Is Bali too dangerous to visit these days?
Jun 3rd, 2005, 02:46 PM
#41
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perceived risk plays an important part of trip enjoyment. If your personal perceived risk is very high, then you shouldn't go...regardless of what other people say. If you will be on high alert all the time, checking over your shoulder constantly and avoiding places because of crowds...I don't know, doesn't seem worth it to travel for pleasure that way.
Everyone's perceived risk will be slightly (or dramatically) different, based on what we hear, know, think, believe...
My perceived risk in Bali is quite low...but that doesn't mean someone else's perceived risk that is quite high is wrong. It's just different.
Everyone's perceived risk will be slightly (or dramatically) different, based on what we hear, know, think, believe...
My perceived risk in Bali is quite low...but that doesn't mean someone else's perceived risk that is quite high is wrong. It's just different.
Jun 3rd, 2005, 05:06 PM
#42
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KIm: There is a difference in being a US citizen whose primary residence is here vs. one who has been and is residing elsewhere. I am speaking from the former POV and you from the latter. In both cases I think it is familiarity and thus a certain level of comfort derived from that which fashions your perceptions inre to everything including perceptions of danger. In all honesty it seems that though you are a US citizen by nationality culturally and socially you are Asian. Maybe that is why Bali seems less of a threat to you than to me. And maybe if I had lived in Asia as long as you perhaps it would be less threatening to me too. JM2C. Larry. 
Jun 4th, 2005, 05:42 AM
#43
I think we need to put some perspective on this. By far, the biggest threat to your well being while traveling is a bad stomach! And statistically speaking (and please don't ask me for the exact numbers--I don't know them) you are much more likely to die in a car accident at home than in a terrorist attack anywhere (Iraq may be an exception to this one). But how many of us refuse to get in a car? But like I said before, it's a matter of what you're comfortable with. If you're not, then don't go. As intrepid as I like to think I am, there are places I won't go to because I don't feel the place is worth the risk. I won't go to Israel even though I would like to because I find the risk there to be higher than my desire to go. Then again, I know several people who travel to Israel regularly and don't have a problem with it but thought I was nuts for going to Laos and Burma and Bali.
Jun 4th, 2005, 07:56 AM
#44
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no US Travel Warnings out for Laos and Burma -only Indonesia. There is a big difference in what is going on in some other S.E. Asian countries ie., insurgency actions-resistence groups fighting the Govt. in power-and al-Qaeda-operating in Indonesia-where al-Qaeda is ONLY aiming at Americans and other westerners who are viewed as collaborators with the Americans.
Al-Qaeda, in areas where they are still operating cohesively, specifically targets the tourist and western institutions in that country-which means hotels, embassies and restaurants associated with the US and other western countries. That is what we have seen in the bombings of the last three years in Indonesia-Bali-the nightclub where westerners gathered, the JW Marriott, the area outside the Australian Embassy, etc., and continued specific and credible threats against the US Embassy, and US-owned hotels in Indonesia-which includes Bali. The US Embassy in Jakarta was closed just two weeks ago because the threat of a terrorist bombing against the Embassy was very high.
In countries like Laos, for example, you have insurgency actions, where, you may, as a tourist, get caught in the crossfire of an insurgent action, and so, must use caution, by avoiding public crowds or gatherings -but the insurgents chief aim is the Govt., NOT the tourist.
And to compare the risk of traffic accidents with the risk of terrorist attacks in an area on the other side of the world, knowing that you are a target while on vacation, is absurd. The whole point is, you don't WANT to have to worry about such attacks on your person or your family, or the THREAT of such attacks when you are taking a vacation on the other side of the world-who wants to fear, as they are idly browsing through a marketplace, that a bomb will be tossed in their midst, at any given moment? Your chances of coming out of such an attack in one piece are just not good at all.
There is someone on the Africa board who talked about his British friend in Egypt recently, who had these lovely pictures of himself at the Red Sea for the first TWO days of his holiday, and then, he became a victim of one of the recent bombings there, and apparently was left with horrible burns on his legs and body-and of course, he was one of the lucky ones.
