Bahrain GP situation: postponed, reinstated, cancelled

[myurr]

Was Garcia sent there to make a moral judgement or to assess the safety?

And there is one situation where I personally believe you would be justified in shooting your own unarmed civilians - if in a military controlled area they are told to stop advancing on an armed position, or engage in a restricted activity, and then they are given a second clear warning that they will be shot if they do not stop. This is the law in the UK and US at least, and I feel it is justified.

I have no idea if this was the case in any of the shootings in Bahrain, but we simply do not have the facts to know. I would find it very surprising if it were the case in all the shootings in Bahrain though.

We also have no idea if any of those civilians were really armed or not. 25% of the population own a gun, with 180,000 firearms in civilian hands in that country. Some reports have said that the majority of protestors were unarmed but that some were armed. The Bahraini government has also shown screen grabs that they claim show some protestors armed with semi-automatic pistols, machetes and knives.

[andrew]

I honestly think you dont grasp the reality of the situation there Im afraid.

I think I do.

The person, Garcia, they sent in, does not speak Arabic. He never talked to anyone who was shot, treated the shot, or anyone who is currently jailed and being tortured. The news changes in Bahrain daily, if you look for it, and stay off the CNN's of the world. you are not looking for a balanced view. Innocents wer killed, there is no balance. What you are actually looking for does not exist. The bias of a report shows a different slant, but the core of the story, with video proof, is that innocents were shot.

The protestors will have been well aware of a state of martial law being declared. Playing Devils advocate, the protestors chose to ignore the state of martial law and have a face off with the military. What else is going to happen?!

Besides, do we know that there were not any armed protestors?

I challenge you to tell all of us what a possible different view could be that woud justify shooting your own unarmed civilians in the street. There is no justification I can think of, and not trusting the BBC is not good enough.

Given that none of us are or have been in Bahrain then I can only go on what has been reported in the mass media. As I told you the other day, there are 2 sides to every story. So far the side of the protestors has been highly publicised and the government vilified. I want to hear the government’s side of events before I will condemn or condone anyone.

But if some guy name Garcia who you know nothing about says its OK, you believe him full stop.

He was sent in by the FIA to report on the situation and did just that. What more can he do? He fulfilled his remit. He was instructed to advise if the state was safe or not and has done just that by speaking to the appropriate people i.e. the ones in control.

Interestingly, the UK Foreign Office are no longer advising against travel to Bahrain. They only advise travellers to be aware and familiar with the countries current state.

I’m sorry, but this final comment just sound like sulking to be honest. Accept that I want to be aware off all the facts before arriving at a conclusion.

[Richard]

The report is amusing. It notes that the government took him to meet all these people, everyone the government introduced him to was very nice and said the government was wonderful.

He even went to a shopping centre to see normal people doing normal things. Would you believe it, by pure chance there was a petition taking place in support of reinstating the F1 GP.

Sen. Garcia's previous report was about a meeting with the Lion King to investigate their attitude to gazelles ...

I met the lion king to understand how much lions love gazelles and live in perfect harmony with them.

We included a trip to a watering hole where we spontaneously stumbled upon a gazelle petition saying that lions are lovely and they often invite gazelles to pop round to the lion's den to share a yummy dinner of ... err.... well... definitely not dead gazelle.

Lions do not kill gazelles. Definitely not.

no no no

That's what I was told by the gazelle.

The gazelle was yellow with a nice fluffy mane that he let stroke.

I know he was a gazelle because he told me so.

[Giblet]

Andrew, I only posed you a single question, and you managed to avoid it quite nicely.

What could possible be the other side of the story? Marshall law means the military is able to arrest and detain and have the same power of police. Marshall law does not mean you get to shoot people willy nilly.

Now back to the question you avoided.

What possible justification could there be for mowing down unarmed civilians in the street?

I don't have to witness innocents being killed to know killing innocents is wrong, and I find it sad that others don't see cold blooded murder as something full stop wrong and evil.

[andrew]

Andrew, I only posed you a single question, and you managed to avoid it quite nicely.

What could possible be the other side of the story? Marshall law means the military is able to arrest and detain and have the same power of police. Marshall law does not mean you get to shoot people willy nilly.

