The mainstream media for the most part has moved on. But there are a few more gleanings to be had, of perhaps the most interesting comes from the Daily Mirror, which labels al-Hilli an extremist on the grounds that he was against the war in Iraq, disapproved of the behaviour of Israel and had doubts over 9/11 – which makes a great deal of the population “extremist”. But the Mirror has the only mainstream mention I can find of the possibility that Mossad carried out the killings. Given Mr al-Hilli’s profession, the fact he is a Shia, the fact he had visited Iran, and the fact that Israel heas been assassinating scientists connected to Iran’s nuclear programme, this has to be a possibility. There are of course other possibilities, but to ignore that one is ludicrous.
Which leads me to the argument of Daily Mail crime reporter, Stephen Wright, that the French police should concentrate on the idea that this was a killing by a random Alpine madman or racist bigot. Perfectly possible, of course, and the anti-Muslim killings in Marseille might be as much a precedent as Mossad killings of scientists. But why the lone madman idea should be the preferred investigation, Mr Wright does not explain. What I did find interesting from a man who has visited many crime scenes are his repeated insinuations that the French authorities are not really trying very hard to find who the killers were, for example:
the crime scene would have been sealed off for a minimum of seven to ten days, to allow detailed forensic searches for DNA, fibres, tyre marks and shoe prints to take place.
Nearby bushes and vegetation would have been searched for any discarded food and cigarette butts left by the killer, not to mention the murder weapon.
But from what I saw at the end of last week, no such searches had taken place and potentially vital evidence could have been missed. House to house inquiries in the local area had yet to be completed and police had not made specific public appeals for information about the crime. No reward had been put up for information about the shootings.
Behind the scenes, what other short cuts have been taken? Have police seized data identifying all mobile phones being used in the vicinity of the murders that day?
The idea that the French authorities – who are quite as capable as any other of solving cases – are not really trying very hard is an interesting one.
Which leads me to this part of a remarkable article from the Daily Telegraph, which if true points us back towards a hit squad and discounts the ides that there was only one gun:
Claims that only one gun was used to kill everybody is likely to be disproved by full ballistics test results which are out in October.
While the 25 spent bullet cartridges found at the scene are all of the same kind, they could in fact have come from a number of weapons of the same make.
This throws up the possibility of a well-equipped, highly-trained gang circling the car and then opening fire.
Both children were left alive by the killers, who had clinically pumped bullets into everybody else, including five into Mr Mollier.
Zainab was found staggering around outside the car by Brett Martin, a British former RAF serviceman who cycled by moments after the attack, but he saw nobody except the schoolgirl.
Her sister, Zeena, was found unscathed and hiding in the car eight hours later.
Both sisters are now back in Britain, and are believed to have been reunited at a secret location near London.
There are of course a number of hit squad options, both governmental and private, which might well involve iraqi or Iranian interests – on both of which the mainstream media have been very happy to speculate while almost unanimously ignoring Israel.
But what interests me is why the Daily Telegraph choose, in the face of all the evidence, to minimise the horrific nature of the attack by stating that “Both children were left alive by the killers”? Zainab was not left alive by design, she was shot in the chest and her skull was stove in, which presumably was a pretty serious attempt to kill a seven year-old child. The other girl might very well have succeeded in hiding from the killers under her mother’s skirts, as she hid from the first rescuers, and then for eight hours from the police.
The Telegraph article claims to be informed by sources close to the investigation. So they believe it was a group of people, and feel motivated to absolve those people from child-killing. Now what could the Daily Telegraph be thinking?
Maillaud is apparently programmed to lie in all instances of lip movement. He was quoted last year as saying that “Zeena had been interviewed, but he did not see a need to speak to her again as she did not see anything” I remember him also being quoted that he couldn’t get anything out of Zainab because she didnt speak any French! Presumably had to send to Paris for interpreters, via horse drawn carriage.
from your British Treasury list
Bluebird
10 Aug, 2013 – 6:28 am:
“72. Name 6: AZIZ 1: TARIQ 2: n/a 3: n/a 4: n/a 5: n/a.
DOB: 01/07/1936. POB: Mosul or Baghdad, Iraq a.k.a: AZIZ, Tariq,
Mikhail Nationality: Iraq Passport Details: 34409/129 (July 1997) Other
Information: Deputy Prime Minister Listed on: 02/07/2003 Last Updated:
02/07/2003 Group ID: 7603.” (I always felt rather sorry for him somehow)
It reminds me of the old joke:
“Q. When does Kofi Annan have his coffee?
