Top Iranian commander dies in plane crash: agencies

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-09T075040Z_01_ARM926757_RTRUKOC_0_US-CRASH-IRAN.xml&archived=False

<snip>

"The head of ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been killed in a plane crash in northwest Iran, Iranian news agencies reported on Monday.

"Ahmad Kazemi was killed with 12 of his deputies and accompanying officers," Ahmad Panahi, head of Iran's Emergency Center was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.

Fars news agency put the total number of people on board the plane at 15, of whom 13 were definitely killed."

...and it wouldn't suprise me a bit if it were true.

In the present circumstances, accident seems the least likely explaination....

Although Iranian aircraft maintenance is not known for being meticulous.

Edit: and it seems reasonable to suspect "internal adjustments" in the
Iranian government too, pending further information.

It will be interesting to see who the replacement is....

Ahm-am-idjit seems like a young, ambitious man to me. It is purely a shot in the dark, but I have felt for some time that he's not about maintaining the status quo.

I thought your comment about the General's activities was a good one also, in the line of thought that you were pursuing there.

:popcorn:

That is an interesting question that Sir Magistrate brings up, for sure.
Who will be the replacement, and is the reaction from the mullahs be to appoint someone who is more supportive of the sabre rattling. I don't have the link handy, but I think I recall a BBC report describing the tension between the reformers/hardliners and the president, and that the hard liners did not support the sabre rattling and provocation.

Not to imply a scintilla of conspiracy about his death, I tend to think that we'd never know in this case if it was taken down by some sabotage/skullduggery by whomever did it. Unless some evidence comes out to support it, then does no good to do anything but speculate.

Now speculation is fine, and those who speculate are not saying "BUSH must have done it"
I just find the rabid "OMG STFU YOU CT NUTS" replies by aegis to be tiresome. Oh well, hopefully others can see the projection on his part.

I, in no way, was 'rabid" nor, did I tell anyone to STFU. It seems the only rabidness is from those you can't see that one more possibility exists, it was a simple accident.

I feel it was most likely an accident, especially after seeing the weather conditions, and the BBC report about sanctions and maintenance of Iranian aircraft.

Who "cant see that one more possiblity exists" ? certainly not me.

re: "STFU" I was using the same rule you applied, characterizing the "spirit of your posts" rather than what you actually wrote :P

It is worth remembering, in this case, that it is fairly easy to arrange an airplace "accident". Which means nothing one way or the other, except that you don't really know.

I will review the rules, but it seems better to name the poster than to just say "a poster on this thread"

Check out the post down near the bottom about the BBC report on spares.

28 years of sanctions? something like that.

"Six months before a U.S.-made Iranian military transport plane crashed last week and killed 108 people, a report prepared for the International Civil Aviation Organization warned that U.S. sanctions against Iran were placing civilian lives in danger by denying Iranian aviation necessary spare parts and aircraft repair.

The report written by a Canadian contractor, which officials of the agency said Iran had requested and paid for but had no role in writing, did not deal with military aircraft. But it said that the U.S. government and major U.S. companies were ignoring international treaties and taking actions that put passengers on Iranian commercial airlines at risk, including thousands of people from other countries traveling to and from Iran. Asked for comment on the report, an official of the U.S. State Department noted that Iran had paid for it and that the plane that crashed last week was not a commercial airliner. No U.S. military parts have been approved for Iran since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.

"The lack of concern for aviation safety is surprising in intensity and vigor," the report said. "Since most Iranian aircraft spend most of their time in foreign airspace over foreign built-up areas, common sense and an agreed minimum level of safety must prevail within the concept of economic sanctions."

The report said that some deaths and injuries in Iranian civil air crashes could be at least partly attributed to the effects of sanctions. In one case, the report said, a child was killed and several adults were injured when the landing gear of an old Boeing 707 owned by SAHA Airlines collapsed on landing in Iran in April.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/13/news/safety.php

They've been flying these planes w/o new parts since the Iranian Revolution. I didn't know the US was doing these sanctions, and they do seem to pose a real danger to ordinary citizens. The article mentions that the last crash was caused by landing gear that collapsed; this new crash was caused by landing gear that stuck. It's all probably caused by unsafe & outdated machinery. We don't need to crash Iranian airplanes - they'll eventually crash all by themselves w/o needed parts.

