Search the research paper with "Dark tourism". you will find many different arguments, concept related to terrorism and tourism. Many destination within months of the attacks the area became the latest home of sightseers and hawkers .Within the United States itself there are already several tourist destinations defined by tragedy. it is true in case of India the Taj hotel Mumbai attack. Similarly The Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas’ former Texas Book Repository is one such place. It opened 26 years after gunman Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy from a sixth-floor window there – it has since become the city’s biggest attraction, with 450,000 people a year. Ford’s Theater, where President Lincoln was assassinated, the museum in the Lorraine Motel in Memphis where Dr Martin Luther King was shot and Pearl Harbour are all historic memorial sites. Dark tourism can be voyeuristic and exploitative – or if handled correctly, do a world of good .

Very hard question. First of all the war situation should be normalise and later a few spots could be famous places, interesting stories. Tourism and terrorism cannot work together. Tourism industry, especially mass tourism needs maximum and controlled security enviroment. FYI:

BRYMAN, A., 1999. Theme Parks and McDonaldization. In: B. SMART, szerk. Resisting Mcdonaldization. London: Sage, pp. 18-47.

in my opinion in a variety of ways:

1. if terrorism is internationally created domestic tourism can be bolstered as prices will drop and hotel/tourism vacancies may be filled.

2. terrorist activities, however sad and hurtful they may be can increase tourism in their aftermath as many people have an affinity to visit these 'dark tourism sites'. examples in the present century may include increased footfall in the 9/11 world twin tower site in USA (http://www.newsweek.com/911-memorial-tourist-site-15-years-497279) and the Taj Hotel 26/11 in Mumbai India .

i agree that in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist strike/incident tourist arrivals do fall but that is expected. but after the initial hurt and shock dissipate, tourists would throng to these sites if they are well marketed.

That's where it pays to have a diversity of markets. Birdwatchers, for example, will travel to places that sightseeing tourists would consider risky (Goodfellow, http://epubs.scu.edu.au/theses/539/). Also, visitors likely to build friendships with local people, will play a very important role in rebuilding tourism after an attack.

No way. Terrorism and tourism are inversely proportional values. Some stakeholders may earn something (like local pub), but on on macroeconomic or entire industries level it is nothing but loss.

Terrorist attacks abroad increased domestic tourism in Poland.

Very interesting question. From an economic point, we have seen areas in conflict that who is outside the boundaries of the typical tourist, If these tourist have money to spend and the desire to travel, other areas, presenting less danger but are appealing now move up as a travel choice. It goes back to marketing.