Is it safe to holiday in Muslim countries now?

[Berberis]

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.

 

Correct, France has a high risk of terrorism at present due to the ongoing issues. Morocco is another subject and we can't go back in time to see what the threat level was. Try to stick to the facts now.

[Cyclone]

What facts do you think we're discussing?

 

You're not claiming that ALL countries that are predominantly Muslim have a higher risk of terrorism than ALL other countries are you?

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:46 ----------

 

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?

 

You think saying "predominantly muslim countries" changes your statement?

 

It doesn't. It's incorrect to try to group countries in this way to consider the risk of visiting them.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:47 ----------

 

C

 

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?

 

You wouldn't ignore the outliers if you were considering visiting one of them.

 

Some kind of average risk is entirely meaningless, you should ONLY consider the risk of the specific country you're thinking of visiting.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:49 ----------

 

Correct, France has a high risk of terrorism at present due to the ongoing issues. Morocco is another subject and we can't go back in time to see what the threat level was. Try to stick to the facts now.

 

So where is the thread suggesting that holidaying in France isn't safe?

 

It would be laughed off wouldn't it. As should this thread. But it isn't, some people actually think that this is a serious issue and that they should avoid an entire arbitrary group of countries based on the common religion in those countries.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 14:53 ----------

 

This was what restarted the thread most recently.

 

I go to Marmaris 2-3 times a year. Will be there again in just under 6 weeks.

 

Its just like smoking. Folk don't get killed by it until they do. It's just the dead ones don't spend much time on t'internet posting about it.

 

About as far from the Syria border as you can get in Turkey.

 

The FO says that the risk is high, particularly near Syria and in the capital...

 

But Marmaris could well be safer than many European destinations at the moment.

[milquetoast1]

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.

 

What is the point in this pedantry?

 

The discussion is whether to holiday in Muslim countries, not holiday at all.

 

Of course risk is considered when choosing how to travel. I might take the train to Manchester if it's convenient, if not I will drive as carefully as possible and maybe subconsciously even more so if the family are with me.

 

I don't know why you are even arguing that people shouldn't consider the risk of the places they might visit, because some other irrelevant risks are higher or lower.

 

Given a straight choice between two countries to visit, people should consider the risks if they want to, and they do.

 

As I have said, for many years my wife and I have had a policy of excluding countries where the residents don't like us for ethical and security reasons. Crikey, there's still numerous places we want to visit but never could in many lifetimes so it's not worth refining our policy.

 

And it does include all countries that Muslim terrorists would like us to believe are "Muslim countries".

Edited March 23, 2016 by milquetoast1

[Ted Heath]

Why bother with these countries anyway? Even before this situation they were awful, sanitation, dirty smelly money, stalking and ogling women, dodgy food, no booze, Kalashnokoffs wall to wall. The incessant caterwhauling from the minarets.

 

Tenerife thats the place. Or Benidorm, or Blackpool.

[Cyclone]

The point is to put the level of increased risk into perspective.

 

And the fact that considering "Muslim countries" to be a group with similar risk levels is ludicrous.

 

I haven't argued that people shouldn't consider the risk, you can't just make things up...

 

You can do what you like, I'm not trying to tell you where to holiday.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 15:17 ----------

 

I imagined you would.

 

France had 85 million visitors last year none of whom were gunned down by armed terrorists.

 

Tunisia had 6 million visitors 58 of whom were shot dead by armed terrorists. Many more were evacuated or wounded.

 

What does your professional risk assessment skill tell you about the comparitive risks involved in visiting France and Tunisia?

 

Presumably exxon has updated his position since then to prefer visiting Tunisia over France...

[foxy lady]

What is the point in this pedantry?

 

The discussion is whether to holiday in Muslim countries, not holiday at all.

 

Of course risk is considered when choosing how to travel. I might take the train to Manchester if it's convenient, if not I will drive as carefully as possible and maybe subconsciously even more so if the family are with me.

 

I don't know why you are even arguing that people shouldn't consider the risk of the places they might visit, because some other irrelevant risks are higher or lower.

 

Given a straight choice between two countries to visit, people should consider the risks if they want to, and they do.

 

As I have said, for many years my wife and I have had a policy of excluding countries where the residents don't like us for ethical and security reasons. Crikey, there's still numerous places we want to visit but never could in many lifetimes so it's not worth refining our policy.

 

And it does include all countries that Muslim terrorists would like us to believe are "Muslim countries".

 

It look like everyone in the world except two agree with you.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3300351/The-haunting-images-Egypt-s-deserted-pyramids-abandoned-sphinx-tourists-shun-Middle-Eastern-hotspot.html

[Cyclone]

Wow, the dailymail. If I disagree with something written in it then I consider myself to be on the right lines.

[runningman1]

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?

 

I haven't argued that all countries which are predominantly Muslim are entirely safe, or that European countries are all extremely dangerous, which appears to be the strawman you're attacking.

 

Muslim countries quite obviously means muslim ruled countries, just like socialist countries means socialist ruled countries. It is a thing.

 

I am not making a strawman argument. Unless I am mistaken you are arguing that it is no more dangerous in terms of terrorism in Islamic countries than it is in Europe, which is simply not the case.

 

After thought I think it is only fair to include Nigeria as an Islamic country in this regard, Purely because by far the majority of that countries terrorism is Islamic ally inspired.

 

This means that 80% of the world's 10 most dangerous countries for terrorism are Muslim countries. Do you think this is a coincidence? A temporary statistical anomaly?

[Obelix]

But they did refrain from visiting the country where most of the attacks happened, and where most of the risk was perceived to be.

 

Oh yes, and thats perfectly sensible. But to extend that to all catholic countries would be insane, and I cant understand why people are thereofre doing that nowadays.

[Cyclone]

I h

 

I am not making a strawman argument. Unless I am mistaken you are arguing that it is no more dangerous in terms of terrorism in Islamic countries than it is in Europe, which is simply not the case.

 

Nope. I didn't make that argument.

 

The point is that you cannot simply assess some sort of average risk across all "predominantly Muslim countries" or indeed "European countries".

 

There are countries I wouldn't visit right now, and there are others that I would.

 

I'd go to Turkey still, but not the capital. I'd go to Egypt, to a tourist resort like Sharm. I'd also go to Paris or Brussels if I had any desire to do so.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Cyclone