A. When Tariq Aziz has his.”
But seriously, anything Al Hilli related in this detailed list BB?
Oh, and how many SH children are listed there?
The American wrote, among other things [my emphasis]:
Why not use their border with Iraq? The American says: “What, do they have a border with Iraq. This was not what we learned in my school in Tennesee.”
And why bother getting them “in”, because they have been there since around the middle of the last decenium, when they — ironically — came to Iraq for the first time. Under the strong rule of Saddam they wouldn’t have had a chance.
ATTENTION The above quote was just a cherry pick of his utterings because by principle I never read [any] lenghty utterings on here, in order not to get infected by the primitive prose and/or underlying ideas.
Take your point Felix
10 Aug, 2013 – 6:34 am.
However we should not overlook how the girls were pointedly and immediately chaperoned by the British Government and the French investigators positively excluded for an incredible nine months. In addition, their relations were only allowed access under strict supervision. This went far beyond, indeed contrary to, what might normally be expected for bereaved youngsters.
We do not know how they were “debriefed” afterwards or what instructions they were under or how they were coached when the French eventually got to them. My guess is that they were instructed, in very gentle but insistent manner, to say nothing.
In other words the British have extracted every ounce (or gram) of information for themselves whilst at the same time giving the French nothing.
Apart from the fact that this blatantly contradicts the official position that the there is a joint investigating team and information is shared, I suggest that basically there are only two explanations:
1. Because the British don’t trust the French, indeed believe that they at least facilitated the the murders; or
2. That the British are anxious to hide/protect the information that the girls were able to provide because it implicates the British themselves in the murders or other involvement.
Of course there could be aspects of both. Note the fact that the public statement about what the girls remembered and reported comes from the uninformed French rather than the informed British, presumably to give the impression of transparency when the intention is quite the opposite.
However if we accept the three gobbets of information communicated – “Zeena said nothing new” – which rather begs the question as to what she has already said; and Zainab suffered from an “understandable mental block” other than two facts – she had been told they were “going for a walk” and there was “no one else there when they arrived”.
The former may be true, what else would you tell a restless child on a seemingly endless journey through thick forest? However it was clearly a ruse unless you regard a wander around a layby as a “walk”.
As regard the latter, if we accept it at face value, it virtually rules out the French story of the 3.15 photograph doesn’t it? (I surely don’t need to explain why?)
Perhaps we should not rule out the possibility that whatever the girls revealed to the British has been fully transmitted to the French, who are part of a joint enterprise to conceal this from the public. How likely is that do you think?
I do not “think” anyting, particularly not after being prompted by you. Go away – back to America (if you can get a visa)*. Or fly to cuba, and rent a row boat and apply for aylum in guantanamo.
*) And take your overly PC language with you
Felix
9 Aug, 2013 – 6:44 pm
Quite a lot is revealed by names, as much for the Irish as for the Iraqis. Catholic/Nationalist Irish can often be distinguished from Protestant/ “Loyalist” by both Christian and Surnames. So apparently SAH married “Geraldine O’Reilly” in 1992. O’Reilly is a good Catholic family name however Geraldine is protestant. This is reinforced by her bother’s name “Damien”. From this I might suggest that their mother was English protestant who chose to distance her children from their Irish Catholic partner. Of course I could be completely wrong but more likely right.
Then we have Geraldine’s child’s name “SEAN SONELL” or “Sean Soheil W H Hilli”. The first is more Irish than British perhaps? Soheil or Sonell? BB says the the former is Iranian the latter Indian? We must assume from both second name and surname, the father was Iraqi/Iranian with Geraldine’s Irish/English background represented in the first Christian name.
If as BB suggests, Iraqi tradition was followed by including father and grandfathers names, presumably thats what the W H relate to. In any event as BB points out, there is a strange anomaly here.
Another shot in the dark – surely not Zaid’s uncle Hashim’s child, which Zaid subsequently felt obligated to take on?!!! That re-registered birth in 1984 begs a question. Could it be that the child was born abroad and re-registered on returning?
Just a stab in the dark.
