Chowrangi

Why are people complaining about removal of World Cup matches from Pakistan?

Pakistan will not be allowed to host World Cup matches in 2011 due to terrorist attacks on Sri Lankan cricketers and general uncertainity in the country. This has left a lot of people complaining. I don’t understand how a country in which cricketers of a touring country narrowly escaped being killed should be allowed to host any tournament.

I don’t know what people are ranting about, by complaining about ICC’s decision to ban Pakistan from hosting World Cup matches. Will cricketers tour Pakistan even if ICC changes its decision? ICC banning Pakistan from hosting tournaments and cricketers from other countries refusing to tour Pakistan is common sense.

If these attacks had taken place in another country, and that country was not allowed to host World Cup matches, would you still complain?

Before the attacks on Sri Lankan cricketers, Imran Khan repeatedly said that terrorist attacks against cricketers would not take place in Pakistan. I don’t remember the reason he gave for this. It was something like… terrorists love cricket very much. Well, Mr. Khan, terrorists don’t love cricket that much!

I don’t know how much terrorists love cricket, but their love for mass murder certainly takes top priority. Maybe they like to mix work with pleasure!

Some people take cricket way too seriously. During India-Pakistan matches, TV sets are broken when Pakistan loses, and during the 1996 World Cup when Pakistan lost to India, one guy shot himself.

Whether Pakistan is allowed to host the World Cup or not, and whether Pakistan loses to India or not, people need to calm down. It’s only a game.

Posted

in

,

by

Mohammad Yusha

Tags:

Comments

12 responses to “Why are people complaining about removal of World Cup matches from Pakistan?”

  1. Hamid Majid Abbasi Avatar
    Hamid Majid Abbasi

    @Confused
    wat 2 say buddy……………ur name says it all,
    and yes smiling India of urs has gone united,,,,,,,,,,,,why nt u merge it with big daddy US and name it Amerindia…………….dats make sense…………………….coz frm nuclear programme to culture, yet to find India in u ny more

    Reply
  2. Hina Safdar Avatar
    Hina Safdar

    @ confuse Indian
    Your name says it all about you. Why dnt you just apply your theory on India? UIS (United Indian State) because same scenario is within your country as well. terrorist activities, political crisis, poverty are Indian problems .All the money of your country is centralized to TATA’s and Ambani’s .What is the common man gaining out of it?

    Leave the dream of Shattering Pakistan, it will never happen. Pakistan will prosper InsHALLAH.

    Reply
  3. confuse Indian Avatar
    confuse Indian

    I think it right time for to start thinking about new form of pakistan, ie UIS (united islamic state), because present pakistan government or any form of subsequent government will able to hold pakistan as it is today.

    UIS first give huge makeover to the image in interernation scenario pakistan is suffering today and secondly it will give real power to the people or government of different pakistani state/region so that stop blaming center and uplift themself or their people.

    Sitting in India I thing most suitable person for the post of UIS President/Governer in indian perspective is Ratan Tata/Arun Shourie, it you folk sitting in Pakistan decide who in your country deserve to be President of UIS.

    Reply
  4. Shakir Lakhani Avatar
    Shakir Lakhani

    Even though the Punjab government had good intelligence about RAW planning an attack, they did nothing because of the political crisis (long march and removal of chief minister). The Lahore attack was different from the others because the killers didn’t seem to be jihadis. And since India had warned Sri Lanka not to send its team to Pakistan, it is reasonable to assume that it was India which planned and carried out the Lahore attack.

    Reply
  5. Hina Safdar Avatar
    Hina Safdar

    @ Yusha

    I have only one Punjabi proverb for you….
    “AAPAY MAIN RAJJI PUJJI APAY MERAY BACHAY JEEN”
    which means whatever I say is right and I cant be wrong at my perspective.
    Dont you know who was behind the attack on Lankan team?
    Cant you understand who is being favored by the situation ?

    Reply
  6. Hamid Majid Abbasi Avatar
    Hamid Majid Abbasi

    Indian cricket never suffered, coz they are well aware of the side games, that have contributed to this episode. Sports linked with politics is the worst case scenario Yusha, and the biggest set back till date was the 1980 Moscow Olympics, that were not attended o political ground.
    For you if you still want to contest that there was no foul play involved, your perception is self answered by the fact that who got maximum of it. I mean its crystal clear.

    Reply
  7. Mohammad Yusha Avatar
    Mohammad Yusha

    @ Mr Lakhani: The English cricket team were desperate to leave. In fact, I think they had left, but came back to play Test matches after immense pressure from the English Cricket Board. I don’t know the entire story but it had nothing to do with playing in India.

    @ Hina: Looking at your comment it is not difficult to see who is complaining

    ICC is not biased. A number of cricketers have already stated that they will not tour Pakistan even if ICC changes its decision.

    Bob Woolmer died during the World Cup. It was already half way through. World Cup could not have been called off then. Also, Bob Woolmer was a coach and not a cricketer, and he did not die due to some terrorist trying to gun him down. You cannot compare Bob Woolmer’s death with the whole Sri Lankan team trying to be murdered in broad daylight.

    India has suffered from terrorist attacks, but none of those attacks have been targeted at cricketers. This is why India is allowed to host.

    Reply
  8. Hina Safdar Avatar
    Hina Safdar

    Well I think you are a not an optimistic person. You provoke others by your words to get so many comments.
    Can you tell who is complaining?
    After the incident everyone was in doubt that we will be hosting world cup or not? but it was a hope that since India and Sri lanka are also victims of terrorist activities, perhaps we had a chance.
    But ICC has shown bias. Our coach Bob woolmer died in West Indies mysteriously. Did they ban matches there?
    India also suffered from terrorist attacks than why it has the right to host?

    Reply
  9. Shakir Lakhani Avatar
    Shakir Lakhani

    England was touring India when the 25/11 attack in Mumbai happened. If it had happened in Pakistan or Sri Lanka, the English team would have left immediately, but since this was “shining” India, they remained there for the rest of the tour. Why this double standard?

    Reply
  10. Hamid Majid Abbasi Avatar
    Hamid Majid Abbasi

    YUSHA!
    We do not have any complaints that we were deprieved of our share of the world cup. And the TV sets are not broken only on this side of the border, its both way.
    Our problem is, the way ICC has behaved, and thats for sure through a criteria never seen before. The terrorist of 3/3 attack, I wont go who were behing this(though u can read the whole dimension from my view point in my article here) wanted this, and ICC has obliged them.
    We can have sweet examples from the past, when the same scenario emerged in Sri Lanka, they were compensated by few teams, and ICC arranged some part of the event there.
    This one sided ruling has benefited only one party, and that is what we are arguing. Sports and spotsman ship can bring more than positive result, and making it a tool for obnoxious foreign policy goals will only suit the devils.
    Whoever hosts it, best of luck.

    Reply
1 2
Newer Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *