From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>The shah was not a, "ruthless dictator". My brother-in law knew him
>personally. He was a good leader, and would have been very beneficial to
>Iran had he not become sick.

However, by 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of
government so that he could rule through a one-party state under
the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion. All
Iranians were pressured to join in. The Shah's own words on
its justification was; "We must straighten out Iranians'
ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who
believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman
Revolution and those who don't.... A person who does not enter
the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal
principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual
who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the
outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an
individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can
leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can
go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation,
and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the
law."[25] In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian
citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part
of Rastakhiz.

An autocrat who decreed that dissenters were traitors. But, to be
fair, I can see why Bill would believe that that is what makes for
a "good leader".

Ray Fischer

From: Ray Fischer on
mikey4 <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>And another lefttard spews more BS and more lies

[mikey] can do nothing more than name call anyone who he doesn't agree with.
mikey in <h8a3pm$tln$1(a)>
Ray Fischer

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)> wrote in message
>> Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Karstlenscap(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:7grehtF2q9936U1(a)
>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>> Too bad we can't go back in time and refuse to help you fight Adolf
>>>>>> in the 40's......
>>>>> Interesting that for you the fight is against Adolf and not
>>>>> Nazism...
>>>>> Since you haven't a clue what "liberal" and "socialist" actually
>>>>> mean and make up your own definitions all the time, I'll make up my
>>>>> own definition of Nazi:
>>>>> "Hate-filled, murderous, ideologically driven, nationalistic,
>>>>> right-wing lunatics who believe they are racially and culturally
>>>>> superior to other peoples and that the end justifies the means".
>>>>> That definition, Bill Graham, fits you perfectly.
>>>> Why were the Nazi's "right wing"? And, since they were racists, they
>>>> have absolutely no connection with me. I am not, nor have I ever
>>>> been a racist, in any sense of the word. I have always pointed out
>>>> that my government, the US government is a racist government, and
>>>> treats people differently depending on their race. They have been
>>>> doing this all of my life, and they are still doing it.
>>> Uh-huh.... And all your comments on Middle-Easterners and "Ragheads"?
>> Hey, Islam is a choice . . .
>That's right, and if they choose to kill me, why should I sympathize with

You choose to kill them. By your own standard they are justified in
murdering you.

> I do not believe that I will get into heaven by killing them.....I
>don't believe there is any heaven at all.

You're a sociopath.

Ray Fischer

From: Chris H on
In message <2009091013213943658-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}> writes
>On 2009-09-10 12:33:39 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>> On 2009-09-10 01:45:12 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>> Alas.....It is not to be. My Brother in law died over ten years ago.
>>My sister also knew the Shah, however, and she is still alive, living
>>in a retirement home in Phoenix. She was a civilian employee of the
>>US Army, and her husband was a Colonel attached to Army intelligence.
>>When Eisenhower became president, he escorted his son back home to
>>Washington, DC. When the Shah of Iran became sick, he was with him
>>when he came to the US. They liked the Shah.....I never knew him, so
>>what else can I say?
>I am sorry to hear that, and certainly I have no doubt The Shah was a
>charming and likable individual when in the company of a representative
>of the government which brought him to power.

Hitler was a nice chap in social company, as was Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin
etc. The exception was Bush Jnr as he was not really intelligent enough
to have polite conversation with anyone over the age of 10.

> However I have heard the said thing said about two men, The Shah and
>Tito, "He is an SOB, but he is our SOB." His history in Iran belies his
>charm behind the throne, and many were tortured, died and disappeared
>during his reign, during which he maintained a strong Western friendly
>state in the Gulf.

Most tortures are charming people when not killing.

>As for Tito, none of those nationalist and religious factions dared
>step out of line when he was in power. Without him Yugoslavia proved an
>impossibility, and we reverted to the re-Balkanization of the Balkans.

True. This was forecast in Hackets "History of WW3"

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/

From: Chris H on
In message <Y_qdnYpb0oGvyjTXnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d(a)>, Bill Graham
<weg9(a)> writes
>"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>> On 2009-09-10 01:57:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message news:q6as4DLVbKqKFA
>>>> In message <jsmdnaA0bb_FxDXXnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d(a)>, Bill Graham
>>>> <weg9(a)> writes
>>>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message news:GqSn8JV7V9pKFAYl@p
>>>>>> On the other hand.... who asked permission of the victims and families
>>>>>> of those in the pictures taken by US Military when they were torturing
>>>>>> Iraqi civilians.....
>>>>> What nonsense! Saddam Hussein was the one who, "tortured Iraqi
>>>>> civilians" and for thirty years, too.
>>>> So all those pictures taken by and of US military torturing Iraqi
>>>> Civilians were fakes as was the trial of Sgt. English?
>>> Oh....I get it......Ha!! You really call that, "torture" give me a
>>>break......Do you know where that term comes from? It is the same
>>>root as "torch"....You know, a stick with a burning flame at the
>>>end. When applied to the skin, it causes severe pain and
>>>burns.......Sometimes you guys are really funny......
>> I thought you studied English in college.
>> Torture is derived from the French , torture and the Latin torquere
>>meaning "to twist." This was description of what the victim's body
>>would do, twist in agony.
>Or "put to the torch", but no matter.....When did any American do that
>to any terrorist? That's the point......

SO you did not see any of those photos from Abu Grhab prison where US
military tortured civilians... also from Kandaha?

Also the trials of several US military for torture. Controversial as the
defence was the senior officers were directing it.

\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/