Tragedy on the streets of Lahore
Peter Hoskin 11:09am
Grim echoes of the Mumbai atrocities this morning, as the news came in that a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team had been attacked in Lahore. Once again, it seems that the perpertrators are a Pakistani terrorist organisation, perhaps even the same Lashkar-e-Taibar; once again, the attack is being described as "well organised"; and, once again, the end result is tragic: at least six people have died and around seven are injured. Perhaps the main difference is that this took place on Pakistani soil. Another is that the gunmen haven't been captured or killed, and most likely won't be.
It encapsulates the chaos that reigns in Pakistan right now. Aside from the country's all-too-clear links with terrorism, President Asif Zardari has severed almost all ties with democracy - interpreting the Constitution as he sees fit, and banning his political opponents. It's an explosive mix. And - given the aims of global terrorism - we could get hit by the shrapnel.
But, today, we must again remember those who have already been hit. The second test match between Sri Lanka and Pakistan has been cancelled, and rightly so. In these circumstances, sport just can't go on, and you've got to wonder whether test cricket will ever return to that troubled country. Quite simply: lives matter more.
P.S. Alex writes about the attacks here.
Previous
James Stromg
March 3rd, 2009 11:31am Report this commentBuddhist terrorists?
Or Methodists?
Max Kaye
March 3rd, 2009 12:04pm Report this commentYeah.... it must have been those athiestic terrorists...
Verity
March 3rd, 2009 12:25pm Report this commentJames Strong, I heard it was the militant wing of The Little Sisters of Mercy.
C
March 3rd, 2009 12:32pm Report this commentOr Baptists?...no...Or perhaps M*****s and their religion of peace?
....
Wake up!
Austin Barry
March 3rd, 2009 12:34pm Report this commentCome on people, stop the facetious attributions, we all know this is part of Israel's long arm of terror.
mac
March 3rd, 2009 12:46pm Report this commentMax:
Tsk, Tsk "terrorists"?
It's 'Gunmen', in al-Beebish-speak.
Helen
March 3rd, 2009 1:04pm Report this commentI love the way the mainstream media tries to get these things out of the way really quickly now. They spent so long blaming the world's ills on George Bush and things like this have the unfortunate habit of revealing the truth - something 99% of British journalists gave up on a long time ago.
God I hate the Fourth Estate.
Verity
March 3rd, 2009 1:10pm Report this commentThe local imams are shocked. Shocked.
Austin Barry
March 3rd, 2009 1:32pm Report this commentI have the awful feeling that these current terrorist tactics -a cadre of gunmen opening fire on anyone at anytime will soon arrive on our shores - or perhaps just travel down to London from the West Midlands. No doubt there is an elevated degree of anxiety in Cabinet Briefing Room A.
Ganpat Ram
March 3rd, 2009 1:36pm Report this commentMan, these Quaker terrorists horrify me.
mac
March 3rd, 2009 1:43pm Report this comment"The local imams are shocked. Shocked."
Plett reports for the BBC that the gunmen appeared to be "well-trained."
Pakistan's ISI won't be, then. Shocked, that is.
Verity
March 3rd, 2009 1:50pm Report this commentSadly, The Daily Mail also referred to "gunmen" in their headline, although this may have been due to space requirements.
Max Kaye
March 3rd, 2009 2:03pm Report this commentmac - 'gunmen' only kill Jews or Israelis. Must be 'terrorists'.
Probably egged on by Mother Theresa....
Hysteria
March 3rd, 2009 2:49pm Report this commentPeter Hoskins (and Spectator Editor) - you get the drift of the posts so far - any response you would like to share with your loyal if sometimes noisy readership?
Pete Hoskin
March 3rd, 2009 3:29pm Report this commentHysteria: yes, I know people are fishing for words like "Islamist" and "jihad". My response is that their ommission wasn't intentional, and I'm certainly not trying to shy away from anything. I'd hope that loyal readers wouldn't immediately jump to that conclusion.
