while, this guy was our man. You may have even cheered him on (if only as a member of the Afghan resistance).

But this was not our man. He was his own man. And sooner or later there would be differences.

Did Osama Bin Laden support terrorists? America didn't seem to think so back when he was supporting the Afghan Mujahiddin. It was only later that the American mass media fell in line with the revised (terrorist) perception of Osama Bin Laden. Let's face it, Osama Bin Laden hadn't changed, he had just beaten his primary enemies and was now working on his secondary enemies... I'm not reading a madman here. I sense a man with convictions who never trusted (or was to be trusted by) the U.S. – even when we were his allies.

So, did Osama Bin Laden support violent terrorist attacks against unarmed Americans? That's what we've been told. And it may very well be true. I doubt he held the U.S. in much higher esteem than the U.S.S.R. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if he were to support an Afghan style resistance to what he saw as American imperialism – just as he had with the U.S.S.R. But there hasn't been any resistance of that type happening since Afghanistan. Sure, there have been some terrorist attacks – but nothing like an armed Afghan resistance. Yet. That's right. The key word is “yet.” As long as Osama Bin Laden lived, there still survived the threat of another Afghan like resistance somewhere. Where? Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi. It only makes sense to look there first.

Osama Bin Laden was adamantly against U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Could he have drummed up an Afghan style resistance in Saudi Arabia? Well... Americans did pull their troops out of Saudi Arabia.

This wasn't just a coincidence. Osama Bin Laden spoke out against military bases in Saudi Arabia, and American troops moved out. Osama Bin Laden got real, significant results standing up to the United States of America.

That must have been a wake up call. When was the last time the American military/industrial complex closed up shop in a country – just because somebody spoke out against it? …Yes. There were the 9/11 attacks. And most of the reported attackers were Saudi. If the official 9/11 stories are true, Bush Jr.'s pulling out of Saudi Arabia was much like Reagan's pulling out of Lebanon after the “terrorist” attacks on U.S. barracks (troops). However, if the official 9/11 stories are not true, just the threat of another Lebanon type of attack was enough to pull out of Saudi.

To some, it must have been a sign that we are weak – or at least that America's power has realizable limits.

Some very influential Americans must certainly have felt that this weaker image of America was inexcusable – and that Osama Bin Laden had to be dealt with... brutally. So; why not hunt him down as a terrorist mastermind? He could have been. But I don't think we understand the man's stature. All he had to do was wish for it. All he had to do was preach to the willing. That kind of influence makes one surprisingly powerful – and not very accountable. The only realistic option to crush this man may have been to pin a false accusation on him.

Was Osama Bin Laden the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks? I doubt it. How could Bin Laden have gotten U.S. air defenses to be too busy with “exercises” to intercept four planes? How could Bin Laden have gotten both the Pentagon and the flight 93 crash debris (and bodies) to just vaporize? How could Bin Laden get those lame pilots to fly so good? And how could Bin Laden get those Federal investigations into those suspicious student pilots derailed? That would have taken one hell of a terrorist mastermind – or at least one very powerful insider.

Which brings me to my point:

The histories of Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden appear to form a loose pattern.

Though the stories of these three men are far different, there is a common thread; U.S. money, U.S. weapons, U.S. oligarch interests, and cover stories that just don't add up.

Were these three people framed? To some point, I would have to say yes, absolutely. But then again, that's just what American mass media does – frame the story. We're the good guys... they're the bad guys – always.

I don't want to sound like Noriega, Hussein, and Bin Laden were innocent victims.

At the very least, Manuel Noriega was totally corrupt – not someone I would ever want for a “leader.” And if you looked up “evil dictator” on Wikipedia, you would probably find a picture of Saddam Hussein (and no, I haven't looked.) But Osama Bin Laden was different. I don't think he was corrupt. And Osama Bin Laden was popular. He had a following - who showed him respect.

Osama Bin Laden may have had a conscience – a sense of right and wrong, however twisted we see it... Was he crazy? Only as crazy as any man's culture can make him. His perspective was different than ours. Natives of any conquered nation will understand. Might does not necessarily make right. In fact, it pretty much guarantees wrongs. But don't expect to read about it in the papers. Might decides who's “wrong.” And any resistance will brand you a “savage,” a “subversive,” or a “terrorist.”

If world politics teaches us anything, it is that right and wrong are not that simple.

But then the question begs; who's mind is twisted? His or yours? Or both? The twisters don't want you to ask that question of yourself. You might grow.

And you might ask some tough questions.

...Are these three just people who didn't fit into our New World Order?

Was Manuel Noriega just unwilling to order acts of violence (war) against the emerging pro-democracy movements in South America?


Was Saddam Hussein just unwilling to continue to allow big U.S. banks to skim Iraqi oil profits?

Was Osama Bin Laden just unwilling to allow U.S. military dominance in Saudi Arabia?

If so:

Is this the real America – constantly scheming for world dominance with no real sense of principle?

Was the “freedom” we constantly heard about in the War on Terror actually the freedom to oppress?

Just what are patriotic Americans fighting and dying for over there in Far-off-istan?

And most importantly; why don't the people get to decide what the New World Order should be?