Is it safe to holiday in Muslim countries now?

[cgksheff]

So the map showing a low risk in Morocco was wrong or out of date?

 

 

The map is irrelevant.

Always refer to source data when looking at 3rd party information on the web.

But then you know that. Don't you?

[Cyclone]

Most eh. So 249,500 could be not trouble free. Nice stat you found.

 

You could phone the foreign office and ask them to be more specific, but I think they intend the colloquial meaning of most (have a look in the dictionary), rather than "a slender majority".

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2015 at 09:35 ----------

 

The map is irrelevant.

Always refer to source data when looking at 3rd party information on the web.

But then you know that. Don't you?

 

Well, tell you what. You look up every country on that map, and let us know if there are any other mistakes.

 

Then double check the FO in how they make the assessments, just to be doubly sure, they might have made a mistake after all.

 

No, I don't always refer to the source data if the convenient source I've found is reliable and trusted.

 

Do you want a lolly because I was misled by incorrect information in the telegraph, in a completely inconsequential way to this discussion (Morocco was mentioned by someone else, I used Oman as an example of a Muslim country with a low threat level).

Your point is made, Morocco is a high threat level, okay, move on.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Cyclone

[exxon]

You could phone the foreign office and ask them to be more specific, but I think they intend the colloquial meaning of most (have a look in the dictionary), rather than "a slender majority".

 

Perhaps you should ring them it's your quote. I'm sorry the words don't say what you wanted them to say and have to be qualified by your translation of them. I know the deffinition of the word majority thank you. I hear it all the time during elections.

 

Slender majority. Vast majority. Majority lies somewhere between.

[mort]

Bickering removed. If you can't actually be bothered to debate the subject then I suggest that you refrain from posting.

 

The personal attacks can also cease.

[milquetoast1]

I suspect that trying to rely on statistics of risk, when terrorists are interested in targeting easy targets, is rather futile. It's like playing terrorist whack a mole.

 

Tunisia might be perceived as high risk because of what happened there, but it might now be much safer to sit on one of the many empty sunbeds there than somewhere else perceived as low risk.

 

The terrorists have shown that they want to kill infidel tourists in what they consider to be Muslim territory. And that's all I need to know. Areas with plenty of tourists, in areas perceived as safe, with less security, are precisely the areas to avoid imho irrespective of FCO advice.

 

Unfortunately this means that I will not be visiting the country of my birth. My dad has advised me not too as well, along with other countries including Morocco. My sister however, well she looks Egyptian and my dad would be less concerned about her travelling in North Africa as long as she didn't sit on sunbeds with other Westerners.

[Cyclone]

It's a good point. The level of risk is assessed against an entire country, it tells you little about a specific resort and even less about a specific beach or night club that might end up being a target.

Unfortunately though, terrorists feel no compunction to stay in what they consider to be their own territory, so you might be just as unsafe on the tube in London or in an expensive store off the Champs Elysee.

Thinking about the psychology of attacks, going to Sharm right now would probably be one of the safer middle eastern destinations. Security will be tightened massively, tourist numbers will fall, it's no longer an attractive target.

[Zamo]

Thinking about the psychology of attacks, going to Sharm right now would probably be one of the safer middle eastern destinations. Security will be tightened massively, tourist numbers will fall, it's no longer an attractive target.

 

In countries like Egypt you find that people in positions of authority taking bribes and payments for 'services' is as normal as waiting staff in the UK getting a tip. Things will tighten up whilst the spotlight is shining on them but it will soon be back to business as usual. I think I'd still give it a swerve!

[L00b]

In countries like Egypt you find that people in positions of authority taking bribes and payments for 'services' is as normal as waiting staff in the UK getting a tip. Things will tighten up whilst the spotlight is shining on them but it will soon be back to business as usual. I think I'd still give it a swerve!

That's just reminded me how, last time we were there, and as we were flying back to the UK, my diving buddy got his suitcase x-rayed at the entry into Sharm airport, then ransomed (yes, really and it was the equivalent of £20 or £30 IIRC) by the security guards for the cigarette cartons in it. That was landside in Egypt.

 

Mate was understandably fuming. I tried to pacify him with a brief introduction about "how things work" in the Middle East. 400 fags and they'll likely leave you alone. 4000, and they just see a walking target with a lot more to lose than a few more quids

 

He didn't get stopped/done on landing in the UK, so I suppose them Egyptians lads had some sense of goodwill and honour

Edited November 10, 2015 by L00b

[exxon]

Thinking about the psychology of attacks, going to Sharm right now would probably be one of the safer middle eastern destinations. Security will be tightened massively, tourist numbers will fall, it's no longer an attractive target.

 

Correct if folk don't go on holiday to Sharm they won't get killed there.

[Cyclone]

Correct if folk don't go on holiday to Sharm they won't get killed there.

 

I'd be extremely surprised if there's another attack there in the foreseeable future.

Do you disagree?