England calls off tour....

[haroon510]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indveng/content/current/story/380392.html

i just find this unfair.. England team wants "comondo's protection" and afew other safety conditions.. pakistan was ready to provide all these saftey conditions to aus team and others who were to play in champions trophy yet Aus didn't tour pakistan and champions trophy wasn't played.. why?

 

[Richard]

The only viable reason can be because people don't trust the Pakistani security forces.

Whether they have no good reason or negligable good reason to do such a thing is the big question.

 

[Rebecca]

The latest . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7761931.stm

 

[FBU]

There's all sorts of rumours around

Flintoff is not going
Flintoff is going
Only Flintoff and Harmison are not going
At least 5 or 6 players are not going
Several EPP bowlers are going
Middlesex bowlers could be called up
They are flying out to Abu Dhabi tomorrow and will make their decision from there
England demanded commando style protection
Email leaked
Dickason report today
Dickason report on Thursday
Foreign office advises only essential travel
England have had talks with foreign office
England set to play in India

What bit of exciting news will we get tomorrow?

 

[Sanz]

Last I checked, Geoff Lawson wasn't a noted counter-terrorism expert so I'd think they'll put their faith in someone a little more qualified. It's a really strange argument, especially considering the fairly vast differences between the attacks in the respective countries, that because England had a terrorist attack on its soil, it should stay in India. Point?

If I am not mistaken, the attacks happened in London, not all the players were from London, they still travelled to London, right ?

In any case, I am not arguing in favor of Players forced to tour India or any other country where they fell there is a security risk, real or unreal.

 

[Richard]

There's all sorts of rumours around

Flintoff is not going
Flintoff is going
Only Flintoff and Harmison are not going
At least 5 or 6 players are not going
Several EPP bowlers are going
Middlesex bowlers could be called up
They are flying out to Abu Dhabi tomorrow and will make their decision from there
England demanded commando style protection
Email leaked
Dickason report today
Dickason report on Thursday
Foreign office advises only essential travel
England have had talks with foreign office
England set to play in India

What bit of exciting news will we get tomorrow?

Very probably none, and simply more of this speculative rubbish.

 

[Top_Cat]

If I am not mistaken, the attacks happened in London, not all the players were from London, they still travelled to London, right ?

Those are the similarities, sure. The differences are pretty massive though; frequency of terrorist attacks, whether targeting westerners or not, in the country in general would be a big factor influencing the decision to stay or go. Once they bad guys were rounded up in 2005, the Aussies could be reasonably certain there wasn't going to be anything like it happening again any time soon, more of an isolated incident. In India, currently, this is not the case, though it's obviously a big country and many of the attacks in the past few months have happened on the country's fringes I believe?

This one was more of an incursion too; a terrorist attack by foreigners to the country. Easier to pull off what these guys did than to build momentum for an attack within the country and people would be frightened with the ease in which they bypassed security. if they could do, others can too. Locals are obviously watched more closely. It's, in fact, why people were so scared of attacks when the IRA was busy bombing parts of London. If the IRA was as active as it was, don't think we'd see any Aussie cricketers playing there either.

 

[Precambrian]

Those are the similarities, sure. The differences are pretty massive though; frequency of terrorist attacks, whether targeting westerners or not, in the country in general would be a big factor influencing the decision to stay or go. Once they bad guys were rounded up in 2005, the Aussies could be reasonably certain there wasn't going to be anything like it happening again any time soon, more of an isolated incident. In India, currently, this is not the case, though it's obviously a big country and many of the attacks in the past few months have happened on the country's fringes I believe?

This one was more of an incursion too; a terrorist attack by foreigners to the country. Easier to pull off what these guys did than to build momentum for an attack within the country and people would be frightened with the ease in which they bypassed security. if they could do, others can too. Locals are obviously watched more closely. It's, in fact, why people were so scared of attacks when the IRA was busy bombing parts of London. If the IRA was as active as it was, don't think we'd see any Aussie cricketers playing there either.

1. London 2005 attacks didn't target westerners?
2. Why Aussies could be reasonably certain such attacks wont happen again?\
3. I don't know much about IRA, but has the bombings affected any Ashes series to be cancelled/postponed?

NB - Please note that these are genuine questions.

 

[Top_Cat]

1. London 2005 attacks didn't target westerners?

Note I was more referring to the frequency of attacks, whoever their intended targets were. When was the last attack or series of attacks anywhere in India vs when was the last one before 2005 in England? That's more what I was referring to.

List of terrorist bombings in London;

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

Last one was 10 years before the Aussies arrived in 2005.

2. Why Aussies could be reasonably certain such attacks wont happen again?\

It'd be harder to pull-off a successful attack in England. Explosives and pre-cursors are monitored better, better surveillance both both wet and dry, greater scrutiny of potential groups, much smaller and more centralised population of Muslim persons in England so harder to do anything under the radar, tighter immigration checks, lack of terrorist activity across the border, etc. Anyone looking to do something in London would have to do almost all the planning in England which makes the risk to them much greater. In the Mumbai case, they can do it all in far friendlier surrounds in Pakistan, their biggest problem being getting across the border which proved not so difficult.