I think your stupid, wrong posts are best IGNORED KS. You are obviously employing troll tactics to make me bite. Why don’t you address whatever intellect you possess to the issue, rather than pathetic personal abuse directed at me?
katie @ 8 Aug, 2013 – 7:00 am
Thanks for that summary – Interesting, I’d perhaps buy your Mr X but the Obama stuff, no. For me that sounds suspiciously like all the other nonsense the US far right spout about Obama.
@Felix – thanks for that Telegraph link.
I guess this bit:
“there was no one else there” when the family arrived at the car park.
adds to what we know.
This bit:
“The oldest girl … but for the moment she is not able to tell us,” he said.
I tend to take with a pinch of salt.
I have been following this thread with a lot of interest and a ton of amusement, and I thought I might offer a different opinion as to the why, and maybe the who.
I believe that you guys were on the right track with the El Hilli connection. My belief is that Saad Al Hilli and his family were a case of mistaken identity and bad communication between who pulled the trigger and who ordered it.
You see, Mr El Hilli as he is known now, he has lots of aliases, has spent the best part of the last 40 years conning people out of their money claiming that he can offer loans to people as he has connections to vast wealth due to him being a broker for a Saudi Sheik.
Now obviously this is all rubbish and he has done a lot of jail time, however he has pissed people off along the way as seen in the latest newspaper article.
Every time he gets caught he assumes a new identity, so El Hilli is just the latest one.
Now consider this, he fled Australia in 08. He was tracked down in Syria, and he fled there to London.
I believe that some one well connected has decided to put a hit out on him as they felt aggrieved by him ripping them off, and they have given a description of El Hilli, and sent them on their merry way.
Both Al Hilli and El Hilli lived in London, they were both Iraqi born pretty much the same age. Now if the person contracted to do the job stalked the wrong person because they got the El and Al mixed up, then they followed Al Hilli and when the time was right executed him and his family.
As El Hilli didn’t have any young children when he fled Australia, they wouldn’t be looking for one when they got to England and it would explain why they didn’t kill Al Hillis child.
This may sound far fetched, however to some one who didn’t know either of them, it would have been an easy mistake to make. As El Hillis story is almost identical to Al Hilli it makes absolute sense to me and would go along way to explain why the person arrested for this has been released on bail with out charge. Also it would explain why after fighting extradition for so long that soon after this murder went down, he returned to Australia.
What do you guys think??
Bleb
10 Aug, 2013 – 10:04 pm
Thanks for your comment. My inclusion of Obama is important. As most here believe the killings were state sponsored it does make a lot of sense when talking of Mr X.
If you think X is involved then it does follow. I’m not American so their politics are not my concern. You have to admit there’s a connection between the two men & most of their joint connections are suspect….one now in jail & denials from O have been many.
Imagine if the loan given to O came from illicit Iraqi funds & Saad had found this information ?
Did you read about X in my link ? Particularly the second reference to X about a third of the way in, I’d paste all that here, but he’s known to have all sites either taken down,sued or scrubbed .
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/le_cercle.htm
It’s important you read the second lengthy reference to him & all the things in which he’s been involved…….at present he’s banned from the states but has a huge riverside development involvement.
By keeping his name clean…IE: no one coming up with proof of his activities in Iraq, he protects Obama, protect O & he gets his visa to re-enter the states to join his Chicago business partner.
‘General Mediterranean is led by Nahdmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire living in London who was a onetime business partner of Rezko, city officials said. Auchi once made a $3.5 million payment to Rezko while Rezko awaited trial on the fraud charges that landed him in prison.
Auchi’s conglomerate in 2005 paid $130 million for the site, although Housing and Economic Development Assistant Commissioner Robert McKenna said an assessment needs to be done before the land’s current value can be determined. General Mediterranean acquired the site from Rezmar Corp., which was owned by Rezko and former partner Daniel Mahru.”
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/category/auchi/
Geez……sorry my avatar is not showing in the comment above, I’ve had such trouble ‘getting in’ here, it’s like fort knox. Captcha told me 9 times my answer was wrong !!!
Take a math lesson, katie 🙂
Btw, I agree with you that Chevaline was a money issue.
In what way there was a money issue and who versus whom i do not know.
The background of course is in Iraq’s history and based in the theft and money laundering of the Saddam family and lateron in the theft and money laundering of the allies.
Either Saad was a whistleblower by information obtained from his brother Zaid “Meyer Lansky”, or else he tried to access money or property that did “belong” to somebody else.