Nope, not a bit...

Do accidents ever occur?! Why is the immediate response to jump to a "this must be a ploy?" It is not saying that an investigation shouldn't take place, but why must ever bit of news that is anti-B*sh, or could be seen that way be met with "it's prelude to war?"

... we have a government which will not tell its citizens the truth about what it is doing, both inside and outside the country.

If you haven't figured that one out yet, you will.

Cheers.

not everything is a conspiracy...sometimes...shit happens.

... just wait.

Secrecy breeds suspicion.

If the Bushies hadn't been dissing Iran ever since they came into office, I'd think less of something like this. But, they have, so I mistrust what would otherwise be considered an accident.

When the US is begging for another war, it's not just conspiracy theory that one thinks the US is behind unusual events in the object country.

Cheers.

There is no secrecy! Thus, no suspicion! This article reports that a plane went down and people died; that tends to happen when planes crash. Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait and see what other information evolves before declaring this an "act of war?"

... think about it.

Think hard about it.

Get back to me when the war starts.

Cheers.

"I hate you punpirate! You should just die! You are an idiot worthy of a horrible death!"

Two days later, you are killed in a car accident. (Kinanah Hora)

Does this mean I caused or was responsible for the accident? Maybe so. But the first report: "punpirate killed in car accident," is just that...a report! To speculate, is just that, speculation.

It looks foolish that every time something like this happens, we have people ready to blame B*sh. I have even seen one poster claim the recent earthquake in Greece can be traced back to B*sh because of global warming, despite earthquakes happening there for centuries.

Get back to me when another report emerges stating the plane went down for "suspicious" reasons. Since we are not limited to just American press because of internet, then we can talk.

On edit: Do check out the weather conditions of northern Iran for the time of the accident...Visibility: 0.5 miles. Snow and freezing rain.

... still believing the Bushies are honorable people and would never do anything to another country without just cause, eh?

All I'm saying is, just wait and see what happens. Have to have an answer right now? Fine, Bush isn't meddling to make the air bombardment of Iran go more easily. The United States would never do something like that (even though they arranged the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953, thus destroying the democracy movement in Iran, did the same in Guatemala and Vietnam and countless other places around the world). Make you feel better about your country? Good. Glad you're feeling better.

All I'm saying (which seems to increase your ire) is: watch what happens. Then decide. Until then, keep an open mind.

Cheers.

I never said this administration was honorable, nor would do anything to another country, now did I?

All you are saying is: Because, simply...we have a government which will not tell its citizens the truth about what it is doing, both inside and outside the country."

You said: "Have to have an answer right now?" No. As a matter of fact, I said: "Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait and see what other information evolves before declaring this an "act of war?""

You continue with the sarcastic and condescending: "Fine, Bush isn't meddling to make the air bombardment of Iran go more easily. The United States would never do something like that (even though they arranged the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Iran in 1953, thus destroying the democracy movement in Iran, did the same in Guatemala and Vietnam and countless other places around the world). Make you feel better about your country? Good. Glad you're feeling better." Did I say it wasn't a possibility? Nope! I sure didn't! But, if it makes you feel better to make claims about what others "said" and really didn't say; good!

You say that "All I'm saying (which seems to increase your ire) is: watch what happens." No, you didn't say that. Instead, you said: "If the Bushies hadn't been dissing Iran ever since they came into office, I'd think less of something like this. But, they have, so I mistrust what would otherwise be considered an accident. When the US is begging for another war, it's not just conspiracy theory that one thinks the US is behind unusual events in the object country."

The real 'ire' here is yours, not mine. I said wait for more information, but you are already sold on the B*shies did it. So...I now say: "watch what happens. Then decide. Until then, keep an open mind."

... not full of ire. Tell you what--you go on believing it's an accident--I'll be skeptical, instead. You obviously believe in coincidence a lot more than I do.

Cheers.

I tell you what...I will wait for more information. I believe that "shit happens." You obviously believe that everything bad must be a conspiracy.

... nice try, but I said, more than once--context counts. If the US wasn't planning on bombing the shit out of the country, I wouldn't give a second thought to one of their air force guys going down in flames with a dozen of his aides. Not a second thought.

Not a one.

