Sify.com:

A plot to target or kidnap British athletes and fans coming to India for the 2010 Commonwealth Games has emerged over their country's support to the war in Afghanistan.

Security sources have warned of "specific intelligence" about a threat by an unnamed Al Qaeda-linked group to take hostages in front of a global television audience.

Reports emerging from Australia suggest a number of countries are worried but will not upgrade travel warnings for fear of angering India.

They said citizens of Australia, the UK, Canada and New Zealand could be targets of a snatch attempt because their countries supported the war in Afghanistan.

Australia has asked fans not to wear national colours and in Britain it has emerged that security forces will work with counterparts from Canada, Australia and New Zealand to protect athletes at every venue.

"It is a serious situation. There is specific intelligence about an attempted hostage snatch. People travelling to India, and particularly Delhi, need to be aware of the risks," The Daily Express quoted a source, as saying.

There are also concerns about Pakistani group Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) getting into the act, after Michael Leiter, director of the US National Counter-Terrorism Centre, told the US Senate the games would make "an appealing target".

Background: Jihadis appear near CWG.

Image via Wikipedia. Flowers outside Australian embassy in Jakarta, days after the 2004 bombings.

Six years after the Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta, the two militants on death row for the attack say they have no remorse and they are ready to die as “mujahideens.”

Iwan “Rois” Dharmawan Muntho and Achmad Hasan were among six people jailed for helping to plan the Sept. 9, 2004, bombing that killed nine people and wounded 150.

In an exclusive interview with the Jakarta Globe at their prison on Nusakambangan Island in Central Java, Rois and Hasan said that the Koran and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad legitimized the attack.

“Why should we apologize if we believe that we did right in waging jihad [holy war] against the infidels?” Rois said. “Why must we show any remorse?”

He said it was “legitimate to attack Australian interests worldwide” because of Canberra’s close ties to Washington and its “targeting of Muslims.”

They are clear enought, aren't they?

Dual Australian-US citizen faces new terrorism charges - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation):

"Hasanoff and another man, Wesam El-Hanafi, 35, are accused of giving money to Al Qaeda and helping members improve their computer skills.

Prosecutors have now also charged the men with providing goods or services for the benefit of the terrorist network.

Both men have pleaded not guilty and face up to 70 years in prison if convicted.

Australian special forces troops from the Perth-based SAS Regiment and the Sydney-based Commando Regiment, along with Afghan police, netted Mullah Faqir and three other fighters north of Tarin Kowt.

His capture on April 12 came just a few weeks after three other bomb makers including senior Taliban commander Mullah Janan Andewahl were caught by Australian forces.

The Taliban strongman and his followers were handed over to Dutch authorities at Tarin Kowt where they were held in a high security prison at Camp Russell before being transferred to local authorities for processing.

A Defence statement said Mullah Faqir was the mastermind behind bomb attacks in the Mirabad Valley during March that wounded four Diggers and three Afghans.

One less jihadist.

AN AL-QAEDA recruiter, described as the No. 1 terrorist threat to America, was engaged by a Sydney youth group to address hundreds of young people - a decision that has caused deep divisions at one of Australia's largest mosques.
At the same time as Anwar al-Awlaki was advising the extremist later charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas, he was in talks with a group, Sydney Muslim Youth, about delivering a sermon to young Australians. He was already well known to security agencies as the spiritual guide to three of the hijackers on September 11, 2001.
''Anwar al-Awlaki is like a virus produced by the body wanting to fight a microbe,'' said Taj el-Din al-Hilaly, condemning the sermon, which was delivered at his mosque by phone link from Yemen.

It sounds a good deal, BUT I would add: if he returns to the bad habits of preaching hate on the internet and recruiting people to be suicide killers or just killers (will he renounce that also?), the assassination order will be back automatically, without any further notice.

Of course, AQ is not going to consider this deal as a good one. Stepping off from making any other "virulent anti-American sermon" just because his life is menaced, doesn't sound like a very brave decision, after supporting jihad and suicide attacks...

Several days ago, the Olympic Committee banned Iranian football team to play in Youth Olympics because they were wearing the hijab. Islamist Watch posts about the dressing issue at sports:

Relative to most areas of public life, the sports community has proven quite resistant to demands that Islam be accommodated, perhaps because the integrity of competition requires that fixed rules apply to all. FIFA, the global governing body of soccer, is the latest to just say no:

The secretary-general of Iran's National Olympic Committee has called on Muslim countries to protest the world soccer body's ban on headscarves for women during the Youth Olympic Games this summer.

Bahram Afsharzadeh has said that FIFA's decision to forbid the Iranian women's football team from wearing headscarves during the games in Singapore is a violation of Muslims' rights and shows disregard for "issues such as nationality, religion, and race."

The decision also creates "obstacles on their part in the way of women's progress," the hard-line Fars news agency quoted Afsharzadeh as saying.

Yes, a representative of Iran's theocracy decried "obstacles … in the way of women's progress." But FIFA's rules trump his protestations. They stipulate that "basic compulsory equipment," which does not include headgear, "must not contain any political, religious, or personal statements." Moreover, "a player may use equipment other than the basic equipment provided that its sole purpose is to protect him physically and it poses no danger to him or any other player." So even if one disagrees that an Islamic headscarf, by nature, carries a religious message, good luck arguing that its function is to prevent soccer-related injuries.

This is not the first time that hijabs have stirred controversy in sports. Three years ago, the International Football Association Board, which writes the rules that FIFA enforces, refused to cave after the Quebec Soccer Federation announced that "the wearing of the Islamic veil or any other religious item is not permitted." In addition, the Swiss basketball association ProBasket told a player set to debut in a regional league last year that she could not don a hijab on the court, noting that the world governing body FIBA prohibits religious symbols or head coverings.

And while female Muslim boxers can wear hijabs at the 2012 Olympics, male counterparts in the UK have yet to win religious accommodation of their own. Muslims and Sikhs are attempting to overturn the Amateur Boxing Association of England's newly comprehensive ban on beards, enacted because "facial hair can cause abrasions to opponents' faces … and most importantly doctors say clean-shaven athletes allow them to see cuts."

We close with a tragic tale of Islamic attire and sports. A woman was killed last week in Australia when her clothing, variously described as a burqa or hijab, got caught by the axle of a go-kart that she was driving. Signs at the track reportedly "outline a number of rules, including appropriate footwear for drivers, but do not mention scarves or other forms of head-dress." If they had, a Muslim's life could have been saved — despite the inevitable charges of anti-Muslim bigotry that such restrictions would have provoked.

I have copied it in its entirety because I really believe it's all worth reading. This is not a matter of  bigotry or something similar: it's one of equality. If no one can compete with clothes which could be deemed religious, no one can, whatever the anger they can feel.

I insist that the ban should have been done before, in the moment they applied for their place at the Olympics. But that's not the point: the point is that if you don't comply with certain specific norms, you can't compete.