Comments on: Are danger zones the last frontier? http://www.vagablogging.net/are-danger-zones-the-last-frontier.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:14:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: » On the ethics of choosing where to travel :: Vagablogging :: Rolf Potts Vagabonding Blog http://www.vagablogging.net/are-danger-zones-the-last-frontier.html/comment-page-1#comment-2446 » On the ethics of choosing where to travel :: Vagablogging :: Rolf Potts Vagabonding Blog Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:01:00 +0000 http://www.vagablogging.net/?p=1571#comment-2446 [...] a previous post, I talked about how danger zones can be turn out to be the best travel destinations. The big problem is that they’re often [...] [...] a previous post, I talked about how danger zones can be turn out to be the best travel destinations. The big problem is that they’re often [...]

]]> By: Julie http://www.vagablogging.net/are-danger-zones-the-last-frontier.html/comment-page-1#comment-2292 Julie Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:01:36 +0000 http://www.vagablogging.net/?p=1571#comment-2292 I've just returned from Colombia and consider the trip to be one of the best travel experiences of my life. I was there for a month and though I spent most of my time in Mompox, I also visited Barranquilla, Taganga, Santa Marta, and Cartagena. I've written an article on "Tips for Traveling in 'Dangerous' Places": http://www.nomadicmatt.com/travel-blogs/2008/07/06/tips-for-traveling-in-dangerous-places/ and over at Matador's Traveler's Notebook, Richard McColl, a British expat who's been living Colombia for the past five years, just published a relevant piece: Top 10 Reasons Why Colombia is Not as Dangerous as You Think: http://thetravelersnotebook.com/destination-guides/10-reasons-why-colombia-is-not-as-dangerous-as-you-think/ I’ve just returned from Colombia and consider the trip to be one of the best travel experiences of my life. I was there for a month and though I spent most of my time in Mompox, I also visited Barranquilla, Taganga, Santa Marta, and Cartagena.

I’ve written an article on “Tips for Traveling in ‘Dangerous’ Places”: http://www.nomadicmatt.com/travel-blogs/2008/07/06/tips-for-traveling-in-dangerous-places/

and over at Matador’s Traveler’s Notebook, Richard McColl, a British expat who’s been living Colombia for the past five years, just published a relevant piece: Top 10 Reasons Why Colombia is Not as Dangerous as You Think:

http://thetravelersnotebook.com/destination-guides/10-reasons-why-colombia-is-not-as-dangerous-as-you-think/

]]> By: Desi Italiana http://www.vagablogging.net/are-danger-zones-the-last-frontier.html/comment-page-1#comment-2254 Desi Italiana Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:22:12 +0000 http://www.vagablogging.net/?p=1571#comment-2254 I recently returned from Nepal, which was described as a no-go zone, and I had absolutely no problems. You did have to work around strikes, protests, and demonstrations, but I personally found the latter two to be exciting given that I was witnessing 'history in the making' (I actually went to them to see what was going on). Admittedly, I went when the situation was not as volatile as it was three years ago; but then again, nothing is predictable in Nepal. However, when reading the warnings issued by the US Embassy in Kathmandu, it seemed like they were talking about some other place at times (save for the bombings that took place, which WERE scary and very real because they were often planted at the bus station that I had to stop at every day on the bus). As with any place-- whether on the State Dept watchlist or not-- good judgment is key to survival (which means not traveling when there is a strike in Nepal or India, when police have orders to shoot on sight, or warring factions mistake you for being part of the opposing side. The latter is more likely to happen if you blend in with the population-- ie being of South Asian descent). Also, I went to Turkey, Morocco, and Spain either before or after attacks, and I didn't have any problems. I think the general rule is that post-attack sites are usually very safe because of the heightened security (I don't think this rule would stand for Iraq, though). I would also love to go to Iran, more so after I read Wheeler's book. I'm also fascinated by Central Asia-- like Turkemenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekhistan, etc-- even if those places seem to have a bad rep these days. I recently returned from Nepal, which was described as a no-go zone, and I had absolutely no problems. You did have to work around strikes, protests, and demonstrations, but I personally found the latter two to be exciting given that I was witnessing ‘history in the making’ (I actually went to them to see what was going on). Admittedly, I went when the situation was not as volatile as it was three years ago; but then again, nothing is predictable in Nepal. However, when reading the warnings issued by the US Embassy in Kathmandu, it seemed like they were talking about some other place at times (save for the bombings that took place, which WERE scary and very real because they were often planted at the bus station that I had to stop at every day on the bus). As with any place– whether on the State Dept watchlist or not– good judgment is key to survival (which means not traveling when there is a strike in Nepal or India, when police have orders to shoot on sight, or warring factions mistake you for being part of the opposing side. The latter is more likely to happen if you blend in with the population– ie being of South Asian descent).

Also, I went to Turkey, Morocco, and Spain either before or after attacks, and I didn’t have any problems. I think the general rule is that post-attack sites are usually very safe because of the heightened security (I don’t think this rule would stand for Iraq, though).

I would also love to go to Iran, more so after I read Wheeler’s book. I’m also fascinated by Central Asia– like Turkemenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekhistan, etc– even if those places seem to have a bad rep these days.

]]>