(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - What a wise people …
How wise and aware and patient and solid people of Bahrain as they chose the best when they entered the fold of Islam and faith, unforced, giving precedence to God’s guidance instead of people’s misguidance on the earth. People of Bahrain also stayed on the line of Islam and faith, not reverting from Islam and not looking for any other alternative.
They also have enjoyed a good old political sense and a spirit that always leaps to goodness, guidance, and perfection, being always precedent in demanding their political rights, freedom, and dignity, and sacrificing for them, not to mention that they also insist today on continuing their demands despite all the huge sacrifices, without being deterred by the policy of terror, attempts of deception, and circumvention.
What a wise and aware people, and yet, what did the representatives, who claim that they are this people’s representatives and are supposed to defend people’s rights, spirits, freedom and dignity, say about this people?
It came out from the dome of the dialogue that Bahrain’s people are not rational and mature enough to choose for themselves and to give an opinion regarding their lives and their own things, incapable of being a reference in the affairs of politics, and that interlocutors are the ones who should decide for people, and that authority, above the all, is the one who has the right to hold people in tutelage and that authority is the first and the last responsible about people, and that authority has the absolute power in directing people’s things, present, and future!!!!
Depending on this perspective on the people’s level of rationality, there might be no future, if it is not impossible, for people to achieve this rationality and capacity in making their own choices instead of choosing the interlocutors and those who are above them to choose on behalf of them. And who will be the chosen arbitrator in the case of people’s maturity – if it’s possible for this people to achieve this maturity even if it is not in the foreseeable future?!
The interlocutors will go, and we need this authority, which people complain from and disagree with and prevent their rights and which claims that it has the natural and original right of holding people in tutelage, to admit and recognize people’s maturity and capacity as people now live a long stage that must extend too much in order to achieve their maturity!!!
This stage is a stage of the unfair killing to the dear sons of this homeland, arrests, imprisonment, the intensified penalties for those demanding their rights, the campaigns of oppressing the residential regions as a retaliation for insisting on demanding freedom, deprivation, starvation, dismissing from jobs, displacement, stripping nationality, torture, fierce raids on homes, and a long list of violations and abuses. This is the way of nourishing people and making them rational!
This is the way of qualifying people chosen by the authority to qualify this irrational people and to make them earn this required capacity in order to be later able to give their opinions in their lives’ policies!!!
The piece of news which came out from the dialogue’s session abuses people, mocks them, wastes their dignity, and neglects their rights as if it is a dagger in the side, so thousand salutations from this people for the one who said this statement!!!
Is this what the dialogue for?
If a problem persisted between two parties and they headed to solve it, the dialogue is taken as a path to this solution. Has the authority called for the dialogue, which has always been demanded by the opposition party, on sincere intentions to resolve the persisting political crisis which exhausted the country and cost it a lot? If so, then the intention is genuine however, the planning is ill. As ill as the path taken by the authority in this dialogue and its insistency on not changing one iota of its rigid attitudes that do not fit with the intentions of making the dialogue successful.
In contrast to this hypothesis, that, the call for dialogue but came out from a special political basis and for a media purpose to solve the case of literary pressures from global human rights organizations, and to remedy some the reputation degrading among many external circles. Depending on all of that, the kind of the dialogue’s planning emerges with its failure factors and the practical path taken by the official party as a whole is very consistent with the launched propaganda background.
What also consists with this background is the continuing repression, straining security situation, the trials’ unstoppable escalation, the unchanged dangerous deteriorating state of the jurist file, and the long disruption of Bassiouni’ recommendations after the declaring their commitment towards implementing them and giving unfixed deadlines for this implementation with the continuation of the state of negligence and disruption. The same goes for Geneva recommendations.
We still hear about the cases of those dismissed from their jobs and the neglect of their legally fixed right to return, and have not yet heard about a trial of one of the high officials responsible for torture, and yet equivalently has not been given a single judgment against those who kill under torture, except for small policeman. The peaceful areas still drowns under asphyxiating and poisonous gases, the violations continue and the law is still openly and broadly bypassed.
Was the call for the dialogue to throw dust in the eyes, polish reputation and numb the nerves, even if for temporary basis? Even this goal the dialogue could not achieve because of the planning’ nature and the nature of the authority’ rigid position in the dialogue' introduction, and what matched it outside the walls like the escalation tension of security condition and the continuation of the deterioration of human rights.
How serious can the dialogue be? The dialogue which findings, according to the official party, can't be shown to people in order to know their opinion about as a mean of ensuring the success of this solution?
What's the value of the dialogue when the official party refuses to agree on a mechanism with which the people's party will participate to ensure the implementation of its findings?
What practical value does the dialogue hold after Bassiouni's experiment which the government failed to implement even after its intensive emphasis on its commitment to it, after this period that exceeded the reasonable limit with repeated promises and statements about how this file must be fully completed? How many times have we heard that the dismissed file must be fully completed in the specified completion date? And how many times have we passed such dates with nothing being done?
Another wonder of this dialogue wonders is that the authority, which called for it, put its plan, control and run its course, doest not want to give a commitment to its agreed upon findings. Another wonder is the official party's insistence on the opposition party's unequal representation, and that they should be accepted by almost (1 for 3), as is the case in the elections in the country.
Can we all say that the dialogue has been wanted to be successful? And that this plagued country to overcome the crisis?
We wish for the intention to be amended, the gaps to be filled, the mistakes to be corrected, and the dialogue success factors to be pursued as a token of mercy to this country with all its components and to care for its present and future.