Now back to the question you avoided.

What possible justification could there be for mowing down unarmed civilians in the street?

I don't think I avoided it at all. I have not been to Bahrain and the bias of the mass media is obvious. I don't want to start guessing games as that is pointless.

I am fully aware of what martial law means.

As for your question, it is one that cannot be answered. Do we know that all protestors were unarmed? Do we know that there was not a militant element? As I said, I will not condemn or condone the actions of either side until all the facts are known.

I don't have to witness innocents being killed to know killing innocents is wrong, and I find it sad that others don't see cold blooded murder as something full stop wrong and evil.

No one on here is for one minute condoning killing innocents. What I want to know is the reasons behind the military opening fire? Were protestors warned that they would be shot if they kept protesting or did the military just open fire without warning? Who fired the first shots? These questions have not been answered, or not that I have found so far.

[Richard]

Andrew - http://tinyurl.com/422lv6c

[andrew]

Andrew - http://tinyurl.com/422lv6c

I am fully aware of how to work google without being patronized. I have seen these videos but I want to know the resons why. What is the governments reasoning? Who fired first?

[myurr]

Very enlightening report, thanks for pointing it out Giblet. Here are the interesting points it raised for me:

• The report is very clear over exactly who was met, who made which statements, and their links to the state.
• The FIA members reading the report would be under no illusion as to what was examined and what was not.
• The UNESCO delegate (independent from the state) said that the initially peaceful demonstrations became increasingly violent.
• He also said that he felt the portrayal of the protests in the international media had been inaccurate.
• He stated that he and his family had been back in Bahrain for over a month and were living their usual day to day life without issue.
• Bahrain's Interior Minister said protestors had attacked the police resulting in 4 dead policemen and 180 injured.
• Protestors had also injured members of the public.
• They also targeted a hospital and impeded admittance of injured people resulting in further casualties.
• He said that this pushed police to respond to restore security, but in his view and with hindsight they had overreacted.
• The minister "truly believes that mistakes have been made on both sides and lessons have been learnt."
• The FIA then met the board members of the circuit.
• They completely denied that 25% of the workforce had been dismissed for political or religious reasons.
• Of 108 personnel they had dismissed 15 people - none from key areas - for being absent from work for 15 days without supplying any reason, and retrospectively trying to claim holiday leave.
• The FIA separately consulted a specialist on Bahrain Labour Law who seems to verify that this was justified, but not very clearly.
• The FIA interviewed six staff, of their choosing, from the circuit. All from different religions, ethnic backgrounds, and even countries.
• All the staff were unanimous in that motor racing helped cement relationships in Bahrain and was a positive.
• The FIA visited the biggest shopping centre in town and found citizens going about their daily lives as usual.
• There were a group of young people there who were petitioning for the F1 GP to return.
• They had collected more than 13,000 signatures and verifiable IDs (I think that's roughly 20% of the population!).
• The FIA then met with a member of the National Institute of Human Rights (a government backed agency, although the report doesn't highlight this) and some international companies (selected by the President of Bahrain Motor Federation).
• They backed up the Bahraini governments position, but I could be convinced that these people had ties to the government.

The conclusions state life is completely normal and "there is No indication of any problems or reason why Bahrain's F1 Grand Prix should not return to the 2011 Calendar". That bolded passage was copied directly and was in bold in the report.

In my mind I don't think the report in any way tries to hide the fact that most of the information is from the Bahraini government and linked organisations. As such it shouldn't be taken as gospel, however I believe it introduces an interesting perspective on events especially with the supporting information given by the UN's representative.

My take aways are: that the western media have almost certainly been biased in their reporting; that it is likely the protestors weren't all peaceful and weren't all unarmed, even if the majority were; that the police response was heavy handed and that they hopefully wouldn't respond in the same way in future; that the country is likely safe, but that more investigation should be carried out before assessing this.

[Richard]

It is an autocratic minority authority repressing majority protesters, just as we have seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, & Syria.

If you're working on the basis of who fired first, then you'll never get an answer, its all lost in the fog of confrontation. Both sides will blame the other.

No doubt the troops will claim self defence when faced by a mob.