Tell you what--you wait for the truth. Who are you going to get it from? The American press? The Pentagon? Donald Rumsfeld? The White House? George Bush? The Department of State? Kindasleezza Rice? You certainly won't believe the Iranians (I'd be suspicious of what they say, m'self).

As I've said, repeatedly, skepticism is in order--given the context. As I've said, you believe whatever you like. But, I don't believe "everything bad must be a conspiracy." In that, you're putting words in my mouth, and, believe me, that does irk me. Again, as I've said, context counts. I remain skeptical. I don't trust my government in this.

Cheers.

You did say "context counts" but, it meant nothing because of your following posts.

You wait for the truth, too. Where will it be from, as no media source seems appropriate unless it supports your theories?

You have said nothing of "skepticism," until I cornered you. So, you believe whatever you like. BTW...if the Iranians are suspicious and so is the US, how will you discern the truth?

You are irked by "putting words in people's mouths?" Does that include when you said I was "still believing the Bushies are honorable people and would never do anything to another country without just cause, eh?" Or does your ire only apply when others expose your own words? Or, does the ire lie in misrepresenting what people say? The reason I ask is because you said: "But, I don't believe "everything bad must be a conspiracy." In that, you're putting words in my mouth, and, believe me, that does irk me. However, I didn't say that, now did I? No, I said: "You obviously believe that everything bad must be a conspiracy." That is my opinion. You might have a case had I said: "You say that everything is a conspiracy." See the difference? If not, "I believe" indicates MY opinion and, had I said, "YOU say..." would indicate me putting words in your mouth.

... please note:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2029943&mesg_id=2029962

"...mistrust...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2029943&mesg_id=2029979

"... watch what happens...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2029943&mesg_id=2029994

"I'll be skeptical."

I think that's enough to prove skepticism apart from my most recent post. Look, sophistry works on those who don't know what it is. I've pretty much said, just watch what happens, and you've been arguing that point without anything more substantial except to say, in effect, accidents are accidents and you're willing to wait for more. And, I've said, fine, you proceed in that fashion if you wish. I've said, from the start, given the context, I'm suspicious. And in myriad ways, I've said I don't trust this government--to either do the right thing or to tell us the truth.

And you've been flailing away at that stance from the start.

Why does that irritate you? Are you defensive because someone suggests that this government is not telling us the truth? I would say that recent events prove otherwise. Do you think that this government is incapable of targeting a plane full of necessary Iranian air defense personnel and shooting them down? I would think that's well within the technological acumen of the US military. Or, do you think there are no plans to attack Iran in any way, and that my skepticism has no context? Most certainly, there are plans.

Or, do you simply think that any skepticism at all is a sign of a conspiracy nut? You'll have to answer that yourself--I can't answer that one for you.

As my last post stated, you're welcome to believe as you wish. You're welcome to wait for the truth, as you interpret it. I'm entitled to be skeptical--given the context. I'll continue to be so. As I said, I'm not much of a believer in coincidence.

Cheers.

You do realize that the links you provide come after I called you on the carpet!? Right? So, your "skepticism" came after I pointed out your 'theory ("Because, simply... we have a government which will not tell its citizens the truth about what it is doing, both inside and outside the country.".'

I never said that the possibility couldn't be a US conspiracy, but you have seemed to look past that fact.

You say: "Why does that irritate you?" You seem to think I am irritated. I am not; I am amused. I am amused that a poster continues to try to "put words in another poster's mouth," yet, claims that is a source of "ire" for him/her.

You say: "...you're welcome to believe as you wish" and that sounds like my statement of "So, you believe whatever you like." So, you wait for the "truth," as you see it, and I will wait "for more information," as I have already said.

You don't have to believe in 'coincidence' to understand that sometimes, shit happens.

... but, no cigar.

...your scathing rebuttal shows that.

On edit: What? No "cheers?"

and then find out later on he's done! (Like all the stuff we found out about Nixon and Kissinger well after the fact). Won't we look like some fucking dumb asses then?? Best not to give that hellspawn the benefit of the doubt. Amen.

Shouldn't we wait for more than three paragraphs saying a plane went down before declaring this an B*sh attack?