Moreover, by not traveling to these countries that have not put the terrorists out of business, it sends a hard message: if you want the tourist dollar, then you better do something about ridding your country of the terrorist situation, or your economy will suffer. It's tough love that works.
As far as Burma goes-there's a whole new and deadly situation going on there now that's quite disturbing-it remains to be seen how extensive this new phase of attacks will become. A new Public Announcement has been issued by the State Dept. currently warning of the threat to tourists there.
The deadly bombs of only a few weeks ago represent a total departure from the insurgency action that had come before-it appears that some group has achieved a new level of sophistication in its method and manner of attacks, and it is not clear who, at this point-it could well be al-Qaeda. The bombs that went off were very large, and much more sophisticated than has been seen there before. Because these attacks of a few weeks ago were in marketplaces where foreigners frequent, I would not feel safe traveling to Burma now-(whereas previously I would and did) the possibility of a lethal attack against westerners is too great at the present time.
Al-Qaeda, in areas where they are still operating cohesively, specifically targets the tourist and western institutions in that country-which means hotels, embassies and restaurants associated with the US and other western countries. That is what we have seen in the bombings of the last three years in Indonesia-Bali-the nightclub where westerners gathered, the JW Marriott, the area outside the Australian Embassy, etc., and continued specific and credible threats against the US Embassy, and US-owned hotels in Indonesia-which includes Bali. The US Embassy in Jakarta was closed just two weeks ago because the threat of a terrorist bombing against the Embassy was very high.
In countries like Laos, for example, you have insurgency actions, where, you may, as a tourist, get caught in the crossfire of an insurgent action, and so, must use caution, by avoiding public crowds or gatherings -but the insurgents chief aim is the Govt., NOT the tourist.
And to compare the risk of traffic accidents with the risk of terrorist attacks in an area on the other side of the world, knowing that you are a target while on vacation, is absurd. The whole point is, you don't WANT to have to worry about such attacks on your person or your family, or the THREAT of such attacks when you are taking a vacation on the other side of the world-who wants to fear, as they are idly browsing through a marketplace, that a bomb will be tossed in their midst, at any given moment? Your chances of coming out of such an attack in one piece are just not good at all.
There is someone on the Africa board who talked about his British friend in Egypt recently, who had these lovely pictures of himself at the Red Sea for the first TWO days of his holiday, and then, he became a victim of one of the recent bombings there, and apparently was left with horrible burns on his legs and body-and of course, he was one of the lucky ones.
Moreover, by not traveling to these countries that have not put the terrorists out of business, it sends a hard message: if you want the tourist dollar, then you better do something about ridding your country of the terrorist situation, or your economy will suffer. It's tough love that works.
As far as Burma goes-there's a whole new and deadly situation going on there now that's quite disturbing-it remains to be seen how extensive this new phase of attacks will become. A new Public Announcement has been issued by the State Dept. currently warning of the threat to tourists there.
The deadly bombs of only a few weeks ago represent a total departure from the insurgency action that had come before-it appears that some group has achieved a new level of sophistication in its method and manner of attacks, and it is not clear who, at this point-it could well be al-Qaeda. The bombs that went off were very large, and much more sophisticated than has been seen there before. Because these attacks of a few weeks ago were in marketplaces where foreigners frequent, I would not feel safe traveling to Burma now-(whereas previously I would and did) the possibility of a lethal attack against westerners is too great at the present time.
