Is it safe to holiday in Muslim countries now?

[milquetoast1 10]

We had a lot of trouble with the IRA once. But people didn't refrain from visting say Spain or France because it was full of Catholics.....

 

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

[Cyclone 10]

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

 

The topic of this thread though includes all "Muslim countries".

 

As if they're all the same, as if it's even possible to identify a list of such countries, as if holiday resorts don't have different risk profiles to capital cities, etc, etc...

 

There are probably Muslim countries where you can more safely holiday than if you choose to visit a European capital city.

But frankly, the risk on your way to the airport is still greater than the risk of you being involved in a terrorist attack wherever you go (unless we start talking about visiting Helmand Province or actual war zones).

[runningman1 12]

What do you think I've asserted that I need to prove?

 

All I did was ask how safe Europe was and you started off on some rant.

 

There are plenty of Muslim countries that have had no recent bomb attacks, unlike France and Belgium. So the idea that "Muslim countries" as a group are unsafe to holiday in is clearly nonsense, at least by comparison to European countries. If the comparison is actually to everyday risks, like being killed in a car crash on the way to the airport then the assertion becomes even more ridiculous.

 

An article in the indy last year named the top 10 countries that had suffered the most deaths due to terrorism, 7 of them were Muslim countries. That is 70%. Although I have been generous to you and not included Nigeria in that, which is about 50% Muslim. The terrorism in Nigeria (3rd most dangerous country in the world ) is largely conducted by Boko Haram, which The Global Terrorism Index names above ISIS as the most dangerous terror group in the world.

 

None were in Europe Of the 10 countries were in Europe

 

Of the world's 196 countries, 50 are Muslim, so just over 25%

 

So Muslim countries have a disproportionate problem with terrorism. You just don't hear about it in the news, because western news is very ethno-centric.

 

You are arguing an absurd, fact less argument.

[nightrider 13]

Yes yes. You said 2 posts back that you'd proved it.. We all know about cyclone proof. You've only proved something when others agree with you not when they lose the will to live.

 

So why don't you prove that going to a muslim country, that is not in a state of war, is more dangerous than a european one?

[Berberis 10]

 

We had a lot of trouble with the IRA once. But people didn't refrain from visting say Spain or France because it was full of Catholics.....

 

You misrepresent the IRA if you think their ideology was purely based on their faith. The fact they were Catholic was secondary to their aims which was republicanism, not catholicism. The IRA was not a religious movement.

[sgtkate 10]

So why don't you prove that going to a muslim country, that is not in a state of war, is more dangerous than a european one?

 

Because that does change the question, albeit a silly question to begin with.

 

 

Statistically there is more chance of dying from a terrorist attack in a country with a high percentage of muslims than other religions, however, that risk is still tiny and is blown out of the water by the risk of dying whilst driving to and from your destination, however it is untrue to state that there is no additional risk by travelling to muslim countries but you'd have to go to several decimal points for that additional risk to register.

[runningman1 12]

You misrepresent the IRA if you think their ideology was purely based on their faith. The fact they were Catholic was secondary to their aims which was republicanism, not catholicism. The IRA was not a religious movement.

 

A point missed hy many, many people.

[foxy lady 10]

An article in the indy last year named the top 10 countries that had suffered the most deaths due to terrorism, 7 of them were Muslim countries. That is 70%. Although I have been generous to you and not included Nigeria in that, which is about 50% Muslim. The terrorism in Nigeria (3rd most dangerous country in the world ) is largely conducted by Boko Haram, which The Global Terrorism Index names above ISIS as the most dangerous terror group in the world.

 

None were in Europe Of the 10 countries were in Europe

 

Of the world's 196 countries, 50 are Muslim, so just over 25%

 

So Muslim countries have a disproportionate problem with terrorism. You just don't hear about it in the news, because western news is very ethno-centric.

 

You are arguing an absurd, fact less argument.

 

The European media don't report the bombs, mass shootings, abductions in the Islamic world because it happens every day. It's like reporting it getting dark at night. If you want to hear about the day to day slaughter you need to look to sources like Al Jazeera who actually report the incidents.

Of course it's a problem in these countries, as is dying of food poisoning or drinking contaminated water, or being arrested for mentioning any of these facts.

[milquetoast1 10]

The topic of this thread though includes all "Muslim countries".

 

As if they're all the same, as if it's even possible to identify a list of such countries, as if holiday resorts don't have different risk profiles to capital cities, etc, etc...

 

There are probably Muslim countries where you can more safely holiday than if you choose to visit a European capital city.

But frankly, the risk on your way to the airport is still greater than the risk of you being involved in a terrorist attack wherever you go (unless we start talking about visiting Helmand Province or actual war zones).

 

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".

[Grenoside123 10]

And yet you're prepared to argue about it again, as if something changed.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016-----

 

 

It's not telling you that you aren't allowed to risk assess. It's saying that I don't think you are capable of risk assessing.

If I say "you can't fly", do you think I'm giving you an instruction?

 

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

 

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

[nightrider 13]

Because that does change the question, albeit a silly question to begin with.

 

 

 

Well including countries like Syria to me seems silly, because they are obviously dangerous and I don't think going on holiday to a muslim country is likely to realistically include countries in states of extensive war.

[Berberis 10]

So why don't you prove that going to a muslim country, that is not in a state of war, is more dangerous than a european one?

 

How about these?

 

Tunisia

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) advise against all travel to some areas and all but essential travel to the rest of the country.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/tunisia

 

Egypt

FCO's comments on Egypt; "There is a high threat from terrorism".

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/egypt

 

Indonesia

There is a high threat from terrorism. Terrorist groups continue to plan attacks and have the capacity and intent to carry out these attacks at anytime and anywhere in the country. Types of attacks have included suicide bombing and small-arms fire, targeting public and crowded places.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/indonesia

 

Morocco

There is a high threat from terrorism in Morocco.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/morocco

 

Mali

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) advise against all travel most of the country while advising against all but essential travel to the rest of the country.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/mali

 

Even the paradise islands of the Maldives are considered to have a "general threat from terrorism", according to the FCO.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/maldives

 

I could keep going but I think the point has been made. Islamic countries = terrorism.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Berberis