Is Any Islamic Country Now Safe To Visit?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/26/sri-lanka-faces-financial-blow-uk-holidaymakers-cancel-trips.

I Googled "Is Sri Lanka safe for tourists"?

And came up with this:

/// The good news is that Sri Lanka is a remarkably safe place to travel in, and violent crime against foreigners is virtually unheard of – this is still a place where, despite 25 years of brutal civil war, in parts of the country the theft of two bicycles is considered a crime wave. ///

How times have changed.

[Spicerack]

^wrong


Nothing to do with foreign travel, anyway.

[Spicerack]

ummmm //But he's right, Spicerack.//

I'm glad you said that. Gromit's post, which ummmm apparently agrees with, that I said was garbage;

// The truth is that people are safe in any country.//

You and gromit need to inform the Foreign Office. They keep issuing travel warnings and it's costing us £millions.

//There have been attacks in Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Bhuddist countries, but they are not common or the norm.//

Again, those fools at the FCO seem to think they are more common or the norm in some countries than others.

//Terrorists attacking any country, their main objective is to damage the rulers of that country, not the victims.//

That must come as a great comfort to the victims and their families.

[naomi24]

Karl, //Naomi, perhaps you should simply have said safety can't be guaranteed anywhere,//

In other words you would like me to ignore any specific reference to Islamic terrorism. When by far the majority of atrocities committed by terrorists across the world is perpetrated by Islamists why would that be? New York, London, Manchester, Paris, Madrid, Bali, Nice, Tunisia, Egypt …. shall I go on? That’s what is happening, that’s what people are afraid of, that’s why governments recommend that some places in the world be avoided - and refusing to acknowledge any of that changes nothing.

[anotheoldgit]

Baldric

/// Thank you Mamya, that's better, shame the OPer couldn't be bothered to check. ///

Don't be so damn rude, do you check everything, or was it yet another chance to have bash at me?

[1ozzy]

Pip pip old chap //damn rude// in my opinion!

[-Talbot-]

Gromit
I rarely visit AB anymore because the community that was once gentle has become horrible and the agenda dominated by fake far right sites.
But I had to laugh at AOGs question and its total ignorance of religion in Sri Lanka.



A bit rich coming from someone who keeps saying that there is no spike in the number of attacks on the Jewish community...apparently the Jews are just cooking the books.

[anotheoldgit]

/// Terrorists attacking any country, their main objective is to damage the rulers of that country, not the victims. ///

Oh so what you are saying then is, that the victims are only expected collateral damage, in their attempt to damage the rulers of the targeted countries?

[naomi24]

Gromit, /// Terrorists attacking any country, their main objective is to damage the rulers of that country, not the victims. ///

With the victims dead, that really is a bit of a daft thing to say,

[1ozzy]

Terrorists don't care who they kill.

Christians, Muslims, doesn't matter.

Creating havoc and unrest for their own cause is what floats their boat.

[-Talbot-]

Terrorists don't care who they kill.



Really?

[1ozzy]

Yes Talbot, really!!

Do you think before any terrorist attack a "role call" is taken?

"Oh no, we can't drive a truck through people, fly a plane into a building, detonate a bomb,or initiate any other atrocity" one of our brethren may be in the crowd"

Believe it or not human life is worthless to a terrorist, it's the disruption to life in general that they believe makes their point.

[-Talbot-]

It was just by chance that the Christchurch terrorist attacked two mosques and the same with the Sri Lankan terrorists attacking churches?


They may not care about collateral damage but they certainly care about their prime target.

[1ozzy]

Care to think about any other terrorist attacks over the last umpteen years?

I'm sure the two towers only held people of a certain religion, same could be said about a certain concert, but, if you want to only think about two incidences, well, do so!

[naomi24]

Where places of worship are attacked the intention is clear. That doesn’t, however, apply to the majority of attacks – for example London, 9/11, Manchester, Nice… etc.

[-Talbot-]

So it's all totally random is it.

You learn something everyday on AB.

[1ozzy]

Exactly,

[Spicerack]

If Muslims work in the twin towers, they would be seen as traitors. If they go to pop concerts, sinners.
When Muslims get killed in Islamic terror attacks, they're the wrong/right flavour of Muslim.
Still, if it comforts you to separate Islam from terrorism, knock yourself out.

[1ozzy]

I'm sure the attacks are very well planned.
Otherwise the authorities would be on to them beforehand.

As to who they damage/kill?

Minor drawback in their eyes.

[1ozzy]

//When Muslims get killed in Islamic terror attacks//

So, there is a difference?

[naomi24]

When Muslims are killed in terrorist attacks the attackers regard that as dying for the cause. It’s irrelevant to them. Life is cheap.