Bahrain GP situation: postponed, reinstated, cancelled

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

You were commenting on that particular video

I think this is where we fell down. I was not commenting on anything particular, rather the the general attitude the government had to its people.
I see you and Giblet were debating a video earlier in the thread now. My apologies on that.

And yes the biggest loss of life in a day is 4 people with a 2 year old dying with "multiple" wounds.

If there is even a tiny chance that this violence will be replicated due to the presence of an F1 race, it shouldnt cross anyones mind that this ought to go ahead.
We have heard of threats about a "day of rage" should this happen. And I love F1...ALOT, but for innocent people to be killed (or with the threat of more violence)as a result of 1 race is just far too excessive.

[Dragonfly]

The whole thing stinks badly and is full of hypocrisy if not outright corruption.

[myurr]

My apologies on that.

No worries

And yes the biggest loss of life in a day is 4 people with a 2 year old dying with "multiple" wounds.

I'm struggling to find good info on the 2 year old. The child is mentioned in the text with the source being two UK newspaper reports, but isn't mentioned at all in the list of casualties. The papers are also very careful with their words, instead of saying the event happened they say "it's been reported that...". They tend to use that phrase when using single unconfirmed sources. They also claim "at least 5 people were killed" which we know to be inaccurate.

Again I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm just worried about accepting shaky information as gospel like this especially on such an emotive issue. Please do not take this out of context, but for all we know sitting on the outside the poor kid could have been accidentally trampled to death by fleeing protestors and then deliberately injured to make it look like they were shot to death. I have no reason to think that was the case, but this kind of act has happened many other times in this region where the value of propaganda is well understood.

I really hope that isn't the case here, but we cannot know for certain without more reliable information.

If there is even a tiny chance that this violence will be replicated due to the presence of an F1 race, it shouldnt cross anyones mind that this ought to go ahead.

We have heard of threats about a "day of rage" should this happen. And I love F1...ALOT, but for innocent people to be killed (or with the threat of more violence)as a result of 1 race is just far too excessive.

Utterly agree that if there is a real threat of violence then the race should go ahead. But again it's not as clear cut as most people would like.

It should be made clear that it is the "innocent people" that are threatening a day of rage and more violence, and not the government. Whether you view the people who perpetrate these acts of violence as protestors and freedom fighters or as terrorists tends to come down to whether you support their cause or not. To me either are acts of violence, and those involved cannot be described as innocent.

Finally if Al Qaeda released a statement saying they were going to target the British GP with acts of violence, would you be calling for the GP to be cancelled because of the tiny threat? Usually you need to stand up to those perpetrating violence otherwise it will escalate as weakness is perceived, and violence is seen to work.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I think looking at terrorist threats needs to be judged entirley on their own merits.
When you have a set policy, things tend not to work.

If the British GP was threatened by acts of violence, there would be a review of how to make it go ahead. Tightened security, Controlled ticket sales, heightened random checks by the authorities few days prior to the event. No guarantees, but every effort made.
I think if there was a clear and present danger, the event would be cancelled immediately because in Britain, heads would roll if anything untoward did happen. So the top brass would do whatever is safest.

Naturally the situation in Bahrain is different. To promise a protest will inevitably incur the wrath of the Bahraini and Saudi forces.

[myurr]

I think looking at terrorist threats needs to be judged entirley on their own merits.
When you have a set policy, things tend not to work.

If the British GP was threatened by acts of violence, there would be a review of how to make it go ahead. Tightened security, Controlled ticket sales, heightened random checks by the authorities few days prior to the event. No guarantees, but every effort made.
I think if there was a clear and present danger, the event would be cancelled immediately because in Britain, heads would roll if anything untoward did happen. So the top brass would do whatever is safest.

Naturally the situation in Bahrain is different. To promise a protest will inevitably incur the wrath of the Bahraini and Saudi forces.

I disagree that the situation is different. With the World media there the Bahraini government would be ridiculously stupid if they allowed any excessive violence to be used by the state forces. I'm sure they'd also be sure to have the protestors actions watched by hundreds of cameras so that if there is any outbreak of violence or any need of a police response then they would have evidence of the catalyst to be able to justify that response. All in all I find it highly unlikely that holding the GP would lead to more state violence.

So the only possible threat of violence can come from the protestors, and how is that different to anywhere else in the world and how is that a justification in and of itself for taking away the GP?