Jun 4th, 2005, 08:28 AM
#45
SpyGirl, I understand what you are saying about terrorist attacks as relating to Laos and Burma, but that wasn't my point. Laos especialy has other problems which to many, make it equally as dangerous as as Indonesia. If you read the U.S. State Dept sheet for Laos, you would have to wonder why anyone would go there with land mines and UXO that the country cannot afford to clean up littering the country, snipers, horrible roads to get around the country and an airline which is so unsafe it is recommended not to fly them (we did and it was uneventful). The point is, terrorism isn't the only threat. Different places have different threats. Each person has to decide for themselves how likely they feel it is for them to encounter problems per the different dangers. I, for one, feel it it highly unlikely that I will be a victim of a terrorist act while overseas. I worry more about taking the subway to work everyday in NYC. No one is forcing you to go to a place that you feel is unsafe or saying that your perceived danger pertaining to a place is wrong. But neither am I wrong to feel that I am in no more danger in a place like Bali than here in NY. As for comparing terrorism with car accidents, maybe you're right. I'll most definitely think twice before getting into a car again.
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:01 PM
#48
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree that risk/comfort levels are personal decisions. Hey, some people won't even get on airplanes. No amount of logic will convince them otherwise.
I also agree that Islamic extremism -- either Al Qaeda inspired or homegrown -- is a potent threat in Indonesia, including Bali. The government has made enormous progress in combatting terrorism in the past two years. They could still do more.
What I don't agree with is that other countries in Asia or worldwide are riskfree. Simply put, there are risks everywhere.
The MO of terrorism is surprise. Therefore it is impossible to predict where it will strike. Islamic extremists have hit the US, Spain, Turkey, the Philippines, Thailand Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several other places in Africa and the middle East.
They have had plans to attack Singapore and London which were blessedly foiled, but it would be foolish to say that ANY PLACE in the world is 100% safe from an attack by these nut cases.
There is nothing they would like more than to make a "statement" in Singapore or Thailand. Singapore as an island with an excellent security apparatus is most likely low risk, but Thailand . . .? Remember, surprise is the important element.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and fires can happen and do happen. Epidemics like SARS can happen and do happen. No one knows where Bird Flu is heading.
Singling out Indonesia as the only risk prone country in my opinion provides a false sense of security.
So, yes, my advice IS contradictory. Don't hide under the bed. Travel where ever you feel comfortable, but don't close your eyes to the risks.
I also agree that Islamic extremism -- either Al Qaeda inspired or homegrown -- is a potent threat in Indonesia, including Bali. The government has made enormous progress in combatting terrorism in the past two years. They could still do more.
What I don't agree with is that other countries in Asia or worldwide are riskfree. Simply put, there are risks everywhere.
The MO of terrorism is surprise. Therefore it is impossible to predict where it will strike. Islamic extremists have hit the US, Spain, Turkey, the Philippines, Thailand Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several other places in Africa and the middle East.
They have had plans to attack Singapore and London which were blessedly foiled, but it would be foolish to say that ANY PLACE in the world is 100% safe from an attack by these nut cases.
There is nothing they would like more than to make a "statement" in Singapore or Thailand. Singapore as an island with an excellent security apparatus is most likely low risk, but Thailand . . .? Remember, surprise is the important element.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and fires can happen and do happen. Epidemics like SARS can happen and do happen. No one knows where Bird Flu is heading.
Singling out Indonesia as the only risk prone country in my opinion provides a false sense of security.
So, yes, my advice IS contradictory. Don't hide under the bed. Travel where ever you feel comfortable, but don't close your eyes to the risks.
Jun 5th, 2005, 07:33 PM
#49
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
marmot, I'm sure you are correct in saying that Indonesia is not the only risk, but wasn't the point of this thread about whether it is safe for DLK to travel to Bali? That's why it was singled out, I think.
I was having a bit of a chuckle (an ironic one) about the Americans on the thread worried about the potential risk of terrorist acts in the US. I wonder is the Iraqis or Afghanis worry about the perceived risks of staying at home and being subject to state-sponsored terrorism (er sorry, 'freedom fighters')? They'd probably be safer travelling to Bali (but not Australia (or the US) where they'd probably be held in detention without charge and without trial).
I was having a bit of a chuckle (an ironic one) about the Americans on the thread worried about the potential risk of terrorist acts in the US. I wonder is the Iraqis or Afghanis worry about the perceived risks of staying at home and being subject to state-sponsored terrorism (er sorry, 'freedom fighters')? They'd probably be safer travelling to Bali (but not Australia (or the US) where they'd probably be held in detention without charge and without trial).
