We like to separate the citizens and the government, but I don't think this is the case. For most of the citizens, loyal muslims etc, that's exactly how they want to live.

Western media just overplays dissidents and people that talk to our "sentiments". Insignificant opposition parties and small protests are elevated to the level of mass popular protest.

If the situation was reversed, imagine what other countries would say of the 2000 US Bush-Gore elections, what with the electoral fraud et al, or things like the Vietnam protests, etc.

Downvotes? Because of disagreeing? Very democratic. It amazes that people believe that the people of such a country like Iran do not want to live in a religious muslim state and are "forced" by the government.

And it amuses me, because, you have an example right in your backyard: the "middle america" has tens of millions of people that want to live in a Christian state, with no evolution teaching in schools, no abortions, no gay marriages, the death penalty, Bible, etc. Those people are not "forced by the state" to want to live like so. If anything, they think the state FAILS them by not being more christian.

If you consider this --that even within the US there are people who want those kinds of things--, you might understand why your San Franciscan or whatever ideas are not directly applicable to muslim countries, with a much different history and culture than what the US has.

Just saying.

It is entirely appropriate to criticize Iran on its own merits. You can argue that it is hypocritical to do so, but it does nothing to mitigate the facts against the Iranian government, which are many. And while it is true that there are executions in Texas, a lack of rights for gays in the US, etc, you wouldn't want to try to argue that Iranians have it better...or would you?

"Downvotes? Because of disagreeing?"

No, because of polluting what is generally a rational place of discussion with ludicrous extremist propaganda and general idiocy.