Bahrain GP situation: postponed, reinstated, cancelled

[gridwalker]

It is standard procedure in modern policing for every protest to be recorded in video for future analysis and for ringleaders to be identified. Having been involved in protest movements ranging from the local (blockading EDL rallies) to the international (supporting aid convoys to Gaza), I am certain that the police have several days worth of video footage of myself when I have actually done NOTHING illegal.

Given that much of the crowd control equipment and training used by the Bahraini authorities was provided by British suppliers, I have little doubt that the Bahraini authorities would be following a similar procedure. If there was evidence to support an armed presence, wouldn't we have seen it by now?

To this date, I have not seen one credible piece of evidence that suggests an armed extremist presence in the Bahraini protest movement. Surely, if there was an armed presence large enough to justify martial law, the government would be able to provide sufficient documentary evidence to quell the international concern. Even a few clear videos would be sufficient to give "reasonable doubt" to those championing the Shia cause (this is leaving aside the issue of WHY these people would even want to bear arms against their government, which we are fully supporting in the case of Lybia).

I do not rely on the British media for information; I cannot find one British source that is beyond reproach. Every news organisation cherry-picks sources to support their agenda, so I spend a lot of time browsing international sources (even ones that I completely disagree with) searching for primary sources that corroborate or disprove what we see in the media. No matter where I have looked, I have found nothing to suggest an armed presence at the protests, other than announcements from the Bahraini government.

Claiming that this situation was caused by extremists or islamists is disingenuous. If there were a significant Islamist presence in the Bahraini movement, why have there not been attacks on the base of the US 5th Fleet? Surely, from an extremist perspective, that would be a much more valuable use of their resources?

On a related note : Comparing the relative civilian death rates at the hands of the Bahraini and Indian authorities might seem to make sense on the surface, but the death ratio PER CAPITA is an entirely different matter.

According to official statistics, in 2010 Bahrain had a population of 1,214,705. This includes 235,108 foreign residents, making an indigenous population of 979,597 : I live in a city with a larger population.

India has a population of over 1.2 BILLION people (1,210,193,422 according to recent estimates) ... This means that for the death rates in the two countries to be comparable, Indian authorities would need to kill 1,235 people for every single Bahraini death. If the Indian government committed an atrocity of this scale, I'm pretty certain that we'd hear about it.

Every single death is a tragedy, however a sense of perspective is needed when comparing international incidents; what is happening in Bahrain is peanuts compared to the horrors occurring in the People's Democratic Republic of Congo, however we do not reward the Congolese with the prestige of international sporting events.

[Giblet]

Sorry Myurr, I didn't see your post as I was responding to Andrew. The video I showed earlier that shows the lead of the group getting 'mowed down' and to me 4 is a 'mow'. The fire came from out of sight, and far enough away that there if warnings were yelled, they were not heard. I am sure there are reasons at the end of the day that could justify killing unarmed (zombie epidemics come to mind), but all reports state that the protesters in the video I showed and link here again were unarmed, and not warned. I can find zero information to contrary. The neurosurgeon who was jailed for trying to save his neighbours in the hospital was jailed and is still in jail now. He claimed that the shooters were aiming to kill, which is not how you quell a crowd. Rubber bullets would have done the same thing, except likely people would not be dead. Tear gas, bean bag bullets, fire hoses, riot police, beating with batons, none of these alternatives were even attempted. They just opened fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKX ... ntrinter=1

@Andrew - You answered all my post that was not a question, then avoided the question by not answering a direct question. If you can't answer my point, then the debate is over as you have run out of valid points.

The unarmed civilians obviously were shooting with their flags and mouths

Ignorance in the face of overwhelming facts and reports is a trait I wish I had. I see people get shot in the face, and I get angry. I get angry until there is a reason otherwise, which quite often, is not justifiable when not in a state of war. I don't need to know the reasons why, as shooting someone in the face is a last resort in any situation. We are not strangers to protests and police action in my country, but we avoid shooting each other.

