Breaking News: Sri Lankan Cricketers Targeted In Lahore

I am at a complete loss to say something coherent about this right now. But that shouldn't stop you guys. Consider this an open thread on the topic.

UPDATE at 6:00 am GMT: I think I am sufficiently over my initial shock to make a couple of quick points.

First, Bubs reports in comments that a couple of prominent political figures have already blamed India. This is foolish for a number of reasons. First, and most important, nobody knows anything right now, and anyone who pretends to know is lying. Second, it strikes the rational observer as incredibly childish and petty ("You blamed us, so now we blame you"). Third, it is most likely untrue: it is not as if Pakistan finds itself lacking with homegrown militant groups, or does not have sufficient political violence for this to be yet another chapter in our state's morbid history. Fourth, if it is a foreign-based attack -- and I can't emphasize enough how unlikely I deem that scenario -- then it is more likely to have originated from Sri Lanka than India.

The second point I want to make is that whenever incidents like this happen, the nameless and faceless people who lost their lives protecting others always get forgotten (if they were ever remembered in the first place). Reports indicate five policemen died in the attack protecting the convoy. They deserve our thanks.

The third point I want to make is that international cricket is dead in Pakistan for the medium term, at best. Before this incident, defenders of Pakistan's right (privilege?) to host cricket matches used the argument, among others, that claimed that political violence could happen anywhere and that it was a random occurrence. To paraphrase Orwell, it is now clear to the international cricketing world that some acts of political violence are more random than others.

UPDATE at 6:52 am GMT: I recall a conversation I had with AKS in the summer of 2007, immediately after the Lal Masjid attacks. AKS opined that from a strategic/long-term perspective, it might be better if the Lal Masjiders did as much damage as possible. AKS' thinking (at the time; I don't think he subscribes to these views any longer) was that the more Pakistanis see the damage and destruction that is wrought by militants, the more they will appropriate ownership of this war -- instead of calling it "America's war" or something else similarly inane.

I am reminded of that argument today because nothing binds Pakistanis quite like the love of cricket, and if anything was going to convince the majority of pundits, public figures, and average Pakistanis of the threat of capitulation or indifference in this struggle, it would be an attack on cricket(ers). And yet I am willing to bet anything that the prepetrators of today's crime against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the sport of cricket, will not engender any form of ownership of this war, or any realization of the threat that the state faces from these groups (assuming that the Taliban or one of its offshoots was responsible). Instead, either India or America will be nonsensically blamed, retreats will be made into comfortable preconceived world views, and that favorite machine of Pakistanis will be switched on at full throttle: the conspiracy theory churner.

UPDATE at 7:09 GMT: I am going to try to get some sleep because I have to teach tomorrow morning. I am sure Bubs and AKS will try to keep things rolling as far as coverage on this blog is concerned.

UPDATE at 9:30 pm GMT: I would like to make another quick point on this issue (a point similar to this was made in the comments section). Reading the reactions -- on both news and sport websites and newspapers -- I cannot escape the impression that many observers thought of cricket as a sacred cow; as substantively different from all the other potential targets in Pakistan. "They would never attack sport" went the line. My question, obviously aided by hindsight, is: why? Why did people (including myself) think that athletes were somehow different? If funerals can be suicide-bombed, and girls' schools can be blown up, and political processions can be attacked, and Shia mosques can be destroyed, then why exactly are sports and sports figures a different kettle of fish?

The answer, of course, is that they are not.