Jun 5th, 2005, 08:21 PM
#50
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guykb:
So you've turned it around from "Is Bali too dangerous to visit" to United States and Australian bashing ("They'd probably be safer travelling to Bali (but not Australia (or the US) where they'd probably be held in detention without charge and without trial"
. I thought this was a travel site and not a place for peoples deranged political comments....JMHO...
Aloha!
So you've turned it around from "Is Bali too dangerous to visit" to United States and Australian bashing ("They'd probably be safer travelling to Bali (but not Australia (or the US) where they'd probably be held in detention without charge and without trial"
. I thought this was a travel site and not a place for peoples deranged political comments....JMHO...Aloha!
Jun 5th, 2005, 10:47 PM
#51
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, I may have gone slightly off-topic hawaiiantraveller, but at least I managed to keep it civil, rather than calling anyone 'deranged'. Ouch, must have touched a nerve. And by the way, far from Australian bashing (being an Australian myself this would be pretty stupid), I was merely highlighting the irony of some of the previous comments.
Jun 6th, 2005, 01:19 AM
#52
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guykb made a lighthearted comment, but one that must indeed have been a bit too close to the bone. Why is it that posters who complain about "political" comments on Fodors are almost all of a Right-leaning persuasion? (Sorry, scratch "almost all" - make that "all".)
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:51 AM
#55
guykb--I do agree with much of what you are saying but not sure if ironic is the word I would use. After all, 9/11 happened right in my back yard, I watched it live, not on TV. The danger many of us percieve here is real. It certainly woke us up from our self induced delusion of safety from terrorism at home.
And Neil, I agree with you 100%
And Neil, I agree with you 100%
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:34 PM
#56
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
laurieco, I probably didn't express myself very well. I can surely understand that 9/11 must have brought the prospect of terrorism very close to many (all?) Americans. My own neice was due in one of the towers on the day in question for a meeting but thankfully it wasn't until later in the day.
I guess what I was trying to say was that for many people living in countries that are faced with civil war, or invading forces, or just plain hunger the prospect of staying at home to stay safe probably doesn't apply.
And please believe me when I say that my posts are not always so depressing! My proposed haggis shooting thread is much more upbeat...
I guess what I was trying to say was that for many people living in countries that are faced with civil war, or invading forces, or just plain hunger the prospect of staying at home to stay safe probably doesn't apply.
And please believe me when I say that my posts are not always so depressing! My proposed haggis shooting thread is much more upbeat...
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:34 PM
#57
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
laurieco, I probably didn't express myself very well. I can surely understand that 9/11 must have brought the prospect of terrorism very close to many (all?) Americans. My own neice was due in one of the towers on the day in question for a meeting but thankfully it wasn't until later in the day.
I guess what I was trying to say was that for many people living in countries that are faced with civil war, or invading forces, or just plain hunger the prospect of staying at home to stay safe probably doesn't apply.
And please believe me when I say that my posts are not always so depressing! My proposed haggis shooting thread is much more upbeat.
I guess what I was trying to say was that for many people living in countries that are faced with civil war, or invading forces, or just plain hunger the prospect of staying at home to stay safe probably doesn't apply.
And please believe me when I say that my posts are not always so depressing! My proposed haggis shooting thread is much more upbeat.
Jun 10th, 2005, 06:21 AM
#60
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The situation in Bali is very, very safe and stable. It is also very welcoming to gay couples. I am a straight woman who has lived here for ten years, and have welcomed many friends (including many gay couples) over the years. This is a fine time to visit Bali. I am also an author (Bali Chic). I recommend you stay at The Legian on Seminyak beach for at least two nights. In Ubud try Kajane, Taman Bebek, Komaneka, or the new Uma hotel. In North Bali stay at Puri Ganesha. If you do wish to sample nightlife, visit the area in and around Jalan Dhyana Pura in Seminyak. All of the places I mention are superb and your expectations will be met and exceeded!
