Do you know, after reading Spengler's post today, I almost have to agree.

And yet, when you hear the roar of so many in the streets --it's hard to ignore the visceral impact of -- you wonder how to interpret that primal urgency. Are we guilty of projection? Likely so.

I'll take the lesser of two evils, Bob.

True dat!

Only people who agree with me deserve to have their votes counted.

I don’t agree with you on this.

Our principles about freedom of expression and freedom of the press should be applicable to everybody, even to people who do not think like us.

If we are going to demand them for us we should be ready to demand the same thing for other people.

Don’t forget that the free exchange of ideas bring about reform and more freedom.

from what I have read, the "other guy" who may or may not have won the vote (and it's unclear that there was a stolen election) was the Ayotollah's (sp?) crony back in the the day of the Iranian Revolution. Another radical, just a different radical - so yes, you are correct and bold to state that the martyrdom is shallow - my words, not yours.
This is not a protest between freedom and tyranny, but tyranny and another tyranny. Much ado about nothing it seems.

Perhaps Mousavi will be someone who can begin the process of opening up the Iranian nation to the bigger world of ideas. Sure, many hate the U.S. and have some good justification for that emotion. But when you are educated in an Islamic Republic, how balanced can that education be? Lets give them the benefit of the doubt. By the videos, photos, and blog comments, I don't think there is that big a divide with these brave young indpendent thinkers and the American youth.

The government of Iran is the problem, not the common man. The propaganda fed to the people does not give them any reason to trust or connect with Americans, or the West. Do not hold that against them!! These people are rebelling against the shackles of fundamental Islam, which they probably feel is excessive. That is not to say they are rejecting Islam, just not wanting to be subjected to an extreme government enforced version of it.

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 6/22/2009, at The Unreligious Right

You're right, Bob, in that Mousavi might be the lesser of two evils, at least domestically. Internationally, there seems to be little difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, especially with the mullahs in the background. Khatami is the guy, sort of, that people should be looking to as a "reformer."

At this point, the protests may be taking on a life of much more freedom, rather then just as one backing Mousavi. We'll have to wait and see.

This uprising transcends Mousavi. It is a demand that their vote count. And it is a direct challenge to Iran’s dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who provides this choice between "evil and a lesser evil."

By standing up to Khamenei, I contend that Mousavi is far better than just a lesser evil. His action has tipped the scales. The jig is up for Khamenei. No Iranian believes he is divinely inspired, and every Iranian knows no one elected him king.

I'm with CY on this one. We'll have to wait to see how this all plays out. Personally, I think it's very difficult for the western mind to wrap its head around the mindset of a fundamentalist islamic society. Like Bob says, if I understand him correctly, the protesters don't seem to be fighting for the same concept of "freedom and exchange of free ideas" that we westerners value so highly.

Think about the wars that have been fought in the name of "religion" in Europe in past centuries. Most of those wars weren't about "freedom". They were about which brand of Religious zealots would control the population.

As a Christian, I thank God that our nation's founders had the foresight to include in our Constitution provisions that clearly separate the roles of the Church and the state in our society. I realize that some people will argue with me on that topic. Nevertheless, it's a fact.

There are people in our very own country who would impose their brand of "religion" on all of us if they could and make their particular religious beliefs the law of the land.

Again, I think that the struggle that we're seeing today in Iran cannot be compared to what we think of as a struggle for "freedom". We have to face the fact that many parts of the world don't think like we do nor do their societies want our brand of freedom.

I suppose time will tell what the Iranian people, as a whole, really want. At this point, I'm not sure.

Two main things come to mind.

The straw that broke the camels back.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

The situation is at boiling point, this may be the catalyst needed to gain the all important first step towards a better freedom. Will it be all enclusive? No, will it be what we consider total freedom? No, but it will be the beginning. We can't let our guard down eiter way but it is a start.

And it is good to remember folks, Gorbachov didn't think his set of little reforms to calm the people would lead to the end of the Soviet Empire, but it did. With support from the U.S. of course.

We can't know what if anything Neda stood for. Perhaps she left some writings that might tell us what she believed, but until then her death belongs to those who will make what they wish of it. She's now a symbol, for better or worse (and I suspect it will get much worse).

What we do know is the nature of those who murdered her - sheer evil. I'm not talking the bang-the-high-chair, piss-your-diapers tantrum lefties like to throw while denouncing their infantile view of evil, i.e. a Republican holding public office. Her killers are the kind of evil that means nobody holds public office, that no citizens have any rights because there are no citizens, only subjects. She was killed by the same state that dispatched children into Iraq killing zones to clear minefields. Actual evil, not "OMG somebody on teh Int4rw3bz disagrees with me! Fascist!" That is probably why Obama took so long to state thay maybe, just maybe (and I'm not meddling here, understand) it's not the best course for a government to murder its people. At the most basic level Obama and his socialist circle have no real quarrel with the underlying assumptions of the mullahcracy, only "concern" over a few of its tactics.

It isn't necessary to support whatever kind of twisted anti-semitic terror sponsoring state rises from the ashes to denounce the present one that randomly kills its own people to hold on to absolute power.

According to her fiancee, who was interviewed by the BBC, she was not even political and had just gotten out of her car for some fresh air after being stuck in a traffic jam. We don't know her values of course, but it should not matter.

Just to play devil's advocate . What would this blog post be like if she had been shot by an Israeli soldier in Gaza or an American in Fallujah. Would you be trying to expose it as fake or even ridiculing the victim as was done with Rachel Corrie?

It is a mistake to assume that all people in Iran share the values of kililng Americans, building nuclear weapons and funding terrorism. Every county's citizens share diverse and conflicting views. I am sure Bob that you don't share the same values as Obama.

Y4waDI mtcuytviaxxt, [url=http://rhbbmoqdftox.com/]rhbbmoqdftox[/url], [link=http://qyuebtwuwktv.com/]qyuebtwuwktv[/link], http://rcupwozkbohe.com/

what about you??,

I suspect if you dissect any historical "martyr" you'd find they would not agree with their eventual place in history. Whatever her actual beliefs, it's what her death sparks that will ultimately matter (which, at this point, looks like nothing much as government goons have slaughtered enough of citizens to crush any further protests).