Cricket Terror Hero: 'We Were Sitting Ducks'

Cricket Terror Hero: 'We Were Sitting Ducks'

news.sky.com

Chris Broad has accused the Pakistani security forces of fleeing the scene of the Lahore terror attack, leaving the victims as "sitting ducks".

(visit the link for the full news article)

Not only did the players and officials have their own government appointed security team that was supposed to protect them but there were other armed police patrols on all road junctions guiding traffic from what this bloke just said on sky news, and yet he states they all vanished as soon as the shooting started. So was this another Pakistani intelligence (ISI) sponsored Taliban attack?

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by solidshot


Seems that way, doesn't it.

Especially when the route that the tour bus was supposed to go on was changed to include the road in which the ambush was waiting.

+ The gunmen got away, despite the "elite" police protection unit guarding the SL team.

I've never heard of the ISI attacking people within their own country; but if they have decided to side with the Taliban then there's every chance that they are all taking orders from Gul rather than Gilani.

reply to post by solidshot


I have to agree that all this doesn't add up, I can smell the fish from here. Hearing all this makes me want to go back to Sri Lanka though, I love that place and it's people...

I'm just glad that none of the Sri Lankan players were killed. I'm glued to the television ATM hungry for any new developments. I must say though, this was no shock. It was always going to happen.

I guess this means the World Cup will be played in AUS/NZ. I'd imagine that even if Pakistan pull strings to keep the cup, most teams will boycott as will cricket fans. Either way it will be a washout.

IRM

Supposedly ( on our local radio at least) there was a 25 minute running gun battle with the 'terrorist' and considering what happens in gun battle's with automatic weapons in 25 minutes these were by no means , certainly not in my opinion, cavemen from Afghanistan. What they were is well trained individuals ( state training, we can wonder which state/intelligence organization) that CHOSE not to kill any of the players while creating a whole lot of negative press in the process. I don't see why guys with Rpg's and the ammunition for a prolonged engagement ( that got close enough to spray the tour bus with Rpg fragments and kill five police members) would otherwise fail to kill the players if they were the original targets.

If the security forces really fled ( i seriously doubt that) that just reinforces my point but i have not studied this specific incident in any depth just yet.

Will watch developments...

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Those "cavemen" from Afghanistan are the hardest warriors in the world.

They crushed the Soviets. They're resisting the US army tooth and nail as we speak.

Those cavemen took down the Twin Towers.

They blew up countless embassies.

They've killed thousands of civilians in well planned terror attacks.

I hate them, but I don't underestimate them; and neither should you. Underestimating the enemy is a sure fire way to lose a war.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Those "cavemen" from Afghanistan are the hardest warriors in the world.

Rubbish. I would normally follow this up with quotes and sources but frankly i have more sympathy with the claim that American infantry are the best in the world.

They crushed the Soviets. They're resisting the US army tooth and nail as we speak.

They didn't crush the Soviets by any means and never had the capacity to do so any more than the Vietnamese truly had the capacity to 'crush' the US. What little casualties they managed to inflict was simply more than than both invading sides could sustain in times they did not have the capacity to commit sufficient manpower to stage proper occupations.

Those cavemen took down the Twin Towers.

There is no actual evidence for that but beside that fact ( which you are not apparently aware of or may disagree with) i am not sure what flying planes into building proves? I mean they were supposedly educated in American flight schools so what other skills did they have beside being willing to die? You think your odds are far greater over a sustained period of time in fighting occupation forces which uses planes, artillery and other methods to kill you? There are plenty regular suicide missions in any large scale conflicts so there is nothing that sets Afghans apart from the rest of us.

They blew up countless embassies.

Even less evidence.

They've killed thousands of civilians in well planned terror attacks.

Where? When? The Taliban , Northern alliance and like Afghan factions have killed tens or hundreds of thousands of their own people in sustained fighting over three decades so frankly the thing they are best at is killing themselves. Not exactly a qualifier as 'best' fighters in the world.

I hate them, but I don't underestimate them; and neither should you.

Why would you hate people that have never done anything to you and only fought back when your government chose to illegally invade their country on false premises? Why would you hate anyone you do not know?

Why would i over or under estimate people i don't plan to make my enemies by killing their women and children for absolutely no legitimate reason?

Underestimating the enemy is a sure fire way to lose a war.

Not really, no. The US can only 'lose' in Afghanistan in the sense that it can not afford the political consequences of killing everyone in sight of a bombing or attack which is a well proven tactic that makes resistance all but impossible and the reason empires existed for as long as they did. There is no real military way in which the US can lose the war in Iraq as it has the military capacity to depopulate entire regions if the population allows the resistance a home. The fact that it lost the political and battle for 'hearts and minds' ( the only thing you have left when you can't, for political or moral reasons, kill everyone who picks up a rock) before it even entered that country is what will result in a situation where the US will eventually withdraw from both countries without having reached it's claimed goals.

There is very little either resistance movements can physically do to 'win' that isn't dependent on what the US government can't or won't do militarily and this should not be confused with a inherently powerful Afghan or Iraqi resistance.

In closing then you should not for a moment believe the nonsense that terror did not or does not work. Afghans and Iraqi's don't want to die any more than either of us want to but since they are being presented with a situation where the gains outweighs the risks they are managing to kill just enough American men and women in uniform to make the situation untenable for the largely unpopular American government(s).

And no, i am NOT a advocate of genocide but at least i know what 'works' and why the US won't be able to maintain it's occupations; you don't build empires by discussion around table's but by killing everyone who dares oppose your aims.

Stellar