Awol

We have different definitions of "good", obviously. Sometimes I wonder why I stopped reading the Guardian, then people link to utter shite like the article above and I remember again - it's mostly one eyed bollocks.

I think a far more credible explanation is offered here. You may think that the author provides a more credible analysis (her previous post is dripping about how us bloody whitey's should still be embracing the colonial guilt of our grandparents - isn't it funny how no one says that to young Germans these days??), but having also read the post it seems like another long and whiny justification for mindless, primitive violence and massively plays down the religious driver behind the protests. In other words "blame America, they brought it one themselves!" Of course, very many folks of European identity and orientation suck that message up like manna from heaven. It's certainly easier than considering the alternative which wouldn't sit too comfortably with some peoples' world view. I've been talking to Muslim guys today (including my good friend and business partner) who maintain the North Africans, Yemeni's and others out committing violent acts are better Muslims than the Gulf Arabs, because they went out and fought for the honour of the Prophet. This wave of violence is inspired primarily by religion and the veneration of their Prophet Mohammed, not the Iraq war, Palestine or fast food chains. As convenient as it would be to scream "**** Americans!" that stance absolves 10,000's of adults for behaving like immature, emotional and irrational children.

Manoeuvre. The word is French in origin and so intended to catch out the unsuspecting Englishman.* * That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

For the Spurs game you'll need the Intercontinental hotel in Muscat, or the sports bar in the Hyatt Regency, both will show it. As for places to go I'd recommend the Grand Mosque (containing the largest carpet in the world) which is one of the most spectacular buildings I've ever seen. Non-Muslims can go before 11am every day except Friday when it's closed to non-Muslim visitors. Also check out the old Souq in Muttrah next to Muscat Port which gives another bit of cultural flavour. There are lots of old forts within an hour or so drive and the best is probably at Nizwa (170 kms from Muscat) which is a world heritage site. Car hire is easy but not that cheap if you want a 4X4. Jebel Akhdar and Jebel Shams (highest point in Eastern Arabia) are also pretty spectacular if you don't mind a bit more of a drive, and at about 10,000 ft are 15 degrees cooler than the coastal plain. For beach time check out Oman Dive centre which is just out of town and has a great beach, full water sports facilities (the diving is better than anywhere else in the region) and a decent bar and restaurant. Again if you don't mind driving for another 45 minutes head to Sifah beach which is fantastic. By the way you can camp pretty much anywhere but if you want booze outside of a bar you'll need to grab it at duty free on the way in because non-residents aren't licenced to buy it. Also be careful not to do that in front of locals because drinking in public is a fast way to go to jail. Don't forget factor 30 sun cream, it'll be cooling down by October but still the wrong side of 35 degrees most days. If you need any help with anything while you're here I'll send you a contact number, may catch you for the Spurs game but have a baby due on 4th of October so if he's on time I'm definitely grounded..

GTFO of where? We're leaving Afghan in 2014 but it's basically over from the end of this year anyway. I didn't mean it in a military sense, more political. I know it's probably not a good idea, it just seems to me as if western presence in the Arab world is antagonistic as much as helpful. No doubt there is some truth in that, thing is this latest exercise in Islamic bed wetting is due to nothing more than a couple of Egyptian Americans making a crappy film and banging it on youtube. Not bombing or killing, just making a crappy video. The reaction across half a dozen countries up to and including murder is simply bonkers and utterly unjustifiable. Why now have the attacks started extending to the embassies of nations with no connection to this saga at all? Because they don't really care what country is involved, we're all infidels at the end of the day. I think this sums it up in The Onion: No One Murdered Because Of This Image

GTFO of where? We're leaving Afghan in 2014 but it's basically over from the end of this year anyway.

There's not a whole lot I'd like to do in either of those other than GTFO. There is an awful lot of oil in both actually.. There was a protest in Muscat today after Friday prayers (purely coincidence you understand..) but it was extremely civilised, no violence and no threats of violence. Credit to the Omani's they are a different class to their more primitive co-religionists.

Attacking the German and UK embassies in Sudan now. **** idiots.

First they chase his mother into an early grave and then they publish pictures of his wife in the buff. One might think the French were actively trying to make an enemy of the future king of England..