Again Andrew, you have no evidence to the contrary, yet you wait for some alternative news to what really happened? I used to be a card carrying member of the flat earth society (really), but at least that was just a joke and fun to say at parties.

How many quoted internationally trusted sources would it take to convince you otherwise? Is there a number? How large are the blinders, and how deep is the conspiracy that you want to find that has yet to be suggested by the _rest of the planet_. All the worlds media outlets, reporting agencies (like Reuters and AP), independent journalists, and civilian reporters all saw the same thing, and it was reported the same. It wasn't until BBC (or whoever) started editorializing the story.

But you don't trust the BBC, which seems to be your core argument. Uprisings are like wars, you'll never get the whole picture and most of the media from the party being attacked or rebelled against are the ones with the propaganda interests, so you need to stand on your own morals as a compass when faced with uncertainty. My moral compass turns the opposite way from murder, and since I don't agree with war, there is very little reason for taking life other than defending your own.

Nobody can convince you otherwise that murdering innocent unarmed protesters is wrong, so I'll stop sticking to the exact same tune I have had since the beginning of this thread, even though there has been no new news to the contrary like you are looking for.

This incident happened back in March. Maybe the fact the opinions of what happened that day are actually standing supports it as fact? Even on the side of the fence I am on, that is a hard argument to go against.

There is no new information I can find anywhere supporting your lack of a stance due to BBC issues is quite an illogical disconnect.

I can understand the debate and can see both sides when it comes to the race being allowed to return. My opinion is strong, but it's not set in stone over the return of the race. What happened in Bahrain however I fail to see how it could be any less wrong.

[myurr]

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 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.

Having stayed on a military base and had the warning talks when arriving telling you that this is the case I tend to believe it. My business partner is also ex-military and has confirmed it.

Those protests you mention were outside the bases not in them, and whilst the Greenham Common mentions them cutting the fences it doesn't mention major incursions or the response. These were long term camps well known to the military personnel, and it is unlikely that the soliders ever felt that the incursions posed a threat.

If you were to break into a military base, refused to stop, and the soldier thought you posed a threat then you would be shot. I didn't say they couldn't exercise restraint, but if they shout a warning that they will shoot you if you do not stop then legally they can.

[PlatinumZealot]

Great going you party poopers.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/06/08/e ... ppen-2011/

Ecclestone said: “Of course it’s not on”.

He added: “The schedule cannot be rescheduled without the agreement of the participants – they’re the facts”.

[Richard]

I agree that that someone attacking a base could be shot if appropriate.

However that is clearly not proportionate to acts of civil disobedience, and that was the context you first raised.

there is one situation where I personally believe you would be justified in shooting your own unarmed civilians

Your post inferred that opening fire for civil disobedience would be justified and that it was the policy in the UK, but experience says otherwise.

FYI The Greenham Common protesters reached the runways and in one instance they climbed on top of the missile silos.

[gridwalker]

Members of the Stop The War coalition got caught sabotaging US Bombers at RAF Fairford in 2003 : Nobody got shot.

[Richard]

Of course this is all a distraction fro the facts.

Bahrain is cancelled due to logistics.

Logistics

Logistics

[myurr]

Sorry Myurr, I didn't see your post as I was responding to Andrew. The video I showed earlier that shows the lead of the group getting 'mowed down' and to me 4 is a 'mow'. The fire came from out of sight, and far enough away that there if warnings were yelled, they were not heard. I am sure there are reasons at the end of the day that could justify killing unarmed (zombie epidemics come to mind), but all reports state that the protesters in the video I showed and link here again were unarmed, and not warned. I can find zero information to contrary. The neurosurgeon who was jailed for trying to save his neighbours in the hospital was jailed and is still in jail now. He claimed that the shooters were aiming to kill, which is not how you quell a crowd. Rubber bullets would have done the same thing, except likely people would not be dead. Tear gas, bean bag bullets, fire hoses, riot police, beating with batons, none of these alternatives were even attempted. They just opened fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKX ... ntrinter=1

Completely agree that the video looks horrific and that the police / military response was over the top and unjustified.