The French still refuse to give back the Iraqi EADS property (worth 200 millions) to the Iraqi people although an UN resolution would require them to do so.
An UNO affiliated Iraqi family (hilli, allaf, saffar) could easily work on behalf of the UNO resolution to bring stolen and formerly frozen accounts and properties back to Iraq.
Of course there are mobsters and organisations who will fight to keep their stolen money and property and to get rid of people who have background knowledge of that money and properties.
Of course we cannot guarantee that allaf, saffar and hilli are the good and the holy people who really work for the fortune of the iraqi people only.
They could easily use their agenda for obtaining the money for personal use or e.g. for their organisations and foundations instead of giving it back to iraq (e.g. for hezbollah and/or for the al khoei foundation).
Then of course the groups who would want to get rid of them would be many more, including those who would hate to see hezbollah being funded with “their” money.
There are a lot of motives but there is a money issue. And mobsters might be involved as much as secret services when this is a story about government money.
Previously i did link all frozen iraqi properties due to UNO resolutions.
There will be the key for the killings.
I still suspect the swiss saddam money laundered for the french metal workers union who did fund the french neonazi organisations with that money as the most likely reason for that murder.
@Case Closer
I disagree with your theory.
I’ll tell you why:
Issam el Hilli looks totally different than Saad.
Issam has white hair while Saad has black.
Issam wears glasses while Saad has none.
Issam lives in Woolwich (Crusader house) while Saad lived in Surrey.
The minimum what you’d give to a killer by contract would be to give him a photo and an address. Both identification items would not make it possible to mix them up.
Therefore I would give your theory a very low probability.
Morning BB.
I was thinking more of money Mr X might personally have ‘acquired ‘. Who was in charge of the Saddam sequestering process ?
Things being as they were, was there any control over the syphoning of Iraqi funds unbeknown to Saddam ?
Why did Mr X leave Iraq when he was supposedly a trusted member of Saddam’s team ?
Where did he get that money for the company he set up months before he left Iraq ?
As he & Kadim were both in Saddam’s party they most certainly knew each other………they left at much the same time, did they have a friendship in the UK ?
There’s much mystery surrounding this man.
@ Case Closer @ BlueBird
The “mistaken identity” theory is most interesting because it would account for several inconsistencies in this case, whether you think of the absence of apparent link between the various victims, the flip-flopping attitude of authorities (French and British also) in the official investigation process or the gag order on pictures of most of the deceased that should have been released otherwise.
Now we must consider the confusion on targets could have involved not the Al-Hilli family, hardly likely to be mixed up with anybody else because of their specifics, but the fourth victim, the cyclist. The Frenchman Mollier and the British Brett Martin, both on their bikes at the same time on the same secluded forest road, probably wearing similar outfits, with helmets and shades, were a lot more matter for confusion.
Let’s try to figure out whether the big picture makes more sense if we look at the killings this way. Do pieces of the puzzle fit better or not? Can we find an easier rationale for all the strange aftermaths of the crimes? And if so, this obviously wouldn’t exclude any plausible motive regarding the other target, especially if we assume one or several state intelligence entities were involved in the latter phase at least. Which isn’t certain but quite possible.
In any case, the extended, relentless effort to obscure this case, be it through confusing media reports or permanent blog trolling, clearly indicate something “went wrong” in the eyes of the persons who commissioned the hit. With four out of four adults down at the crime scene, what else could it be?
Something small that has niggled me for some time about the crime scene: Humour me if you would and take part in a small, unscientific survey.
Imagine yourself going up a narrow forestry road in a touristy kind of way, in a RHD estate car, fairly relaxed though whole family in tow.
You decide to pull into a c. 20 m layby, AND you pretty much decide or know that that is as far as you are going up that hill.
There is nobody else parked in the layby
Imagine Stopping/parking the car, get out stretch your legs.
Where is the car?
Now I know the possibilities and non-possibilities of the how the Al Hilli car could have gotten where it did during his frantic attempt to evade his attackers has been gone over and I concur that his car probably didn’t move that far before he was shot dead but just for kicks, from where your car is imagined, in a mad panic, is it likely you end up perpendicular to the road, about as far downhill as you could be before they shot you?
If not, then that means Al Hilli parked as such when he arrived.
Did anybody imagine themselves parking like that, which would require some multi-point maneuvering?
