From wiki: “Nedā (ندا) is the Arabic word for “calling” used in Persian to mean “voice”, “calling,” or “divine message,” and she has been referred to as the “voice of Iran.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan

Shades of ‘Wag the Dog’?

How many claims made in the narrative surrounding this story would be thrown out of a court for lack of evidence? Is it not convenient that we can’t see the faces of any of the helpers or bystanders? Or even the actual location?

And why does “Neda” appear to assist her own lowering to the ground with her left hand after being shot in the chest?

Surely, in the Photoshop and digital, YouTube age it is incumbent upon all of us to demand hard evidence before allowing anything to color our judgment of a given event or issue. If this video could be staged or fake, surely we must treat it as if it were, until it is PROVEN that it wasn’t? Isn’t that what we do with “UFO” footage? And isn’t the same digital age responsible for the disappearance of the various blurred “monsters” who did the rounds in the latter half of the 20th Century?

I want full public and independent inquiries into both 911 and 77 as well.

These days, I’m believing nothing until it has been proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt. .. the way it always should have been.

I watched the video. I’m none the wiser with respect to whether a person died or not. An overly emotional person may fill in the very big gaps that the video leave in that regard. I’m not such an emotional person.

“One must experience the second to comprehend fully the meaning of an event. The reader or viewer must know and feel that the death occurred to understand the significance.”

Yet, I still don’t know that a death occurred. And I wonder how you could arrive at the conclusion that one did, simply by watching that video. Obviously, stating that the woman on film is actually dying is a good way to deflect the otherwise critical eye. I invite all viewers to imagine that the event is staged, then watch the video again. What do you actually see?

“This video reveals the depth of the depravity of the autocratic regime in Iran, and the only way to understand that fact is to feel it.”

No. this video reveals and proves absolutely nothing. It does not prove someone died. It does not prove that the people in the video were taking part in a protest, or, indeed, that they were even in Iran. It certainly doesn’t prove that anyone was shot by Iranian government forces. And it doesn’t speak to any imagined “depth of the depravity of the autocratic regime in Iran”, in any shape or form. Meanwhile, regular democratic elections are held in the US, Israel and Iran. The video offers no proof that one of the listed countries is more autocratic, or less democratic, than the others.

Basically, you just believed what you heard from other sources (that you are sympathetic too) and regurgitated that here with liberal doses of clothes-tearing emotion.

“Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, studied philosophy and took underground music lessons in a country where women are banned from singing in public. She was engaged. Neda loved to travel and had hoped to study tourism and then lead groups of Iranian tourists abroad. She had two siblings.”

Do you know these things for actual fact, or are you just repeating hearsay. If the latter, why are you doing that? Did you do that when you were a journalist also? In any event, why are these obvious appeals to emotion necessary. Suppose she had been the leading S & M hooker in Tehran, would that have made any difference? Always suspect falsehood whenever superfluous, why-this-contestant-should-win-American-Idol information is offered.

“Meanwhile, the Iranian regime — through a state-run media outlet relying on an “unnamed source” — is insisting that the Basij did not shoot her and that the incident had been planned. I spit in the faces of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

And what source are you relying on? Have you ever met any of the people who said they witnessed this event? Isn’t it true that you don’t know anything for sure, but have decided to back the version that you prefer; the version that cast the Iranian government — your stated enemies — in a bad light? Meanwhile that last remark doesn’t cast your emotional balance in a good light. Should we be listening to you at all? Shouldn’t someone somewhere be getting you a cup of chamomile tea and leading you off for counseling?

“No government — autocratic, democratic, or otherwise — can withstand the opposition of women who are collectively united. Women hold the true power because they are the bearers of life and the raisers of children. They are the future. Men are the present.”

What a ridiculous thing to write. you just said that men’s votes count for squat in a democracy. Yet you whine on about how such a governmental system should be fought for in Iran. How are men the present, while women are the future. What exactly do you mean.

Meanwhile girls, listen up, YOU’RE the raisers of children. Next he’ll be blogging that you’re the makers of dinner and the washers of clothes. With friends like these, eh?

“Every individual woman is the potential for limitless life. Why do you think that the crew of the Titanic gave spaces on lifeboats to women and children first? Men are more expendable.”

Every man has that exact same potential. Women were saved from the Titanic because society, at the time, demanded they should be. The same wouldn’t apply today. Why were the men more expendable? Who do you think built the Titanic and paid for the women’s passage on it? The men simply agreed (previously, as part of society) that they would secure their assets before themselves — that is, the women and children. Since women are no longer held to be assets, and since children produce little return on investment (our having moved even further from an agricultural society), today the strongest would fill the lifeboats (to include any superfluous bimbos and trophy wives still meriting being dubbed an asset).

“Societies have always understood this fact, and this explains why traditional cultures have always assigned more protections to women…”

Ahem, perhaps you haven’t noticed that that’s all finished with. Which man in his right mind is going to give up his place in a lifeboat to a strange woman today? No double standard, no free ride. And those are the hard facts, no matter what you’d like things to be.

“Women are more valuable to society than men.”

Since when?

“Women have more power. ”

Since when?

“And this is why the Iranian regime fears the current protests — for the first time, there is the active participation of millions of women.”

Millions? The current population of Iran is about 66 million. Those living anywhgere near Tehran amount to 14 million. Under 17s and over 65s amount to about 30%. Half of the rest might be women. That’s about 5 million women. I’m guessing about 5 millin of them are under the firm control of a male family memeber — father, husband, brother. That leaves none. No wonder they made such a fuss about losing “Neda”.

Since when did an “autocratic regime” fear protests?

“But by overreacting and killing Neda (among many other men and women), they will have only inspired millions more to fight against the government.”

Oh, that was handy then. Makes you wonder why the protest organizers didn’t think of it… or staging something similar. To drum up the emotional support of women and Jewish bloggers.

“Iranian men will not like seeing the country’s women being treated in this manner.”

It would be laughable if it wasn’t ridiculous.

So, you favor Iranian women and men, just not the Iranian “regime”. You’re writing more as an enlightened democrat than a Jew. I get it. And I believe you. I believe you.

“If the Iranian people are able to overthrow the Islamic theocracy and establish a democratic government — as I hope they will —…”

Iran already has a democratic government. At least no less democratic than say that in Britain. Do you also hope the British will overthrow the monarchy and the unelected House of Lords and establish a democratic government there?

“…than the Basij member who killed Neda might have just caused the downfall of the regime all by himself. And then she will not have died in vain.”

Ye, but do you have any PROOF that a Basij member killed “Neda”, or, indeed, that “Neda” actually died? Have you seen a death certificate, for example? If all you have is 12th-hand hearsay, can you explain why you are regurgitating that here with such abandon?

Basically, is there something on the video that I’m missing? I mean, apart from the obviously fake blood, being bitten down on at 0:12 and very obviously squeezed in the nostril by some helper at 0:14?

Does anyone else find the timing of the start of the clip, the limited range of the shot, the very steady hand of the videographer, and the fact that a person would film such a thing anyway in any way questionable or extraordinary?

I mean, the woman just got shot (with the shooter close enough to be identified by somebody), yet the videographer in front of her was still on his feet, as were all other bystanders. What happened to hitting the deck or dispersing in a panic?

RIP Neda–how senseless and sad a tragedy