Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: odds
Two things: 1) Hillary is by No means an advocate of ‘war on women..’ — not for those who understand, see and know the reality of the situation, in this instance, in Iran. Besides, in practice & ideology, ‘war on women..’, or some say ‘feminism’, is very different in the M.E. (muslim world) than the West - it’s not comparable. Vastly different stage of maturity & development. Hillary, since she happens to be a female, uses/has used that narrative for own political purpose. OR, her grasp of the situation in the M.E. vis a vis the West is pathetic.

Right. When Hillary bleats about the "War on Women" we shove this down her throat.

I knew you'd get to my point eventually. Thanks. 2) Neda’s murder was a very tragic event. But not an isolated one in Iran. Seemingly, some sniper very publicly shot her; I believe it was done deliberately too. Otherwise, Neda was a political nobody.

How often do most totalitarian states *lead off* by shooting down women like dogs? Very bad PR optics.

Personally, I don’t want a ‘milder’ Islamic group running the country of Iran. And, if anyone thought they could use the Islamic Reformists as a springboard to a more secular gov’t in Iran, they are very much mistaken.

I got the impression that *everyone* had a dog in the fight -- supposed "the youth" were secular, westernized, and would have welcomed representative government : recall that even Egypt didn't go fully Islamic. A word of encouragement, of tacit support, under-the-table behind the scenes effort, would have done wonders. But Obama went to vacation in Martha's Vineyard or some such while civilians were being shot by snipers. Deliberate neglect: kind of like the GOP-e do to conservatives: but Obama didn't even mouth the correct platitudes. And now he's given the Mullahs a green light to the bomb.

18 posted on 07/21/2015 10:50:55 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers

My original point in #10 was that the regime in Iran has not been a priority for any U.S. president so far, beside ‘attempted containment’; why? there has to be at minimum one reason for that, if not more.

Otherwise, none of the issues in #10, for instance terrorism, nukes, hostages are new ones regarding the Islamic Regime in Iran. I even recall as far back as mid 1980s there were reports that Iran was close to building nuclear weapons.

A last note from me on this discussion, to state a bit of the obvious & leave it at that: “Egypt is not Iran in domestic, world or regional matters.” Egypt is also a very unstable place as we speak.

But, consider that since Carter, and more contemporary times too, we’ve witnessed a distinct shift to Islamism around the world, especially in the M.E. & North Africa. Sorry, I don’t buy little bit less Islamic; it’s more like a bit more Islamic each year, or we’re sold “Islam is not so bad, if...”. We are given conflicting messages.

Obama’s presidency is almost over. Let’s see what the next president will do regarding Iran. Thanks for the discussion.


19 posted on 07/21/2015 11:49:46 PM PDT by odds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson