Josie Long - we are more at risk from right wing extremists than Islamic extremists

[Goodluckjonathan76]

A friend just posted a link to Josie's rant on her Facebook page. I honestly felt sick watching it. For a start, in terms of numbers of deaths, we are looking at 2 deaths (Jo Cox and man at Finsbury Park mosque) (please correct me if I am wrong) compared to multiple deaths in Manchester and London Bridge, not to mention the attacks in Paris, Nice and Brussels. Firstly, how is this the time to be comparing which is worse, and secondly, if we must compare then Islamic extremists pose a far greater risk in terms of loss of life. Am I missing something? Or has the world gone mad.

metezels Masjid Nawaz often makes another interesting point, that the regressive left, in trying to keep Islam beyond criticism, are making it very difficult, or impossible, for secular moderate Muslims like himself to try to reform Islam.

Why, what's wrong with your internet connection? Omg! I read this in my mums voice. 😂😂😂😂

Josie Long is v narrow minded. She has a black and white view of people. In her world, Tory means evil. No nuance. Islamists and far right are two cheeks of the same arse. Islamophobia is fuelled by both. Both are increasing racism and are killing people. I'm very impressed at how people on the ground, normal people of all races, come together most of the time.

The fact that Muslims themselves are the main victims of extremists is a bit muddied though. If someone hasn't explained this already.
Not all Muslims are the same denomination. The same way not all Christians are the same. (Catholics and protestants etc) they they tend to attack those who don't belong in their demotion which is usually reported to us as Muslims. The only time it's different is when Coptic Christians are killed or Christians in the Middle East then we will here about it as other.

Maajid Nawaz explaining the above - Je Suis Muslim: How Universal Secular Rights Protect Muslim Communities the Most

bigthink.com/videos/maajid-nawaz-on-islamic-reform.amp

TheCrownfromBelow, the life of one man in his fifties is the same as a child's? I disagree fundamentally with that. My child's life, and any child's life, is worth more than an adult. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Who doesn't get that? How on earth is ONE man dying equivalent to twenty two people, many teenagers, little kids, the same? It isn't. Sorry but it just fucking isn't. I would give me life a million times over to save my child or any child. What is wrong with you?

Quencher, I am well aware of the different types of Muslims we have, and the different types of Christians. It makes no difference to the point I was making about the apologist crap that comes out trying to justify Muslim extremism on the grounds that they will more of their own than other religions. Is that honestly supposed to be some kind of justification? There is no justification.

Right, I've watched Long now.

Which bit of what she says does anyone disagree with?

Er, see above thread Bertrand. Might be obvious from that.

As I said- what bit of what she says so you not agree with? Because it is pretty obvious that most people haven't listened to her.........

@Goodluckjonathan76 nope! It was to explain the point that you think they are killing each other, when in fact they think of it differently.
That's the point I was trying to make.

Bertrand, do you mind reading from my first post down? I worked a 60 hour week this week, in the midst of hosting a birthday party and have a 7 year old swinging from my neck. Or are you deliberately being stupid?

Maybe the whole video in which she talks about young white men being more of a threat than Islamic extremists.

Ah, ok quencher, I see. Thx for the clarification.

I always try not to get dragged into these threads but am can't keep my hands from typing.

@CrossWordSalad am going to answer it differently to your post with the link about why the news channels made an effort in naming it terrorism.
It's because the media would not have named it terrorism. It's always, never terrorism. The public told the media through social media to call it terrorism. Theresa May had to indicate it might be terrorism.
Before this, the attacker would have been called different names but never a terrorist because these days it served for Muslims. Everybody knows this and it's nothing new.
It wasn't because the people where trying to make it into something that it's not but because of how the media bias always works. (Hint, racism)

The argument's lost when Douglas Murray gets a name check. 'The regressive left' sounds like something he poached from The Day Today.

And by the way, people where surprised the media did call terrorist for what he is and named him as one.

If they had chosen not to do so, it would have caused a huge divide between the Muslim community and the British public, it would have fuelled the narrative that white people are never seen as terrorist these days even though you have extremist who commit the act of violence.

I think another issue is that the phrase "far-right" and similar labels are often used on people who really are not. It's all a bit of a conundrum as, for some people, just being critical of radical Islamism is enough to deserve the label "far-right" and indeed "intolerant". Which is odd given that radical Islamism is itself far-right and intolerant.

So for example, Douglas Murray is the latest person to be being publically called a bigot, hate-preacher etc by some for wanting to discuss aspects of Islam which he finds problematic (although good to see the BBC have apologised for allowing a guest to call home a hate-preacher on one of their programmes).

So DM, a gay man, is, to some, a bigot for criticising aspects of a religion in which, I think I am correct in saying, most believers do not believe in equality (or in some cases freedom, and for others even life) for him as a gay man. I find it quite hard to get my head around really.

for some people, just being critical of radical Islamism is enough to deserve the label "far-right" and indeed "intolerant".

Exactly!

quencher I'm not sure that the article I linked to is about whether the Finsbury Park attack should be called terrorism or not. It was about the way various people, politicians etc (eg DA) seem reluctant to use the word terrorism in relation to the Islamist attacks but do so for FP. And also about what we are told by some is an acceptable reaction following an attack and how this has differed between the Islamist attacks and FP.

Also, I really don't agree with your claim that people don't see terrorism as connected to white people. I would say that almost every thread I have been on on MN relating to Islamist terrorism has included references, comparisons etc to IRA terrorism.

A lot of people are labelled "far right" just because they happened to vote Conservative for a very very centrist middle of the road Tory party in the last election.

I grew up with risks of IRA bombs. Loads of us consider white terrorism. There is been absolutely nothing as bad so far in the UK as what most of us remember as terrorism - IRA attacks. The UK has never ever seen terrorism as something Muslims only do!

@CrossWordSalad what you are not getting is, the point had to be made. All politicians who woke up in the morning had to refer to it as what it was because of how social media reacted over night. It was a point that had to be made by politicians that "we hear what you are saying and agree that it was a terrorist attack". It wasn't a coincidence that all of them made the effort to use the language. Before, that would not have happened. Metal illness would have been first choice of words and that is what you are missing.
After the terrorist attacks that happened recently, and lots of Muslims being under the spotlight, the public were not willing to let the retaliation be called something else to what it was, "act of terrorism".

Believe me, if politicians had not used the language, you would have read lots of criticism about how BMA people are treated differently to white supremacist when they should all be treated equally when they commit similar acts of violence. It's not about one group looking better but the negative stereotypes that comes with those acts which will only be associated with one group because how issues are reported differently.
The media was applauded by lots of Muslim people because of what they did.
Believe me, it was a positive. Most people on social media referred to it as change for from usual narrative. (Hint! racial bias)

Just to add. The whole point which is the elephant in the room. It was to stop retaliation. Which could still happen.

Quencher do you mean a Muslim backlash?

No! Not Muslim back clash because a lot of them have called for no violence including the family of the man who died.
But I would not put it past Isis or people who support them which we do have in this country.