I certainly, in a 100 times wouldn’t park like that.
So if we accept these assumptions, why would Al Hilli park in such a counter-intuitive position in the layby?
I don’t see a problem with this Intp1
11 Aug, 2013 – 2:23 pm though I agree there’s a hint of caution about his parking position.
I believe in driving up the road he went past his final locat and reversed in close, perhaps ominously close, to the woods. He was obviously forward of his final position because tyre tracks indicate a straight move back, and there just isn’t time for him to drive forward first whilst under attack.
I think his location may have been determined by a couple of considerations. Nearest point of exit; partially hidden; plenty of room for other vehicle(s) which would have to pass first.
It goes without saying that he wouldn’t have been there at all if he hadn’t been persuaded it was a safe and secure meeting place, I assume as advised by British Intelligence. Even if not I think its fairly clear MI5/6 were well and truly “caught on the hop”. Not one of their finest moments. That WBM was spared indicates pretty firmly the operation was focused on the victims, not on British Intelligence “per se”.
I agree, I think it is consistent with caution, fear or desire to be tucked out of sight.
Not so much an innocent, drive without ulterior motivation.
@GrainofSalt
French Metal Workers Union -》 Sylvain Mollier
French Neonazi leader -》 Christian Mollier (previously in jail for 10 years for torture and assassination attempt versus a high ranked Arab politician and his wife, Christian having been just released from jail some years ago)
French metal workers union -》 giving funds to FN (Le Pen) and extremist neonazi parties (MNR)
French metal workers union -》 hides gold and millions of money in Geneva banks according to a French journalist (illegal money and the roots of that money are unknown)
Saddam Hussein -》 Iraqi funds laundered to the French metal workers union for right wing extremists and possibly for terror, too. Money went via Geneve to the french metal workers union.
Why french metal workers union used fot suspected money laundering from Iraq?
Bribery of French politicians, kickbacks, and AREVA (metal workers!) giving Saddam what he otherwise could not achieve to get. E.g. pay Areva 4/5 of their price and pay 1/5 to a Geneva account for the french metal workers union, for kickbacks to Saddams family and for bribery of french politicians. That is the usualy system of money laundering for such payment activities on government projects.
Hajj Sheikh Kadhim Abdul Hussein al Hilli -》 Left Iraq in 1969 with his family.
His brother was jailed and tortured by Saddam.
Saddam forced exiled Iraqis to work for them even when they hated him.
“Work for me or we will kill you and your family”.
This was testified by Iyad Allawi.
Sheikh Kadhim had no other choice than to agree when he wanted to save the life of his brother. Soon his brother was released from jail and he could leave for London.
Of course, the so called Mr.X could have worked for Saddam, too. Usually, when you want to keep secrets secrets and when you want to have people in your mafia gang who hate you, you will soon make them “accomplices of crime”. They cannot leave you without having to fear that the mafia would either kill them or police would arrest them and jail them for a long time.
Your choice stays somewhere between working for the mafia and living a save and wealthy life, or getting killed, tortured by the mafia or else arrested by British police. What’s your choice?
So then, why did a representative of the French metal workers union and the son of a Saddam money launderer meet at this ugly place in the forests of Chevaline soon after the al Hillis returned from a Geneve bank with what? Jewelry or gold to be shared like in pirate movies or documents to be signed for getting access? Perhaps thete was a third party present whom we dont know and who did not want a share but that party wanted everything.
You dont share gold or jewelry in public places. One for you, one for me, one for you …
No, you dont. How often were complices in bank robberies killed by their partners who wanted it all? Of course there was no bank robbery, but a kind of money dispute.
Perhaps there was no gold but papers that required several signatures by different people. Saad was perhaps going to collect those signatures and one party setup the meeting at such ugly forest place in Chevaline.
For me that is the most likely theory connecting all people in that story. And it makes lot of sense after we know the background of the families.
Follow the money! Follow Zaid “Meyer Lansky’s” activities as an accountant and the group of extreme right wing people he is “working for” in the UK. Meyer Lansky was an accountant, too.