What I'm having trouble reconciling is the number of shots fired with the only 3 apparent hits - two leg shots and one head shot. Were most of the shooters firing rubber bullets, firing over their heads, etc.? Were they using live ammo but aiming at the floor in front of the protestors, with the 3 hits being very unfortunate ricochets? Did one or more of the shooters aim for the legs of the protestors but got an accidental head shot? Were rubber bullets used throughout, but they unfortunately caused those three injuries (rubber bullets is a misleading name, not all are equal and they can kill).

If the head shot was deliberate why was that guy singled out and yet the only two protestors that remained standing defiant in the street were left unharmed?

Also the shots weren't out of sight, they're approximately 50 - 100 metres down the road. The video is unclear due to the bandwidth / resolution / rapid movement, but it looks like 3 APCs, each with a soldier on top, and maybe two or three soldiers on foot alongside them.

What if the protestors had been previously warned not to approach that military checkpoint and they defied this instruction? What if the government is correct and 4 police officers had been killed and hundreds injured by violent protestors, and these few soldiers were fearful of the mob approaching them? What if the protestors were armed, as government pictures have suggested?

To me it looks really bad and I can quite believe that it was an utter overreaction by the soldiers that was completely unjustified. However I cannot say that beyond doubt and I have serious doubts over a lot of the claims. Soldiers shooting to kill from that distance, aiming at that large a crowd, and firing what sounded like 100+ rounds, would have scored more than 3 hits.

[Richard]

I'm with you on that one myurr. We see these events take place on TV from flashpoints around the world, we hear the shots, we see the large crowd, but only one or two people get hit.

I can only conclude that soldiers are attempting warning shots, but people are hit by a stray bullet. The notion of using live gunfire as a "warning" to disperse crowds seems to inevitably lead to someone getting hit. One has to be callous (or badly trained) to consider it prior to non-lethal means.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

There were also many injuries, Shooting to hit a target is deemed deadly enough force to kill. And much more than three were hit.....

[PlatinumZealot]

Of course this is all a distraction fro the facts.

Bahrain is cancelled due to logistics.

Logistics

Logistics

Thank you. =D>

- Not because citizens were shot by soldiers. Which happens all around the world. This a place where you go to jail for drinking alcohol, you get death sentence for homosexuality, your hands cut off for stealing... a place where "eye for an eye" is the law. This is REALITY - not some first world dream land.

[Richard]

woah! Bahrain isn't Saudi Arabia. You can drink alcohol, there are not laws against homosexuality, and the death penalty was last used in mid 90's and 2007.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Bahrain
http://ozsteve1.tripod.com/Living%20in%20Bahrain.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ap ... protesters


Also, the original race was cancelled due to the disturbances, they were not normal.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I think richard was putting forward an excuse the FIA could use nsmikle....

[Richard]

I think the logistic problem was a very valid reason. The teams would barely unpack in December before they had to launch the new cars in January. The winter shut down is 10 or 12 weeks? Chopping 2 weeks off that by extending the season would have big impact on development & production.

A team fighting for WCC or WDC places (places = money) would have their production people tied up with producing new parts for the races.

Admittedly it helpfully lets everyone avoid the political issues.

[myurr]

There were also many injuries, Shooting to hit a target is deemed deadly enough force to kill. And much more than three were hit.....

Where? There's no evidence of that at all in this specific incident, and I sincerely doubt that people shot with live ammo by soldiers shooting to kill would have been hit and then carried on running away. The majority of people would go down.

There were at least 40 people ahead of the guy who got hit in the head. He was wearing a distinctively coloured t-shirt that I think you can just about make out in a couple of frames to the extreme left of the recording, with many people in front of him. Why was he targeted so accurately when all those others were missed?

Only two people near the head of the crowd stood defiant, as best as we can tell from the video, throughout the whole thing and they were unharmed. If the soldiers were deliberately shooting to kill why were these two ignored?