On Wed August 16 2006 12:04 pm, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > i am not sure how you argue that india underreacts to terror, while the > west overreacts.
The name of this thread suggests that there was an overreaction. The link that the first post led to alleged that there may have been no threat at all. > air passengers for decades, while the west had barely any security at all. Until 9-11 happened. I recall close friends (and relatives) of mine who emigrated to the US in those fine old days cursing security in India while praising the lack of it in the US. Now everyone is grateful for security. > india has had laws on the books that invade privacy and violate human > rights in the name of preventing terror for far longer than the US or UK - > and these have been abused far more, too. Funnily enough the US too violated lots of rights as part of increased security and went and overran two nations in response to the (real or perceived) threat. The US has not seen any further homeland terror after that. For India it's business as usual. I just wonder how much terror India would face if it had the capability (and will) to respond as robustly as the US did. Compared to the US response - India has done nothing other than providing heavy security for its ministers and the high and mighty. No surveillance cameras even in public places. It is because the West takes the slightest risk of terror seriously that we see events like the recent "Liquid bomb threat" to aircraft. As someone pointed out - India is taking a "chalta hai"/"adjusht maadi" attitude to terror and the public pays for that. shiv