Is that really the reason? China is also more powerful and not muslim but the arab world doesn't have anything against China. The Chinese are viewed as infidels just like the rest of us, they are not however a global hegemon and are therefore not judged to pose an existential threat to the faith. Nevertheless I maintain that a lot of the hostility towards the US is small man syndrome writ large, although we haven't mentioned their obvious role in propping up some unpopular petro-monarchies and of course, guaranteeing the security of the hated Jews in Israel. True, often people who don't even realise how lucky they are to have lived under the security blanket provided by the US since WW2.

maybe we are using a different definition of moderates ? I think so. I'd class a moderate as someone who would disapprove of such attacks (I've heard 9/11 joked about by the locals frequently here, and I'm talking about people who were western educated). An extremist doesn't necessarily need to be someone who is prepared to personally detonate themselves, it's about mindset. By that definition I'd say my 50/50 holds true, and the margin would be far higher among the lesser educated. You have to understand the centrality of the religion to every aspect of peoples' lives and the influence wielded by the Imams to understand how that is possible - but it is. Going back to the genie in the bottle analogy, notice the anti-American protests sweeping the region are all (so far) in the countries that have had a change of leadership due to the Arab Spring, meaning the people are able to express themselves without being machine gunned. These protests reflect those underlying feelings. I'm sure there will be a few posters coming along to say this is all of our (the west's) own making which, if only taking recent history into account, would have at least some basis in fact. The deeper truth however is that the Islamic empire was expanded by force into Europe until it was finally checked and reversed in France and Austria. This is why we sometimes here AQ talking about a reconquest of Spain which they consider to be Muslim land. Where we in the west now think of a few decades past as ancient history, round here 500 years is no different to 5 minutes in terms of perceived grievances, slights and humiliations to be avenged. The US is hated because it is the current leader of a block of countries that live by a different set of rules and dominate the world. Their crime is twofold: being more powerful than the Muslim countries, and not being Muslim themselves.

I went to a CoE Primary school and the regular religious element involved saying the Lord's Prayer in Assembly every morning. We also did Easter and Harvest Festival services at the village church. Not exactly a hotbed of religious indoctrination.

about 99.9% of them ? how many times have you been attacked since you've moved to the Sultanate ? None, although both friends and neighbours have had problems at different times. Once the big boss shuffles off this mortal coil then we, like most others, will be on the first plane out. These various strongmen are the cork that holds the genie of the Arab street in the bottle. Look at what is going on around the region if you doubt the rise of extremism when that balance changes. The Dictators and their Muftis (through the Imams) have spent years encouraging the people to channel their frustrations and anger at domestic issues towards external forces, usually a combo of the West, Christianity and of course, the hated Jew. When various Dictators are moved along by whatever means those extreme but widely held views move unchallenged into the corridors of power. I'm not saying whole populations subscribe to these views, but large numbers certainly do. There are usually a few older manipulators supported and empowered by young, vocal and aggressive males who intimidates the moderates. I'd estimate that split as being more like 50/50 - at best - than 99.9%, Tony.

about 99.9% of them ?

The Swedish authorities say they believe he MAY have broken the law of the land and would therefore like to give him a TRIAL, which will establish whether he did or not. Quite. Do you now agree that he should go through that process? What do you base this on? Do you actually think people are weeping in the streets because their hospitality has been abused by someone not wanting to be arrested? Or has he committed some other grievous act that only you know about? Are you being deliberately obtuse? He has jumped bail, a criminal offence. He was granted bail and allowed to remain here on the understanding that he didn't try and bugger off. He's now done exactly that by fleeing of the Ecuadorian embassy and claiming asylum. Do you actually comprehend that his actions are illegal, or are you back into "it doesn't really matter" mode again?

Oops.. Destroying an Embassy and killing the Ambassador is technically an act of war. Standing by to hear from the beards why this is actually America's fault because a few dicks made a film about Mohammed.

It must be clear to everyone that for the UK to have 30 police outside the embassy, with written instructions to seize Assange at all costs, with (photographed) reference to the involvement of the ant-terrorist squad, and with the Foreign Secretary making a written a threat to breach the Vienna Convention on embassies and diplomatic protection, means the real issue is absolutely not about the Swedes wanting to question him, or him jumping bail. It is not even remotely imaginable that such a level of response would ever be mounted for either of those two things. Why? he has, in the most high profile way imaginable, made the UK authorities look utterly ridiculous for granting him bail. Government's generally don't like to be humiliated internationally and individuals that do so can expect to be on the wrong end of their displeasure. Fool me once, etc.. Bail conditions are breached every day, in every court in the land. The normal response is not generally to call out the anti-terrorist squad and involve the Foreign Secretary. It is blindingly obvious that this is not about the warrant, or the breach of bail, neither of which would come remotely close to requiring this level of response. If anyone has been made to look foolish, it's the people who stood bail. Why do you think the government looks foolish, if a court makes a bail decision on conditions which someone later breaks? Given the publicity around Assange it is a bit of a stretch to pretend that his is a 'normal', run of the mill case and expecting it to be treated as such. The UK authorities look foolish because his bail was opposed on the basis he was a flight risk but it was granted anyway. As soon as it became clear that he would have to face the music for his "poor sexual etiquette" he did a runner - and then gobbed off to the world's press from the embassy window, just to rub it in. That the Government are now gunning for him is no surprise at all and it would be strange were they not. However none of this indicates a dastardly plot to hand him over to the Americans, a theory for which there is no evidence at all either in the UK or Sweden, although I suspect that were the man at home his Government would serve him up to Uncle Sam on a silver platter.

