Is it safe to holiday in Muslim countries now?

[Berberis]

It's certainly not all "Muslim countries", which as discussed is not even really a thing.

But to pick one from the top of my head, how dangerous is it to go to Dubai (UAE) at the moment?

 

Foreign travel advice

United Arab Emirates

There is a high threat from terrorism

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/united-arab-emirates

[foxy lady]

It's certainly not all "Muslim countries", which as discussed is not even really a thing.

But to pick one from the top of my head, how dangerous is it to go to Dubai (UAE) at the moment?

 

 

From government travel advice.

"Around 1 million British nationals visit the UAE every year. Most visits are trouble-free.

 

There is a high threat from terrorism."

[Berberis]

Aren't we?

 

Well we haven't lost part of the country to them or are we fighting a conventional war with a Muslim group no, and I think this is what the OP was referring to.

[Cyclone]

You are right to put "Muslim countries" in inverted commas like it's actually a thing.

 

Unfortunately it's the Islamic terrorists who introduced and reinforce the idea of "Muslim countries" and then there's the ideology of Ummah to layer on the poison even more.

 

We cannot compare Islamic terrorism with the IRA. No Catholic shares the ideology of the IRA simply because they share a religion. The Ummah means that plenty of Muslims connect with other Muslims more than their neighbour simply for sharing a religion. I even see evidence of that on Sheffield Forum.

 

It's about numbers, and unfortunately our grave situation is because there are more Muslims than we want to imagine that share an ideology of hatred towards non-Muslims or the wrong sort of Muslims.

 

We can't avoid routine risk, we can't avoid the risk involved in driving to the airport, but we can chose between the risk of sitting on a beach in Egypt or Florida ... so like L00b it's the latter for me.

 

It's quite simple, and no matter how virtuous it might make people feel to deny it, there is now more risk travelling to the countries that Muslim terrorists think are "Muslim countries".

 

We absolutely can avoid the routine risk of driving to the airport.

You can stay at home.

You can take the train.

The fact is that risk doesn't even get considered when choosing how to travel, despite it being greater than the threat of terrorism at your destination.

 

When you put the actual risk into context you realise just what level it is.

 

But that isn't what most people want to do.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:24 ----------

 

My point was...who are you to tell me that I'm not capable of risk assessing?!

It's quite clearly an opinion I formed based on your demonstrated ability.

 

I would have thought it was pretty clear for anyone to see that the risk of being involved in a terrorist incident whilst in a Muslim country at present time, is clearly higher than the risk of being involved in an attack within the EU. Maybe the view is somewhat obscured for you, being so high up on that horse of yours.

http://thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2016

 

In SOME countries, yes. But you really need to put that risk into context otherwise "higher" is pretty meaningless.

[sgtkate]

We absolutely can avoid the routine risk of driving to the airport.

You can stay at home.

You can take the train.

The fact is that risk doesn't even get considered when choosing how to travel, despite it being greater than the threat of terrorism at your destination.

 

When you put the actual risk into context you realise just what level it is.

 

But that isn't what most people want to do.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:24 ----------

 

It's quite clearly an opinion I formed based on your demonstrated ability.

 

In SOME countries, yes. But you really need to put that risk into context otherwise "higher" is pretty meaningless.

 

But it is disingenuous of you to claim that there is no higher risk going to a predominantly muslim country. There is a higher overall risk. You can argue all you want about it being statistically insignificant in the wider risk context, but it is there.

[Cyclone]

On the contrary, Cyclone is arguing a fact-only argument.

 

Which is half a problem since, in real life, the question of the OP to would-be tourists calls more for a subjective answer based on an overall perception of the destination country, than for an objective answer based on dry facts and statistics.

 

I've never met, and don't know, anyone who researches and peruses terrorist (and similar) statistics about a destination country before dropping into Thomas Cook, Thomson or launching Tripadvisor and such like. I certainly don't. Has anyone else?

 

Doesn't mean such people don't exist of course, and some statistics about that might go some way to solve the current 'dispute'. But I daresay that they are numerically inconsequential all the same, relative to a significant majority of holiday-goers.

Directly related to the above (perception ≠ factual reality), that point has been put across a fair few times already since last year. Unsurprisingly, it gains no traction with the statisticians. But then, it's not their a55 on Sousse's beachfront, the Metrojet Airbus, Istanbul and Ankara's markets...

 

You're quite right. I wouldn't peruse such facts myself generally.

I only look them up when someone makes sweeping statements that appear to be likely to be misleading.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:28 ----------

 

But it is disingenuous of you to claim that there is no higher risk going to a predominantly muslim country. There is a higher overall risk. You can argue all you want about it being statistically insignificant in the wider risk context, but it is there.

 

If you insist on talking about "muslim country" as if they're all identical then I don't think it's disingenuous at all.

 

And I never claimed that there wasn't a higher risk in SOME countries.

Earlier in the history of this (now very long) thread I made the point that it's worth trying to put that increased risk into perspective.

And secondly, that there are predominantly Muslim countries that have no increased risk.

You are probably safer in Dubai at the moment than a European capital city...

[foxy lady]

Well we haven't lost part of the country to them or are we fighting a conventional war with a Muslim group no, and I think this is what the OP was referring to.

 

There aren't many Muslim countries that aren't fighting a conventional war with a Muslim group.

[Cyclone]

From government travel advice.

"Around 1 million British nationals visit the UAE every year. Most visits are trouble-free.

 

There is a high threat from terrorism."

 

France has a high thread from terrorism according to the FO doesn't it?

Does Spain as well?

 

And a few months ago when we looked Morocco had a lower level of risk than France.

[Berberis]

There aren't many Muslim countries that aren't fighting a conventional war with a Muslim group.

 

Those that I listed are not but do conform to the subject of the discussion, being, they have a higher risk of terrorism than non-muslim countries.

[sgtkate]

You're quite right. I wouldn't peruse such facts myself generally.

I only look them up when someone makes sweeping statements that appear to be likely to be misleading.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:28 ----------

 

 

If you insist on talking about "muslim country" as if they're all identical then I don't think it's disingenuous at all.

 

And I never claimed that there wasn't a higher risk in SOME countries.

Earlier in the history of this (now very long) thread I made the point that it's worth trying to put that increased risk into perspective.

And secondly, that there are predominantly Muslim countries that have no increased risk.

You are probably safer in Dubai at the moment than a European capital city...

 

Can you post the word immediately preceding my 'muslim country' bit just so everyone has the correct context without you attempting to completely change my words. If we took the entire world and split it into countries based on the majority religion which do you think would come out with the highest casualty figures due to terrorism per capita?

 

You have spent so long in this thread attempting to educate us all on risk analysis that you have actually missed that all stats have outliers which should be ignored. Perhaps the UAE is one of those outliers, just as Brussels and Paris could be the other way?