Sir Henry Wotton once said, "An ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to lie on behalf of his country." Sir Henry, however, lived between 1568 and 1639. Had he lived to see our time, he would have had other comments to make. For in our case the issue at hand has by far exceeded lying.
Indeed the GDN carried on April 9, two outstanding articles - the first, on page one by Mr Anwar Abdulrahman as a comment, and the second under the title 'View Point' by WW on page 13, regarding the National Dialogue and the way the so-called opposition is collaborating with the US Embassy to a level of almost taking orders, which they would then implement in a room that is supposed to be off limits for anyone except members of the dialogue committee.
Last week, I heard on the radio, a programme the Unwritten History of the United States. The people discussing the issue were trying to explain that this relates to the interference by the US government in other countries - whether through coup d'etats or through straightforward blatant interference.
This, as stated by them, has contributed immensely to the relationship the US has had with other countries and the way its innocent nationals have been targeted by those directly affected.
My question though is to the US nationals - those who are living in peace and harmony on this island of Bahrain; the very voters who got this government in power - are you happy with what your government is doing to the rest of the world?
Indeed, if you live in Bahrain and have enjoyed your stay and would like to continue living here, can you honestly tell me what business is it of the US government to spoonfeed the so-called opposition which is nothing but a terrorist movement financed by Iran - our mutual enemy - and adopted by your government?
This very opposition is committing atrocities on a daily basis. They are killing innocent citizens and innocent foreign workers. They are killing the very symbol of security by burning policemen alive. Indeed, when was the last time you saw a person scalped? Well, you probably saw it in a Western movie, however we had a police man scalped here in Bahrain, with a brick, would you like to see his picture?
The British Ambassador had the decency to admit that this mob is nothing but a group of terrorists. British minister Alistair Burt admitted that Iran is interfering and is the direct cause of what is going on in Bahrain. Yet, he also categorically denied that Britain had anything to do with it.
On the other hand, the American Ambassador has neither condemned the violence nor denied the fact that he is indeed in constant touch with these so-called terrorists.
I ask you: how would you feel if the Bahraini Ambassador in Washington was in contact with an enemy of the US? Indeed, what kind of a carnage would that have caused in the relationships between our two countries?
Yet, by your own Federal Bureau of Investigations' (FBI) definition terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
I ask you which part of this definition does not apply to our opposition?
I can only say that may be Napoleon had a better definition of what ambassadors are when he said, ambassadors are, in the full meaning of the term, titled spies.
Will your ambassador now have the decency to at least admit to what his agenda is? Or are we going to be yet another Iraq?
Attorney at Law