Miandad gets it spot on

[Swervy]

If you dont tour a country because of the Bomb attacks and terrorism,You are making the terrorists life easier,by letting them know that They have succeded in what they want,Which is scaring the **** out of the people and ****ing the economy.

it is a bit more tricky than that when you have a wife and kids to think about as well

 

[aussie]

Rubbish - it was all one carefully planned attack.

If anything I'd say London is safer now.

defiantely its much safer than Karachi, plus this is another crazy comment from Maindad...

 

[Tony Blade]

How can they guarantee safety in a city that is so volatile?

And besides, didn't the ECB send out an independent firm to report on it?

Its not as volatile as everyone makes it out to be.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry, but when you get comments like the Mayor's one I'm afraid it's volatile enough to make it a no-go zone.

 

[social]

Fact 3: ECB may not want to tour Pakistan due to safety concerns but those concerns are not a factor if Pakistan takes responsibility for safety.

QUOTE]

Worst case scenario: terrorist, etc targets area close to team (doesnt necessarily have to be directed at cricket squad)

What makes you think that Pakistanis are any more capable of preventing random acts of violence than other security forces.

What possible compensation could the Pakistanis offer to those left behind?

IMO, international cricket boards have a responsibility to their players to heed govt security warnings. Should innocent locals struggle financially, emotionally, etc as a result then blame the terrorists not the cricketers.



Really, taking "responsibility" is such a hollow term.

 

[EnglishRose]

The 2 cases are nothing like each other.

Do explain why ? The Brits are the no2 terrorist target in the world after the Yanks.
And yet you expect people to have no worries about playing in London ?

Again typical arrogant British attitude.

 

[EnglishRose]

sounds like typical crap from Miandad...a world of difference between the highly volatile and instabe atmosphre of Karachi (didnt the mayor say there would be a bloodbath in Karachi recently) and a city that is at risk of terrorist attack (much like every major city in the world) like London.

Do you think Islamic extremist would really target the Pakistani team in London?

In the off topic thread, you rail about the media making such a big deal about caial tensions in London. Yet it is the same media that makes such a big deal about Karachi's supposed unsafety. (i am assuming you're relying on media reports with regards to your references regarding the "volatile" and "instable" atmosphere
). Unlikely that you have been to Karachi )
You can't have it both ways Skippy.

As for the second part of your post......Skippy, terrorist attacks usually don't discriminate in terms of the victims they take.
On 9/11/2001, the targets were clearly identifiable yet the deaths included people of the Islamic faith.

What's there to suggest the Pakistani cricket team or another foreign sports team for that matter will not be "collateral damage" in the
event of another terrorist attack on London (hopefully there won't be one!).

 

[Pratters]

How can they guarantee safety in a city that is so volatile?

And besides, didn't the ECB send out an independent firm to report on it?

Can safety be guaranteed in any city really is the more pertinent question.

 

[Pratters]

The 2 cases are nothing like each other.

The cases are same in the sense no city is safe.

 

[vic_orthdox]

defiantely its much safer than Karachi, plus this is another crazy comment from Maindad...

...as opposed to the secondary dad?

 

[dinu23]

so u can gurantee that England won't have any more bombs blowing. I don't think so.

 

[Swervy]

name one city in which a 100% guarantee like that can be made

 

[Pratters]

name one city in which a 100% guarantee like that can be made

None. So if the home county is giving a security provision and taking responsibility, its all that can be done.

So why make an issue as England did.

 

[marc71178]

Do explain why ? The Brits are the no2 terrorist target in the world after the Yanks.
And yet you expect people to have no worries about playing in London ?

Again typical arrogant British attitude.

You what?

I don't remember Ken Livingstone saying that there'd be a bloodbath at the recent London Mayoral elections?

It's not an arrogant British attitude, it's common sense.

 

[marc71178]

In the off topic thread, you rail about the media making such a big deal about caial tensions in London.

I think you'll find the talk is of tensions in Bradford and that area.

 

[marc71178]

Can safety be guaranteed in any city really is the more pertinent question.

Why not scrap International Cricket if you're going to take that line?

 

[marc71178]

None. So if the home county is giving a security provision and taking responsibility, its all that can be done.

So why make an issue as England did.

The issue is that whereas the odd thing will happen in any city, there are some cities where it is not just an odd incident.

 

[Pratters]

Why not scrap International Cricket if you're going to take that line?

I am saying quite the opposite!

 

[Pratters]

The issue is that whereas the odd thing will happen in any city, there are some cities where it is not just an odd incident.

The risk is huge in any city and if a cricket team is to be targetted it can be any where.

So stopping international cricket based on this by cancelling tours, specific venues is not the way to go.

 

[superkingdave]

so what is your''re punishment if the terrorist attack happens then Pratyush, what does this taking 'responsibility' entail?