This one's for Pakistan - Inbox at Cricinfo

It ended up a historic tour, not only because it was the first Indian tour in Pakistan for 13 years, but because of the hospitality of the hosts and the generally good atmosphere. Then--you'd think, wouldn't you, after the Indians, and then the Zimbabweans and Sri Lankans, came and left without a hair of their heads harmed, that it was all right--England huffed and puffed for months over whether or not to play a single ODI in Karachi--absurd because Karachi's only ODI against India the previous year had been played with terrific spirit and without nary a sign of hostility. When they eventually arrived, seaming at the sides with security, there wasn't a sign of local hostility, and, to rub it in further, they were crushed by a record 165 runs. So much for that. India came and went--surely we'd proven ourselves now?--and so did the West Indies, and so did the South Africans, and surely Australia would tour now. Not a chance of it, apparently.

Even when Inzamam-ul-Haq, retired now from international cricket, decided to do his country a last favour and simply talk--yes, talk, because we Pakistanis can talk reasonably and rationally, contrary to popular belief--to anybody with doubts, his honour Mr Dickason wasn't satisfied. A few more years and Australia might condescend to play a benefit match in Lahore...it's closer to India and its IPL, isn't it? Lalit Modi might send a couple of bodyguards over.

Before anybody decides to send in posts about "insecurity" and "uncertainty" and a thousand other excuses, let me say that, yes, despite its numerous pluses (and believe me, they ARE numerous) Pakistan has its problems. There are bombings, there are tragic deaths. Even to point out that rarely is such an attack aimed at foreigners (and please, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, don't flatter yourselves as "Westerners"), and never has an attack been aimed at a cricketer, would be a disrespect to all the Pakistani non-cricketers who have been killed.

Before you object again--bombings are bombings, why send ourselves willingly into this hole that Frederick Forsyth so delightedly set his totally fictional thrillers in--there is always a certain amount of risk involved in touring any country. The dangers of the subcontinent have been well-documented--Pakistan's more than others--but other countries have more than their fair share of dangers. Well might Pakistan refuse to tour England in future, citing gang violence; well might Pakistan refuse to tour Australia, citing hostile crowds (Mark Boucher could tell you); well might Pakistan refuse to tour New Zealand, with its "dark secret" of domestic violence; and well might Pakistan refuse to tour South Africa, where the crime rate, partly thanks to "illegal", desperate-driven immigrants from across the Zimbabwean border, is unnaturally high. Enough is enough.

Pakistan, unless there is some conspiracy to mask the past dozen tours as pretenses of hospitality and friendliness (and I wouldn't put it past some of our ungrateful ex-"guests" to assume just that), has proven itself, time and again, as a safe country for a cricket tour. If Kevin Pietersen and Jacob Oram, both of them having come and gone from Pakistan without so much as a scratch, really don't want to play, then they don't have to. Just kick 'em out for the tournament and replace them, temporarily or otherwise, with hungrier players. No player is bigger than the game. If the Champions Trophy is moved from Pakistan, it will affirm the fact that the game in Pakistan, certainly, has been the worse for our alliance with the West.

"there is always a certain amount of risk involved in touring any country"
Let me ask you this, how many of these countries:
1) Are fighting a war within their borders? An actual war complete with air strikes and whatever else the army deems fit?
2) Have an entire province that is lawless and provides safe haven to people who have declared their intent to kill as many people as possible under the pretense of religious dictum.
3) Have no president after one illegally ruled for 9 years jailing lawyers, judges, exiling the opposition?
4) Have known links between national intelligence organizations and terrorist outfits?
5) Have as many, if not more, suicidal bomb attacks than any war torn country today?
6) Have a mismanaged run board, with no president (MIND YOU)!
I could go on and on, but the truth is the only comparable country is Zimbabwe. How many tournaments have they hosted recently? If you are fighting a war at home, you cannot host. Enough said. This one's for logical thinking...

This post is in response to another one, a lot has already been said about this topic. My point here is why force people to play? Why behave as school kids? Money or no money why play in Pakistan? Do they have a great cricket Team? ARE the current international players missing the experience of playing against Wasim, Waqar or Inzi? Should the players be playing in a country where their own soldiers are fighting against the kith and kin of the so called fans? A very popular statement here seems.."a bomb goes off in Jaipur but players continue because of IPL money". The common thread here is not the "bomb" but that fact that it was planned and hatched in "Pakistan". Pakistanis can expect the whole world to be naive or they might do some introspection and perhaps concede that terrorists are accepted in their society and hence the inside information and their conviction that cricket matches will be safe.