On 8/16/06, sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
You are discounting the fact that US is geographically isolated as compared to India's hostile neighbours. So it is difficult for outsiders to atack the US. As for the surveillance camera all over the place, I would prefer 'Big Brother' not to watch me all the time.
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.
In India, the cost of human life is less as we have more people. Obviously the more of something you have the less you value it. -- Vinayak
