Well, we're all supporting the Iranians, as opposed to calling them gay-hanging religious dupes.

We are also all prepared to support a candidate who will do _exactly the same thing as before_, and has a history of murder.

supports Iranians against state oppression, which means rejecting the entire unfair election process and theocratic system.

Communication changes everything.

But some things never change.

The number of constructive US tweeters after all of this? Zero.

They will witter about censorship and so on but then support either bombing Iran "for the sake of the Iranians" or one party...

...which happens to be the USG-approved one, but has killed just as many people (as no parties exist as not approved).

supports leaving Iranians alone to sort out their own business. Same about Israelis and Palestinians, incidentally.

So I don't see what all the noise is really about...

Why do you say Mousavi (I assume that's who you mean) would do the same as before (when?), and has a history of murder? (/me is uninformed)

The Iranian state had plenty of dissidents killed when he was PM before; he's part of the establishment, not a revolutionary.

But this probably wasn't a terribly good thread to start, it's only going to end up offending somebody whom I didn't mean to offend.