That it is a most suspicious circumstance that the chief of the principal armed prop of the mullahs' regime and his close associates should tumble from the sky at this point in time. In the present circumstances, there is every reason to suppose that a great deal of intelligence effort is being devoted by the United States to pin-pointing and tracking the locations and movements of principal actors in the Iranian power structure, and that covert armed teams, whether of U.S. or allied special forces, or of native opponents of the mullahs, such as Mujahedin Khalk or the Badr people, are on the ground in Iran. This is the sort of incident well within the power of such a unit to contrive with readily portable weapons. It is certainly possible it was an accident, but it does not strike me that is necessarily the most plausible explaination....

But, wouldn't it be more prudent to wait for more information than "a plane went down?" Was it an accident? I don't know. Was it terrorism? I don't know. From this article, all we know is that a plane went down. Should it matter that the weather in No. Iran is reporting .5 miles of visibility?

It would certainly be possible to rule out some causes that cannot be ruled out now. Low visibility in the mountainous north would be dangerous, but that is also an area in which hostile teams could operate readily. The man was someone a great many people wouild have wanted dead.

It is just that first reports are just that...first reports. There are people that might think gremlins brought the plane down. Should that be accepted right off the bat?

What if this was an "inside job" to place blame on the US? Is that not possible, as well?

Just because I don't see every accident as a 'plot' by the B*sh group, doesn't mean it can't be one. I would rather wait it out, at least for a few hours, before declaring, it was the first "shot fired."

:eyes: With the Iranian Oil Bourse less than 3 months away. :eyes:

- - SNIP - -
In March 2006, Iran will take Iraq’s switch to the petroeuro to new heights by launching a third oil exchange. The Iranians have developed a petroeuro system for oil trade which, when enacted, will once again threaten U.S. dollar supremacy far greater than Iraq’s euro conversion. Called the Iran Oil Bourse, an exchange that only accepts the euro for oil sales would mean that the entire world could begin purchasing oil from any oil-producing nation with euros instead of dollars. The Iranian plan isn’t limited to purchasing one oil-producing country’s oil with euros. Its plan will create a global alternative to the U.S. dollar. Come March 2006, the Iran Oil Bourse will further the momentum of OPEC to create an alternate currency for oil purchases worldwide. China, Russia, and the European Union are evaluating the Iranian plan to exchange oil for euros and giving the plan serious consideration.
- - SNIP - -

PB

:eyes:

Don't wait for more information...make that judgment now!

Hey, that shitty weather they are having...I bet that is from the US weather-controlling machine! :sarcasm:

...stated almost a year ago that the U. S. has Special Forces operating inside Iran. Of course, that was met with the absolute total denial of the NeoCon Junta, and we all know how truthful they are, don't we?

US special forces 'inside Iran'
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4180087.stm>

QUOTE:

US commandos are operating inside Iran selecting sites for future air strikes, says the American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.

In the New Yorker magazine, Hersh says intelligence officials have revealed that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target".

Hersh says that American special forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months.

How many dots do you have to connect between the story noted above, and the death of the top Iranian commander?

Who said anything about a weathermachine?

No. Iran is experiencing severe weather, including low visibility. The crash is being blamed, by Iran, on weather. My mention of the "weather machine" was sarcasm based on that this event was a B*sh conspiracy, so the weapon must have been the 'weather machine' that the B*sh junta has (based on other conspiracy theories)!

that help the * gang?

Re. your example: it doesn't "mean" (as in being definitive proof) that you caused the accident - but it is suspicious and warrants investigation. It is the investigation that may yield evidence/proof one way or another.

Someone I met who designs commercial aircraft said that Russian aircraft manufacturers weld airframe parts rather than rivet them together like Western manufacturers do. Advanced computer-controlled welding may well become the way of the future - but back when first introduced as a manufacturing process they had/have a much higher failure rate due to cracking than rivets. Most Iranian aircraft are old Ilyushin aircraft that use the old welding technique.

He (aircraft engineer I met) said in no uncertain terms that he would NEVER fly in an aircraft that was manufactured with welds holding it together. Try doing some research on it.

... in the Reuters news brief in the original post. And, in fact, a goodly number of Iranian aircraft are not Russian, but, rather, are US-made. As I recall, the plane which crashed into some apartments in Teheran last month, reportedly full of reporters, was listed by the BBC as a C-130. The Iranians blamed that crash on lack of maintenance due to a shortage of spare parts. True or not, I don't know. But, the larger percentage of their military aircraft came from the US.

In this particular case, al-Jazeera is reporting, as of a few hours ago, that the crashed plane was a military version of a French-made Dassault Falcon executive jet, and that it crashed very close to the Turkish border. The Iranians are blaming bad weather.

Evidently, Russian welding wasn't involved.

Cheers.

you've got your knickers in a bunch.

"not everything is a conspiracy"? Because when people say that, they're usually implying nothing is. Sometimes shit happens, or all the time? Is assassination ever a tool of statecraft?

Not all dogs are Retrievers. So, when people say that are they implying NO dogs are retrievers? I don't think so, they may wait for information to be provided.

people whose knees jerk in reaction to even the hypothesis of conspiracy.

...my original response was to those whose knees jerk to any incident and think it must be a conspiracy, especially when little information is known.

saw your rant for the last 25 posts--
WAKE UP !!!
Suspicion does not equal definite guilt --it is only an observation.
Suspicion is warranted at this point in lieu of the numerous covert and decietful actions of our current "squeaky clean freedom loving democratic government"...
Suspicion is not going to "convict" or prove anyone of wrongdoing
Suspicion isn't going to affect events one way or another.

Watch how this plays out, then we will all know a lot more.
As for now, get off the "is everything a conspiracy?"trip !
It's about as stupid as the ever popular one about the media only caring about missing "White" girls.

...but it does show that you didn't actually understand my concerns.

...draw you a great big freakin' PICTURE??

Or has any of the recent saber-rattling by the NeoCons toward Iran registered anywhere near your thought processes? You know, the same identical stuff that was being said about Iraq before the NeoCons ordered U. S. troops to illegally and immorally invade and occupy that country?

Ringing any bells yet?

I know what has been happening. It doesn't mean this can't be an accident. We just don't know at this point. Why is it someone pointing out this could be a simple accident is attacked by those believing it MUST be a B*sh thing? BTW, I never ruled out that it could be something else, I just said it could also just be an accident, but we need more information!

I only find you saying "this must be a ploy" quoting a mythical conspiracy theorist whose posts are not on this thread.

There are several posts here that implicate a conspiracy. Because it is not worded the way I wrote it, doesn't mean it is not here. The first three posts could be seen as 'conspiracy' theories.

West Wing fans will know what I am talking about.

after all the convenient things that have happened to help bush**, it's hard not to at least get suspicious at first.

I swear that monkey** has Beelzebub on his side. He even got a hurricane when he needed it.

It was only four months ago that a shakeup in Tehran took him from being responsible for the production and development of Shahab 3 & 4 missiles to being head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

From the articles:
- - SNIP - -
Before being appointed commander of the IRGC Ground Forces, Brigadier General Ahmad Kazemi was the commander of the IRGC Air Force. In that position, Kazemi was responsible for the production and development of Shahab missiles.
- - SNIP - -
“The Air Force under the command of General Kazemi underwent serious development, and today the Guards Corps has the potent missile force of the Middle East”, Safavi said.
- - SNIP - -
Kazemi was also responsible for research and production of the Shahab-4 missile with a projected range of 3,000 km. Analysts say that Tehran is working round-the-clock to enhance the range and accuracy of the Shahab missiles which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching the heart of Europe.
- - SNIP - -

Now my question, did we do this- or did they?

PB

President 'wipe Israel off the map' Ahmadinijad has pissed off a lot of incumbent politicians in Iran.

In 2005 there was a purge within the senior officer corps of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Who within the IRGC command came out on top is a matter for guesswork. Supposedly, it could be a hit on some group of senior officers but I think it is too soon to jump to conclusions.

After all, high ranking leaders die en masse every day, regrettably more in the run up to war. Of course it is speculation to say otherwise, such as the shaken Israelis proving their determination during the Sharon crisis, or something slipping under cover of that shake-up. The static of violence and coincidences is great it is impossible to be sure of bringing them into focus. There is a long list of suspicious ME deaths that dwarf any compilation one might make of such things in the US.

January might be declared World Suspicious Illness and Death Month. And who was driving the car Arnold hit(note they did not say "the car hit him")? Sly Stallone? I think this is Coincidence Prevention Week so speculation is necessary to cover up the sloppy driving and terrible health habits of the rich or infamous..

