[QUOTE=constanttrek;195016]
"I remain slightly skeptical about 'Al Qaeda' presence. Dissatisfied, socially and economically disadvantaged people will go to great lengths to express their anger and outrage at being marginalised. That this is immediately interpreted as religious based terrorism is partly due to the fact that international media are quick to report it as such, leading in turn to those with a vested interest to claim responsibility for it....."

Its worth commenting on the Al Qaeda story, partly because it does relate to safety issues in the region. I see the perspectives on Al Qaeda as follows: The Algerian government has interests in making the link between the fundamentalist insurgency and Al Qaeda because the Algerian Government has been fighting the insurgency since the annulment of elections in 1992, largely without the sympathy or help from the west. By making the link between the fundamentalist insurgency and Al Qaeda, the Algerian government now stands to benefit from western resources which are being dedicated to the Al Qaeda question - e.g. the American base being built or already built in Tam and the recent news that the EU is now getting involved in region-wide security (see thread elsewhere on the Sahara forum). I have written this bit as impartially as I possibly can. I have a muddled personal view on the rights and wrongs in the Algerian case, esp in relation to the 1992 elections.

The insurgency in Algeria would most likely have continued with or without the post 911 events. But the insurgency has probably intensified because of the solidarity with the broader Al Qaeda mission, possible additional intelligence and possible additional resources which Al Qaeda more broadly have accumulated. I dont have much evidence for this, but it makes sense logically.

I do think that the net effect of a loose Al Qaeda affiliation across the region has been to decrease the security of westerners travelling in the region. In the last decade, the only 3 events somehow involving westerners in the Algerian desert that I know about (2003 mass abductions, 2008 Tunisia-Algeria-Mali kidnapping and a much shorter lived event near Arak where some Swiss guys - I think - were forced to drink out of a muddy puddle once their captives discovered whiskey in their truck!) have involved kidnappings and have made some kind of a link to Al Qaeda at some stage.

The uprisings in the north and occasional outbursts in Tam and Djanet in recent years seem to be more local politics which have minor consequences for tourists. The hits on Algerian army and frequent bombings are much more the work of the fundamentalist but again, all these have mercifully had little connection to desert tourists.

So all in all, the issue for travellers in Algeria is v.occasional but quite consequential kidnapping. In the last decade I dont know of any examples of robbery (different story in Niger of course - its been routine there).

Finally, the link with Al Qaeda does have consequences for the desert tourist whatever way we might see Al Qaeda, particularly if you are travelling on a UK passport. Put bluntly, I would NOT fancy being at the hands of kidnappers when I was relying on the UK diplomats to straighten things out. They have few connections and very limited history in the region. In the Iranian-GB navy saga in 2007, the UK had a tough time knowing how to proceed. It would be no different in North Africa. In these sort of cases, hostage taking is resolved through some 3rd party that does have connections in the region and comms then have to work through several parties - taking an awfully long time (that's the bit I dont fancy).