Who said I was trying to be witty or satirical you ignorant troll.

As Constance rightly implies, invariably, both secular dictatorships (Nasser, Kassem, Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, Boumedienne/Bouteflika, Bashir) and theocratic dictatorships (Iran, Saudi) have targeted the genuine Left right from the outset.

I've thought the bravest people in the Middle east must be the Communists and other committed Leftists, prepared to die for their activities (which they usually do). Couldn't be too many of them left these days, poor buggers.

Simply put, if we include the fast-vanishing Left, there seem to be four main contenders for power across the Middle east: obviously the Islamists, secular dictators, the very weak democratic forces, and the incredibly weak Leftist-democratic forces. Even the Yanks seem to be aware of the first three, and how to make any sort of headway, mainly against the Islamists, and secondarily against the secular dictatorships, in order to make room for any residual democrats and the Kurds.

Of course, it's not so baby-simple: the Saudis and the Iranians, not to mention the Turks, all have their oars in there, stirring away.

It all makes Israel seem a haven of sanity, decency and progress - and always ready to defend itself against random terrorist rockets or other terrorist acts.

Joe

Thanks Constance,

Attacking slaughtered cartoonists just so you can have a lefty rant is not good form.

I thought "righties" were in favour of liberty and freedom of expression - you appear to be intimating they deserved what they got.

I wasn't saying you were attempting to be witty or satirical - merely lamenting that your diatribes are devoid of such creative endeavour.

You also seem to think that you can plonk your posts up and down the forum, to the cheers of the usual suspects, but anyone who challenges your belligerent stream is an "ignorant troll".

Well, she does have you pegged, Poirot :)

How else would you describe your constant attempts to divert discussion from the actual topic, when it gets too uncomfortable for you, and when you can put on that 'I'm so hard-done-by, I'm always being picked on' act ?

What has been your actual contribution to this topic ? Do you have any views at all on the murder of journalists, I wonder, and on their rights to push the boundaries ? Anything constructive ?

If you were a journalist, you might understand.

Joe

Nice try, Loudmouth.

"What has been your actual contribution to this topic ? Do you have any views at all on the murder of journalists.."

Bit remiss there, if you're going to parachute into threads and criticise other people for diversion, then you'd be well advised to check out the top of thread before you do so. I've contributed plenty to this discussion thread "on topic" (see top of thread)

You really are a hypocrite.

What has this mealy-mouthed swipe at George (that you deployed at the end of your post to him) got to do with the subject?

"And rumours to the contrary, neither I or any of the blokes in my old football team know your mother. We were all just good friends."

Sorry if I surmise your operating procedure, but it seems to me you're the type who can spray insults like that around online as a snide parting gesture - but you'd shrink from insulting the mothers of the men you are debating in real life - because you'd probably promptly have your nose pushed in.

lOUDMOUTH: How else would you describe your constant attempts to divert discussion from the actual topic, when it gets too uncomfortable for you, and when you can put on that 'I'm so hard-done-by, I'm always being picked on' act ?

When have I ever diverted discussion or put on a hard done by act. Go on Show me. You can't find one can you! Go on.... Go on..... miffft, miffft, Bawaaahhh!

I thought I'd answer for you Poirot. Just in case you might have missed an opportunity for a, "I'm always being picked on' act?" ;-)