Verity
March 3rd, 2009 3:52pm Report this commentPete, I am not one who jumped to any conclusions. However, in your response above you mention "Islamist". This is a neologism that has been made up to avoid saying "Muslim". The people who opened gunfire are militant Muslims murdering "infidels" (everyone who doesn't agree with their belief system) for their diety.
mac
March 3rd, 2009 4:34pm Report this commentMax,
Strangely, Mother Theresa's piety is acknowledged by some Muslims; Pristina's main street is named after her. We can be sure that the Lahore terrorists (er, whoever they are, Pete H!) don't hold her in any esteem, however.
Fergus Pickering
March 3rd, 2009 4:45pm Report this commentCome on, Oh wise ones. Explain to me what is the purpose of trying to murder the Sri Lankan Test team. Why didn't they murder the Pakistan Test team? My ear is open like a hungry shark. Tell oh tell. And that includes you, Pete.
cuffleyburgers
March 3rd, 2009 5:26pm Report this commentFreedom fighters shurely...
@ verity - I disagree with you on this one. I think the use of the word Islamist makes good sense. It is enquivocal that these freedom fighters are muslims, but doesn't make the automatic assumption that all muslims support these activities. Also islamism is linked to Jihadism and that is the problem.
It is always shocking how muted and equivocal are the reactions of so-called moderates in this country, probably because the self-selected spokesmen are the kind of people you probably wouldn't want to have round to dinner, but the fact is that there are millions of perfectly decent muslims around the world who are as disgusted as I am, or as you are, by these obscene events, and I think it is fair to use a distinguishing noun in recognition of that fact.
Michael Booth
March 3rd, 2009 5:44pm Report this commentA Plymouth Bretheren hit squad perhaps? The Provision Wing of the Dagenham Girl Pipers maybe? Surely not the .......
MaxSceptic
March 3rd, 2009 5:44pm Report this commentFergus Pickering - It's a sure way of securing a home win.
Alf Tupper
March 3rd, 2009 5:56pm Report this commentAll day long she's been at it. The BBC R4 news reader informs the fee-paying public that:
'Pakistani Police have been giving details of WHAT THEY DESCRIBE AS a terrorist attack'. (My emphasis)
Someone will wake me up soon and I'll be back in England. There'll be pubs. And a government. And it will be lovely.
Bulldog Breed
March 3rd, 2009 6:16pm Report this commentFergus, could it be because they aren't Muslims? Oh wait a minute, Islam's a religion of peace, isn't it? Just to be sure, I'll have a peek in my Geert Wilders Koran and see if there are any references to violence, hatred or intolerance of non-Muslims. There couldn't possibly be, could there?
James Strong
March 3rd, 2009 6:21pm Report this commentFergus,
Possibly, because it's only speculation and supposition:
the attack was planned weeks or months ago when the India team was scheduled to play.
That tour was cancelled and they switched to Plan B.
But really, what is the purpose of most of these terror attacks?
What was the purpose of the Bali bombings,for example?
They don't issue demands saying 'we are not happy with your policy,and until you change it we will continue the kilings.'
They just kill.
The way you see the world is not the way they see the world, so you will always wonder about the purpose of the murders.Unless you study their belief system.
Verity
March 3rd, 2009 9:17pm Report this commentJames Strong is correct.
Cuffleyburgers, you are arguing from an ethnocentric bubble. These jihadis are doing the will of Allah as commanded by their Q'ran. You can't argue with the Q'ran. The entire world has to return to its natural condition, which is Islam. We can surrender peacefully, or they will persuade us by the sword, or they will kill us.
There are indeed some Muslims intelligent and outward looking enough to realise that this book was written in the Dark Ages when people were simpler and more bloodthirsty. But those people are not, in the main, heads of government (King Abdullah is, though). But there are hundreds of millions who are not. Islam has never had a Reformation, which means their mindset has never advanced beyond the literal interpretation of their Q'ran from the 800s. (But even most of those moderates you envisage will not necessarily condemn jihadis, because jihadis are doing the will of Allah.
For genuine, highly intelligent and articulate apologists for Islam, read Canadian Irshad Manji, a Sunni who has noted many times that Islam needs a Reformation, and American Stephen Schwartz, a writer who converted to Islam some years ago and discusses the issues rationally. Both have written books, but there are plenty of their articles on the internet. Both of these writers are good reads in their different ways.
Back to top