Sports related thesis...

[Hevishot]

Originally Posted by Dion

He's looking for others to do his thesis for him?

As someone who knows his brother that makes complete sense.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Hevishot

As someone who knows his brother that makes complete sense.

So you know who I am, and who he is....so who are you?

[Bagor]

Definitely the cricket world cup in Pakistan is an outlier in that there would be countries competing where there is direct hostility towards (and being vocal in throwing their concerns out there). Hence the reason for its exclusion.

Originally Posted by valo403

I wouldn't lump South Africa and Brazil into that category, but when you get to places like Pakistan you're stepping into a new level of concerns.

Yes you are but moreso from a terrorism risk whereas in Brazil and SA (jo'burg particularly, Cape Town 100 fold less so) the risk factor becomes more pronounced to the comon everyday fan staying in a hotel room and trying to have beers in the evening.

From an infrastructure POV and security to the players I'd go with SA and Brasil but from a security to the fan POV I'd probably weigh on the side of Pakistan. i.e I'm saying from my risk perception POV I'd wager that there's less risk to me or my belongings in Pakistan even though the end result of the risk might be a whole lot worse.

At the end of the day and it's key ..... is risk perception and risk management.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

For example, the attack on Sri Lankan cricket players in Pakistan earlier this year backfired because no longer can cricket be played in Pakistan and the World Cup was taken away from them. This angers all fans who will no longer support the terrorist cause (if they did in the first place)

Backfired? Actually in the eyes of the terrorists that is a huge victory. They've managed to disrupt and discredit Pakastan's ability to host the WC of their national game.
Sure it pisses off the cricket fans but do you honestly think they care or didn't take that into consideration?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I always assumed terrorist causes, like any causes, depends on public support and recruiting. Terrorist do want to run the country one day (like who'd have thought the Taliban would rule Afghanistan).

Not all terrorist organizations are out to run the country one day, although some certainly are. There are many other aims, religious fundamentalism, independence desires, the list goes on and on. Pissing off cricket fans doesn't necessarily conflict with the goals of a group seeking to destabilize a government (a pissed off nation is harder to govern) or draw attention to its cause.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Definitely the cricket world cup in Pakistan is an outlier in that there would be countries competing where there is direct hostility towards (and being vocal in throwing their concerns out there). Hence the reason for its exclusion.

Yes you are but moreso from a terrorism risk whereas in Brazil and SA (jo'burg particularly, Cape Town 100 fold less so) the risk factor becomes more pronounced to the comon everyday fan staying in a hotel room and trying to have beers in the evening.

From an infrastructure POV and security to the players I'd go with SA and Brasil but from a security to the fan POV I'd probably weigh on the side of Pakistan. i.e I'm saying from my risk perception POV I'd wager that there's less risk to me or my belongings in Pakistan even though the end result of the risk might be a whole lot worse.

At the end of the day and it's key ..... is risk perception and risk management.

Backfired? Actually in the eyes of the terrorists that is a huge victory. They've managed to disrupt and discredit Pakastan's ability to host the WC of their national game.
Sure it pisses off the cricket fans but do you honestly think they care or didn't take that into consideration?

I don't know, South Africa and Brazil have their problems but they continue to be major tourism destinations and the general traveller is quite safe in any good neighborhood. There's a reason people don't travel to Pakistan, the risk to any individual traveller is astronomical in comparison to that of a traveller in the typical western nation and well above the risk faced in South Africa or Brazil. I mean think of it this way, when was the last time you saw a friends vacation pics from Pakistan? There's a reason why people don't go there.

[Go Jets!]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

hehehe I dont know. I often ask more questions than I give answers.

I've known sport to the one uniter of people and is untouched. The 1936 Olympics have been mentioned. Hitler wanted the event to promote German superiority right? Then Jesse Owens started to win and the people in the stadium genuinely liked him. The German guy who finished 2nd like him too.

So what can Hitler do? He can't ban Owens or else he'd lose the people.
So all he could do is shrug right?

Hitler was probably not impressed that Owens won four golds. But after the first day of medal presentations (only shaking the hands of German victors) he stopped attending medal ceremonies. On a sidenote I think the Spanish were the only ones to actually boycott those Olympics

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Backfired? Actually in the eyes of the terrorists that is a huge victory. They've managed to disrupt and discredit Pakastan's ability to host the WC of their national game.
Sure it pisses off the cricket fans but do you honestly think they care or didn't take that into consideration?

Everyone's a cricket fan over there!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Everyone's a cricket fan over there!

Obviously not everyone.

[simonsays]

Originally Posted by Go Jets!

On a sidenote I think the Spanish were the only ones to actually boycott those Olympics

Well Spain was on the verge of a civil war so I think that gives them a pretty good excuse for not showing up. Especially since the active gov't at the time was trying to stave off Fascist factions at home, and didn't really want to appease Fascist factions abroad.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by valo403

Not all terrorist organizations are out to run the country one day, although some certainly are. There are many other aims, religious fundamentalism, independence desires, the list goes on and on. Pissing off cricket fans doesn't necessarily conflict with the goals of a group seeking to destabilize a government (a pissed off nation is harder to govern) or draw attention to its cause.

Unless everyone is pissed off at the rebels, in that case it makes it easier to squash the rebellion. Terrorist acts that are not done as a means to an end could just as easily be done in 'stable' countries.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Addick

Unless everyone is pissed off at the rebels, in that case it makes it easier to squash the rebellion. Terrorist acts that are not done as a means to an end could just as easily be done in 'stable' countries.

Rebels are often a small faction looking to disrupt a government they see as oppressive, it doesn't really matter who the public is pissed off at so long as it makes the governments job more difficult. The unrest is the means to the end, it's not always about winning over the general public. Often the majority of the nation is perceived as the enemy.