Why wouldn't controlled ticket sales, heightened random checks, etc. work in Bahrain? Why would it be so bad to have a large designated protest area where peaceful protests will be allowed and journalists can have full access, but without it being close enough to the circuit to pose a security risk or to prevent the race for happening? If protestors then cross those delineated boundaries the circuit security would be justified in responding and forcing them back (preferably with water cannon and other crowd control devices), and again with full camera coverage of the events.

[gridwalker]

On my daily trawl, I came across this rather interesting article : http://original.antiwar.com/hannah-gurm ... g-the-uae/

See if you can spot how Mubadala, the state-owned sponsor of Ferrari, were involved in arming and training the outsourced UAE "mercenary" forces that were involved in helping to repress the Bahraini uprising.

I'm not making any comment about the rights and wrongs of the situation, but I will say that this hasn't helped ease my personal dislike of the blood red cars.

[andrew]

No worse than BAE being involved with McLarn.

Much like the tobacco sponsorship only death is quicker. Both sponsors will try their best to kill you with their products.

Right, that's my morbid thought for today.

[Giblet]

The whole world unfortunately is in bed with big oil right now. You know what they say, 'stick with the devil you know' if you must deal with a devil.

[Richard]

No worse than BAE being involved with McLarn.

Much like the tobacco sponsorship only death is quicker. Both sponsors will try their best to kill you with their products.

Right, that's my morbid thought for today.

Aren't car fatalities the biggest killed in Western societies (ie excluding illnesses). Mr E is the new Dr Death!

....


By the way, I read in article the other day that 3 of the 4 police were killed when hit by cars. Here's a report on two of them ... http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... QL20110316

There is a non lethal way for troops in APC's defend themselves ... put their APC in the way.

[Richard]

Giblet - if you want to get really paranoid, something like 90% of the world's grain supply is controlled by 6 companies (ie Monsanto and friends)

[gridwalker]

Why would it be so bad to have a large designated protest area where peaceful protests will be allowed and journalists can have full access, but without it being close enough to the circuit to pose a security risk or to prevent the race for happening? If protestors then cross those delineated boundaries the circuit security would be justified in responding and forcing them back (preferably with water cannon and other crowd control devices), and again with full camera coverage of the events.

You mean like the "free speech zones" that were used to suppress US anti-war protest during the Bush presidency?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

There were numerous criticisms of this strategy, not least from the New Yorkers that I saw get locked into a "free speech zone" surrounded by fencing 10 feet high before getting teargassed with no means of escape.

And before anyone points out that I never said that the US GP should be boycotted, I wasn't on this board back then : I had more important places to voice my anger.

[Richard]

myurr - you're being hypothetical now aren't you? There was good reason to cancel the race in March, and the practicalities of squeezing it in at the end of the season was always in doubt. No need to get bogged down in human rights.

I recall China created free speech zones for the duration of the Olympics. I recall a reporter visiting one and finding it empty. The trouble is that it was surrounded by a "just one thought about dissent and we'll put you in jail" zone.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Myurr

The Bahraini authorities could grit their teeth for 4 days I'm very sure. The days ensuing after the venue would be retribution, meted out with bullets, tanks and other tools of war.

[myurr]

myurr - you're being hypothetical now aren't you? There was good reason to cancel the race in March, and the practicalities of squeezing it in at the end of the season was always in doubt. No need to get bogged down in human rights.

Absolutely - and I have no problem with the race in March being cancelled. It was the only possible response. I also have no problem with the race not being rescheduled later in the year for logistical reasons, as long as they are genuine.

What I would be critical of would be cancelling it on trumped up moral grounds.

I recall China created free speech zones for the duration of the Olympics. I recall a reporter visiting one and finding it empty. The trouble is that it was surrounded by a "just one thought about dissent and we'll put you in jail" zone.

Another example where China is far far worse than Bahrain, yet where are all the moral calls for the Chinese GP to be taken away from them?

I fully support the right of free speech and for protestors to demonstrate. However those protests should always be peaceful and should not interfere with those who have differing opinions. They should about raising awareness and demonstrating levels of support, and never about disruption, or violence, or intimidation, or confrontation.

[myurr]

Myurr

The Bahraini authorities could grit their teeth for 4 days I'm very sure. The days ensuing after the venue would be retribution, meted out with bullets, tanks and other tools of war.

What absolute hyperbolic bull.