/129
How wise and aware and patient and solid people of Bahrain as they chose the best when they entered the fold of Islam and faith, unforced, giving precedence to God’s guidance instead of people’s misguidance on the earth. People of Bahrain also stayed on the line of Islam and faith, not reverting from Islam and not looking for any other alternative.
They also have enjoyed a good old political sense and a spirit that always leaps to goodness, guidance, and perfection, being always precedent in demanding their political rights, freedom, and dignity, and sacrificing for them, not to mention that they also insist today on continuing their demands despite all the huge sacrifices, without being deterred by the policy of terror, attempts of deception, and circumvention.
What a wise and aware people, and yet, what did the representatives, who claim that they are this people’s representatives and are supposed to defend people’s rights, spirits, freedom and dignity, say about this people?
It came out from the dome of the dialogue that Bahrain’s people are not rational and mature enough to choose for themselves and to give an opinion regarding their lives and their own things, incapable of being a reference in the affairs of politics, and that interlocutors are the ones who should decide for people, and that authority, above the all, is the one who has the right to hold people in tutelage and that authority is the first and the last responsible about people, and that authority has the absolute power in directing people’s things, present, and future!!!!
Depending on this perspective on the people’s level of rationality, there might be no future, if it is not impossible, for people to achieve this rationality and capacity in making their own choices instead of choosing the interlocutors and those who are above them to choose on behalf of them. And who will be the chosen arbitrator in the case of people’s maturity – if it’s possible for this people to achieve this maturity even if it is not in the foreseeable future?!
The interlocutors will go, and we need this authority, which people complain from and disagree with and prevent their rights and which claims that it has the natural and original right of holding people in tutelage, to admit and recognize people’s maturity and capacity as people now live a long stage that must extend too much in order to achieve their maturity!!!
This stage is a stage of the unfair killing to the dear sons of this homeland, arrests, imprisonment, the intensified penalties for those demanding their rights, the campaigns of oppressing the residential regions as a retaliation for insisting on demanding freedom, deprivation, starvation, dismissing from jobs, displacement, stripping nationality, torture, fierce raids on homes, and a long list of violations and abuses. This is the way of nourishing people and making them rational!
This is the way of qualifying people chosen by the authority to qualify this irrational people and to make them earn this required capacity in order to be later able to give their opinions in their lives’ policies!!!
The piece of news which came out from the dialogue’s session abuses people, mocks them, wastes their dignity, and neglects their rights as if it is a dagger in the side, so thousand salutations from this people for the one who said this statement!!!
Is this what the dialogue for?
If a problem persisted between two parties and they headed to solve it, the dialogue is taken as a path to this solution. Has the authority called for the dialogue, which has always been demanded by the opposition party, on sincere intentions to resolve the persisting political crisis which exhausted the country and cost it a lot? If so, then the intention is genuine however, the planning is ill. As ill as the path taken by the authority in this dialogue and its insistency on not changing one iota of its rigid attitudes that do not fit with the intentions of making the dialogue successful.
In contrast to this hypothesis, that, the call for dialogue but came out from a special political basis and for a media purpose to solve the case of literary pressures from global human rights organizations, and to remedy some the reputation degrading among many external circles. Depending on all of that, the kind of the dialogue’s planning emerges with its failure factors and the practical path taken by the official party as a whole is very consistent with the launched propaganda background.
What also consists with this background is the continuing repression, straining security situation, the trials’ unstoppable escalation, the unchanged dangerous deteriorating state of the jurist file, and the long disruption of Bassiouni’ recommendations after the declaring their commitment towards implementing them and giving unfixed deadlines for this implementation with the continuation of the state of negligence and disruption. The same goes for Geneva recommendations.
We still hear about the cases of those dismissed from their jobs and the neglect of their legally fixed right to return, and have not yet heard about a trial of one of the high officials responsible for torture, and yet equivalently has not been given a single judgment against those who kill under torture, except for small policeman. The peaceful areas still drowns under asphyxiating and poisonous gases, the violations continue and the law is still openly and broadly bypassed.
Was the call for the dialogue to throw dust in the eyes, polish reputation and numb the nerves, even if for temporary basis? Even this goal the dialogue could not achieve because of the planning’ nature and the nature of the authority’ rigid position in the dialogue' introduction, and what matched it outside the walls like the escalation tension of security condition and the continuation of the deterioration of human rights.
How serious can the dialogue be? The dialogue which findings, according to the official party, can't be shown to people in order to know their opinion about as a mean of ensuring the success of this solution?
What's the value of the dialogue when the official party refuses to agree on a mechanism with which the people's party will participate to ensure the implementation of its findings?
What practical value does the dialogue hold after Bassiouni's experiment which the government failed to implement even after its intensive emphasis on its commitment to it, after this period that exceeded the reasonable limit with repeated promises and statements about how this file must be fully completed? How many times have we heard that the dismissed file must be fully completed in the specified completion date? And how many times have we passed such dates with nothing being done?
Another wonder of this dialogue wonders is that the authority, which called for it, put its plan, control and run its course, doest not want to give a commitment to its agreed upon findings. Another wonder is the official party's insistence on the opposition party's unequal representation, and that they should be accepted by almost (1 for 3), as is the case in the elections in the country.
Can we all say that the dialogue has been wanted to be successful? And that this plagued country to overcome the crisis?
We wish for the intention to be amended, the gaps to be filled, the mistakes to be corrected, and the dialogue success factors to be pursued as a token of mercy to this country with all its components and to care for its present and future.
/129