Follow up, trying a graphic here:
Original money stream:
Iraqi government -》 4/5 of invoice to AREVA
Iraqi government -》 1/5 to letterbox companies and foundations controlled by Kadhim al Hilli
Kadhim al Hilli -》 deposit money and gold in various Swiss banks
Kadhim al Hilli giving access to selected Swiss accounts and/or deposit boxes to
-》 French politicians
-》 French metal workers union -》 French politicians and parties
-》 Saddam Hussein family
-》 Certain intelligence agencies
-》 Keeping 5% for himself
Then:
Swiss accounts getting frozen by UNO resolutions.
Kadhim dies. -》
Problems to access Swiss accounts after UNO resolutions allows access to certain accounts after Saddam’s fall. -》
Signatures and perhaps codes or keys are required, possibly to be collected by several involved people. -》
Different people demand access to “their” accounts. -》
Intelligence such as the French, MI6, Mossad etc. are aware of that situation and they are on alert. -》
They want to avoid that this property/money will be accessed by the wrong organisations (criminals, terror organisations, etc.) -》
Neonazi organisations demanding “their” money, too, in as much as Shia organisations like Hezbollah and the Iraqi government demands ” their” money.
Saad is standing in the middle of that money dispute. Probably that game was several pevels too much for his experience with mafia and terror organizations. Grandma did represent Hezbollah with her signature. SM did represent the French metal worjers union with his signature. The fourth player, who got it all now, we dont know. My suspicion is the neonazi organisation simply because the gun and the way of how zhey were killed are a carbon copy of the 10 neonazi killings (with german intelligence support) in the so called “Bosporus murder” series in germany several years ago.
BB if your scenario is correct, surely Zaid should have been the one taking the risky trip up to Chevaline?. I say risky because if you are right, then might it not have occured to SAH that it was a little dangerous? . After all he had experience of satellites etc, not exactly naive about surveillance and tracking etc.and somebody did say ages back that he’d changed the locks on the doors of his home and twice gone into hospital from anxiety attacks or something, as far as I remember. Do you think that he expected WBM to be there in some capacity? Why SAH up there during the very week his children were supposed to be starting their school term? Makes more sense for Zaid to have done it. Of course they’d fallen out, but was it really over the inheritance?
Just puzzled about the children and granny and that particular week. I can’t imagine him endangering the family. But what you are saying he was doing was not without risk surely? I’d be interested to hear your opinion.
Jennywren
I dont think that he thought he was in a dangerous situation. In contrary, if you are going to give somebody else access to his previously frozen money, you expect him to arrive with flowers and cookies.
I strongly believe that Zaid was on “the other side”.
Saad might have been strongly influenced by al Allafs and al Saffars while Zaid was the coreect accountant. I dont think that there was something personal other than the money issues. Zaid might even have warned him to avoid being involved into those money issues regarding Hezbollah claims, iraqi government claims and probably even kurdish PKK claims. I believe that Zaid was the more serious conservative accountant who knew about the danger while Saad was the kind of “cowboy” who wanted to solve matters without being complicated and without thinking too much about consequences.
I believe that the previous threats were about the Swiss money and he was going to solve the threats by giving that money to the people who threatened him. Perhaps there was a third party who wasnt amused that the second party should receive that money. Amongst that third party there were probably the people who had ordered the assassination and theyalso assassinated two people (grandma and SM) whose signatures were required to access the accounts. I am not talking about the 800.000 that were Kadhims shares, but i am talking about the millions on other accounts that were claimed by Iraq, Hezbollah, the metal workers union, probably the PKK and perhaps even claimed by some mafias still being close to Saddams family.
Follow the money.
Bluebird
11 Aug, 2013 – 2:55 pm
BB…….’Of course, the so called Mr.X could have worked for Saddam,’
I thought you knew that he did.
“Mr. A**** was a leading supplier of arms to Saddam’s regime. A former Belgian ambassador to Luxembourg charged that a bank in Luxembourg owned principally by Mr. A**** laundered funds — including Oil-For-Food money — for Saddam and other Islamic dictators.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/auchiupdate.html
BB, thanks, I buy your explanation! It certainly explains why grannie was there too and got herself killed poor lady.
@ Blue Bird,
You say the probability of my theory is low. It seems as likely or more likely than some of the theories I have heard on here! If he was murdered because of so called links to Saddam ( By the way just because he is from Iraq, you should not automatically assume this) then why now? I mean if he was going to be murdered because of Saddam, then wouldn’t it have happened when Saddam was alive? The people in charge of Iraq now, as your theory suggests were friends of his.
As for Mossad, PLEASE:)