I usually enjoy reading Maryam Namazie, but don't feel she can warrant her critique here. She claims Roth is saying that because the Islamists have fought the dictatorial autocrats they are therefore "good". It's an unreasonable assertion based on Roth's words. If Namazie wants to find people - including on the left - who are uncritical of Islamists then she can, unfortunately, find them. But simply saying the west should deal with Islamists "when it represents a majority preference" and pointing out that Islamists "are genuinely popular" in some countries is not saying they are therefore "good"! Not by a long way! These are uncomfortable, unfortunate facts, and there is no immediately obvious path as to how best to respond to the challenge of democratically-mandated theocracy. Wishing them away is not going to make it happen!

On this occasion Namazie is failing to recognise any nuance. Go to HRW homepage. There are LOADS of articles and reports highlighting the plight of victims of rights abuses across the Arab world by Islamists. The idea that HRW are some kind of allies of Islamism who think it is "good"(?!) is not only unjustifiable but even a little absurd.

I understand that Namazie is trying to produce a punchy, polemical blog which grabs attention and gets peoples juices going. Broad brush strokes achieve this better than delicate reasoning. People who either defend or are silent about rights-abusing Islamists (which includes most western governments and many leftists) are conceivably disgusting... But organisations that have been consistently critical of all Islamically-inspired rights violations are not.