One does not tend to give the benefit of the doubt that everyone in the ME is careless. Instead, one tends to shrug. And did this plane go down before or after our helicopter went down today? So many puzzles, so many pieces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4594104.stm

...The Revolutionary Guards, known locally as the Pasdara, is a parallel military force with its own army, air force and navy...

The military plane that crashed into the residential Tehran neighbourhood a month ago was carrying journalists to the south of the country.

The ageing plane - bought before the 1979 revolution - experienced technical problems and a first pilot refused to fly it, according to reports...

Because of US sanctions, Iran cannot buy spare parts of its ageing military and civilian fleet - something that puts lives in danger as air crashes become increasingly frequent, says the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D0CD2759-C078-4990-B5CA-F6F7A2F65DD9.htm

So they eased the sanctions to allow civilian aircraft parts, but no one's allowing sales of military aircraft to Iran. So they're still flying around in old planes from the 70's, w/o the spare parts to repair them. In this context, an increase in accidents is more than likely, it's almost guaranteed. Even Iran's paranoid President isn't claiming these crashes are the work of the US, instead he's claiming that the US military sanctions put his officers at risk. The Iranian President "has blamed previous military air crashes on a US trade embargo which prevents Iran from buying parts for its decrepit US-built aircraft." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1977161,00.html.

They sent their top commander and all his number twos out in an unmaintained clunker?

Unless they dismantle the air force, they've got to use these things no matter how outdated the planes are. If they can't get new parts, there's no way to effectively maintain the aircraft. Probably every plane in Iran is a clunker (remind me to never fly Iran Air).

I can understand one engine failing but two engines, at the same time... even with sparse spare parts and shoddy maintenance, the odds of both engines failing simultaneously have to be high. I'm certainly not an airplane mechanic, so please, someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

.

Anyone else remember something like this a couple of years back?

302 Dead In Iranian Plane Crash

TEHRAN, Feb. 20, 2003

/snip/

All aboard — 18 crew and 284 passengers — were members of the Revolutionary Guards, an elite group under the direct control of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The guards protect Iran's borders and defend ruling hard-liners in this ultraconservative society.

/snip/

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/19/world/main541219.shtml>

was trying to make an emergency landing in bad weather.

I'm just saying.

Who would suspect foul play when a plane crashes in bad weather? It makes the perfect cover.

:tinfoilhat:

a rather interesting coincidence wouldn't ya say? just a wee bit of a one.

Is there the slightest bit of evidence that this was anything other than an accident?

You don't need to point out the "context" to me. I know where US-Iranian relations are at right now.

But if you're going to cry conspiracy, let's have a scintilla of evidence.

You hear cries of conspiracy. I hear people simply ruling nothing out. Why, at this early stage, would anyone want to rule it out, unless he or she had a prejudice against hypotheses of conspiracy and assassination?

I just don't see any evidence to support a conspiracy theory here. Do you?

any conclusions, either way, are pure speculation.

So why are we concluding?

then you need evidence to prove it's an accident/coincidence.

the death of Afghan resistance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, just 3 days before the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
A guy who happened to avoid death throughout the whole Afghan Russian war and battling the Taliban.
Thus removing the one person capable of organizing serious resistance to American Imperialist goals in Afghanistan.
The Afghan, Ho Chi Min, if you will, an ardent nationalist.

Thus removing the one person who could mobilize the Northern Alliance against them.

A Pakistani News team got a very rare interview with him.
The interviewer's camera was a bomb. Boom.
Maybe it was Al Qaeda or the Taliban, after all those years, they finally got to him.
Maybe it was Pakistani secret police allied with the U.S..
Maybe it was one of his own, paid a hansom price to take care of a problem.
I just think it was very strange that he was killed three days before 9/11, and
the subsequent invasion of the country he fought so hard to free
from foreign occupation.

Except in real life, they usually miss! :rofl:

Concluding paragraph:

If dissenting elements within the Iranian establishment have arranged for individuals critical to the country's national security to be removed, thus weakening Ahmadinejad's position, then a serious rift clearly is brewing within the regime. The Iranian regime would take great care to cover up any hints of such foul play. And while competing explanations of engine malfunctions versus conspirators aiming to bring down the president hang in the air, the fact remains that Ahmadinejad's power base has been severely threatened.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=260550