Equally, the huge archive of eye witness reports, amateur footage and reports from hospital doctors showed that something grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate took place. (and the government admit that their response was disproportionate)

[myurr]

Andrew, I only posed you a single question, and you managed to avoid it quite nicely.

What could possible be the other side of the story? Marshall law means the military is able to arrest and detain and have the same power of police. Marshall law does not mean you get to shoot people willy nilly.

Now back to the question you avoided.

What possible justification could there be for mowing down unarmed civilians in the street?

I don't have to witness innocents being killed to know killing innocents is wrong, and I find it sad that others don't see cold blooded murder as something full stop wrong and evil.

I gave you an answer but you've ignored it. I dare you to break in to a US or UK military base and ignore any shouted warnings along the lines of "stop.... stop or I'll shoot". You may be unarmed but they will not hesitate in shooting you if you fail to comply with their orders, and they are backed by the full weight of the law.

You presume innocence where there might not be - none of us know for sure. You presume a 'mowing down of unarmed civilians' where there have never been more than 4 deaths on any one day during the protests, so there was no 'mowing down', and there is no guarantee that the whole crowd was unarmed.

I find it sad that others cannot question the narrative they are fed by the media and cannot even contemplate there being another side to the story or that events are shades of grey rather than always black and white.

[Richard]

[*] They completely denied that 25% of the workforce had been dismissed for political or religious reasons.
[*] Of 108 personnel they had dismissed 15 people - none from key areas - for being absent from work for 15 days without supplying any reason, and retrospectively trying to claim holiday leave.

It would have been interesting to find out where all 108 staff lived and their ethnicity. Then they could see if that correlated to those who didn't turn up for work.

They also didn't check the attendance of the 75% who were not sacked, ie all 108 people could have been absent for all we know.

Another good bit was "we spoke to 6 people in private". Well that hardly a free voice because they wouldn't have been anonymous. They all said nice things, pay rise for the 6. Extra pay rise for the Egyptian for getting a mention in dispatches.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm sure the people working at the circuit were all motivated and happy, it must be a great job. Its just that the methodology of the report is so badly flawed.

[myurr]

I don't think the methodology of the report is flawed for what it is supposed to achieve. It's clearly not a moral judgement and doesn't pretend to be - not one conclusion of the report passes any moral judgement at all. It's an assessment of the safety situation and is very clear about the methodology used so that readers can see the limitations and take them into account.

[Richard]

I dare you to break in to a US or UK military base and ignore any shouted warnings along the lines of "stop.... stop or I'll shoot". You may be unarmed but they will not hesitate in shooting you if you fail to comply with their orders

You've said this a couple of times and I'm going to have to tell you that is nonsense. There is along history of civil disobedience at UK military establishments, and as far as I recall no fatalities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Menwit ... nstrations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenham_C ... Peace_Camp

Furthermore, lets say that decreeing that an area is under military control gives a government the legal right to use military force. It may fulfil some legal niceties, but it still ends up in the use of disproportionate force by the state.

After all the Bahrain government have admitted their response was disproportionate.

[Richard]

I don't think the methodology of the report is flawed for what it is supposed to achieve.

It claimed to investigate if staff were discriminated against at the circuit. Would you not say that its methods were flawed?

It claimed it was going to find out what happened during the protests but only spoke to people selected by the government. So that was flawed too.

It is an amateurish report with a shallow pretence of impartial fact finding. However I agree with you that it did get what it set out to achieve.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Andrew

I think you dont dont grasp the reality of this. Here's why.....
You completely ignorant to the fact that innocents were gunned down by government militia, Tanks AND attack Helicopters.
You dismiss this as Western media fervour, but forgo that maybe, just maybe, the Arabs would want to know about this themselves and on their terms?

Well they do and they have the means....


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 76772.html

I guess Al Jazeera must have an agenda now?

Fact remains, the protesters have threatened a "day of anger" should F1 return this year. We know what will happen from the bloody images that have been conveyed to the internet. Tanks, militia and attack helicopters Andrew, not very condusive to a sporting event now is it?

So in a nutshell it boils down to having an F1 race and a the inevitable innocent deaths that will happen, or scrap the event and ensure calm in the country.

There is a clear wrong and right decision, and the FIA got it wrong badly.