What do you mean? I mean why do you think that a government is necessarily right just because it is a government? I don't believe anything of the sort. I do believe that we have the rule of law for a reason and it is not for Mr Assange to pick and choose which of those laws he obeys. The Swedish authorities believe he broke the law of the land while in that country and he has certainly broken the law and abused the hospitality granted him while in the UK. You seem to think that's alright because a) your personal definition of rape is different to Swedish law, because George Bush is a bad man, c) 'cos wikileaks is 'great' and the world would be a poorer place if Julian was convicted of being a sex offender, and d) the USA is baaaad and out to get him - the lack of evidence for that notwithstanding.

What do you mean?

It must be clear to everyone that for the UK to have 30 police outside the embassy, with written instructions to seize Assange at all costs, with (photographed) reference to the involvement of the ant-terrorist squad, and with the Foreign Secretary making a written a threat to breach the Vienna Convention on embassies and diplomatic protection, means the real issue is absolutely not about the Swedes wanting to question him, or him jumping bail. It is not even remotely imaginable that such a level of response would ever be mounted for either of those two things. Why? he has, in the most high profile way imaginable, made the UK authorities look utterly ridiculous for granting him bail. Government's generally don't like to be humiliated internationally and individuals that do so can expect to be on the wrong end of their displeasure. Fool me once, etc..

Manning is being held pending courts martial under military rather than civil law and the rules differ substantially.

CPF, IMO there is a gaping hole in your assertion that he is refusing to face his accusers because he fears the US. Before jumping bail he was at the same risk of being subject to a US extradition request in the UK as he potentially is in Sweden, or indeed in any other EU country. Mr Assange is as a bright man and will know this very well, but is using the US government (and their non-existent extradition request) as a useful distraction from the real issue of his conduct in Sweden. As evidenced by your determined defence of him this is enabling him to maintain his core supporters who, let's be honest, think he's a bit of a hero and simply don't want to believe that he could also be a rapist. Given the FACT he is no more at risk from extradition to the US in Sweden than in the UK, one would assume then that his reasoning is to avoid being questioned and charged in relation to the rape allegations against him. My question then is on what basis you think that going to Sweden to face the accusations against him makes him more vulnerable to the Americans? "He believes that to be the case" isn't really an answer by the way because as above you can be damn sure he KNOWS that is not true, as does everyone reading this thread.

Their legitimacy ends when they allow outside forces to dictate their course of action, it is not some holy thing which is above human error and vested interest. Clearly you don't think they ARE allowing outside forces to dictate their course of action. I do. We disagree. Claiming that we disagree because I'm immune to logic is no argument at all. I'm sorry, I thought you were still arguing that the accusations were a "matter of sexual etiquette" and not rape!! As you have no evidence that the evil US puppet master is orchestrating the actions of the UK or Swedish authorities I'd be interested to know on what basis you hold those views? On another note, if Mr Assange had acquired and then published a raft of secret information belonging to the UK government then I'd want our people to be all over him like a cheap suit - wherever he fled to. That the Americans may feel the same way is entirely justifiable and to be honest, I hope they do get him.

Peter, is it not reasonable to suggest that the US could have requested his extradition from the UK at any time before he decided to break the law in yet another country and jump bail? We are not exactly averse to granting US extradition requests..

Because he will not answer the accusations in Sweden voluntarily!! By the way, do you really interpret rape as a minor case?? Yes, rape is a serious crime so any such allegations have to be answered regardless of who they are made against. Also your attempt at moral equivalence between Assange's rape allegation and George W Bush's record is simply misdirection. Assange is wanted for questioning by legitimate authorities in connection with alleged rape. No formal allegations by a legitimate legal authority have been made against Bush - I'm afraid George Galloway and the Stop The War Coalition really don't count. Do you now accept that under Swedish law Julian Assange has a case to answer and that he should be compelled to do so? He has said that he will answer the case BY Sweden - In the Equadorean embassy: Same result, same likelihood of finding the truth, just no extradition. As stated above, who does this little prick think he is to dictate the terms of how and when he will answer questions related to an alleged offence?? I'd like to see you make that argument to a feminist, preferably in person! You don't know much about domestic sexual violence, do you? Possibly about as much as you seem to know about extradition between and from EU countries. The most common incidence of rape is within relationships where many if not all of the characteristic behaviours you mock are likely to occur. Indeed. I consider the Swedish police and the High Court of England as legitimate authorities. Clearly you don't, which is a little odd. Yep, you are ignoring all rational argument and factual evidence presented to you so that's probably wise.