If I was a foreign terrorist (note, not local; the guys in London was as successful as they were because they were local to Britain, born and raised, etc.), I wouldn't even bother with London. Too hard. Go after interests abroad.

3. I don't know much about IRA, but has the bombings affected any Ashes series to be cancelled/postponed?

From what I've read, the blasts started after the Aussies left and stopped before they came back in 1985. Before that, I dunno.

 

[four_or_six]

Those are the similarities, sure. The differences are pretty massive though; frequency of terrorist attacks, whether targeting westerners or not, in the country in general would be a big factor influencing the decision to stay or go. Once they bad guys were rounded up in 2005, the Aussies could be reasonably certain there wasn't going to be anything like it happening again any time soon, more of an isolated incident. In India, currently, this is not the case, though it's obviously a big country and many of the attacks in the past few months have happened on the country's fringes I believe?

This one was more of an incursion too; a terrorist attack by foreigners to the country. Easier to pull off what these guys did than to build momentum for an attack within the country and people would be frightened with the ease in which they bypassed security. if they could do, others can too. Locals are obviously watched more closely. It's, in fact, why people were so scared of attacks when the IRA was busy bombing parts of London. If the IRA was as active as it was, don't think we'd see any Aussie cricketers playing there either.

Actually, there was another attack three weeks later. Only there was a problem with the bombs and they didn't go off.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, it was on the opening day of the Ashes, in fact

 

[four_or_six]

1. London 2005 attacks didn't target westerners?
2. Why Aussies could be reasonably certain such attacks wont happen again?\
3. I don't know much about IRA, but has the bombings affected any Ashes series to be cancelled/postponed?

NB - Please note that these are genuine questions.

In terms of the IRA - the majority of actual bombings were in Northern Ireland. In the mainland UK, it was much more a case of lots of bomb alerts to cause maximum disruption when it came to high profile events such as sport.

 

[Top_Cat]

In terms of the IRA - the majority of actual bombings were in Northern Ireland. In the mainland UK, it was much more a case of lots of bomb alerts to cause maximum disruption when it came to high profile events such as sport.

The link I just posted says otherwise.

 

[Precambrian]

Ty Topcat and Four_or_six. However it is very clear after the 9-11 that any place is vulnerable of the terrorists really want to attack. However it's jut that we get more comfort from places which we perceive as safe. And naturally Home comes first into mind, and that is exactly what English cricketers have done here.

Only thing I hope is that these bombings won't make a case for "Never tour again" mark when it comes to India or for that matter Pakistan in the future.

 

[four_or_six]

The link I just posted says otherwise.

I don't know... just my impression of living here. There seemed to be a constant stream of sectarian violence in NI, especially causing fatalitites, whereas in England things like that seemed pretty uncommon.

 

[four_or_six]

Ty Topcat and Four_or_six. However it is very clear after the 9-11 that any place is vulnerable of the terrorists really want to attack. However it's jut that we get more comfort from places which we perceive as safe. And naturally Home comes first into mind, and that is exactly what English cricketers have done here.

Only thing I hope is that these bombings won't make a case for "Never tour again" mark when it comes to India or for that matter Pakistan in the future.

There was an interesting comment by Atherton, I think it was, about whether the security is actually counter-productive in terms of the way the players feel about their safety. I'd be pretty happy to go to India right now, but if I was told that to keep me safe I needed to be guarded by commandos and stay in my hotel room I'd not feel very comfortable about it.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't know... just my impression of living here. There seemed to be a constant stream of sectarian violence in NI, especially causing fatalitites, whereas in England things like that seemed pretty uncommon.

Oh yeah, relative to what was going on in NI, was uncommon or at least the threat would have been less. Only takes one to scare, though.....

 

[four_or_six]

Oh yeah, relative to what was going on in NI, was uncommon or at least the threat would have been less. Only takes one to scare, though.....

I don't know... I don't ever remember worrying about being caught up in an IRA bombing. I don't worry now about getting caught up in an al-Qaeda one either, for example when flying or on the Tube. I don't know why that is really.

 

[Uppercut]

The IRA wouldn't've dared touch Australian cricketers. It would've been beyond catastrophic for them to make enemies of anyone but the English.

The IRA threat isn't comparable to the current one. While they're every bit as wrong and i don't believe in making a moral distinction between any indiscriminate bombings, there was rationale to what they did (bad rationale, but still some semblance of logic). They had political goals and the bombings were part of an effort to achieve them. Islamic militants, as far as i can see, just want to cause death and destruction to Westerners on as big a scale as possible.

 

[Precambrian]

The IRA wouldn't've dared touch Australian cricketers. It would've been beyond catastrophic for them to make enemies of anyone but the English.

The IRA threat isn't comparable to the current one. While they're every bit as wrong and i don't believe in making a moral distinction between any indiscriminate bombings, there was rationale to what they did (bad rationale, but still some semblance of logic). They had political goals and the bombings were part of an effort to achieve them. Islamic militants, as far as i can see, just want to cause death and destruction to Westerners on as big a scale as possible.

There might be logic to it, or it may just be random, but in the end innocent civilians get perished.