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.

The reason this thread is a joke is that most people obviously haven't listened to Long's video!

BertrandRussell
Agreed!

But we've hit the point of screaming 'virtue signalling', which in my opinion is the new line to try and deny any debate and dismiss ideas.

the sexism and homophobia of religions where numbers are increasing than about the much lower risk of religious violence or the views that are held by many conservative Christians? - yes, I think most religions view of women or homosexuals is insane, the difference is you don't see many Christian nations beheading people for being gay, murdering their women in honour killings (1000 per year in Pakistan alone), stoning, lashing, whipping, imprisoning people because they're gay or because their husbands accused them of merely catching the gaze of another man.
Again. As I said earlier, this isn't a thread about competition (who's religion is worse - although the points above alone make you're comparison of extreme Islam and extreme Christianity a joke), it's about who poses more threat to us as a nation / society / demographic / individual.
I am a "leftie" and even I think the PC brigade has gone insane.

Well said Namechange2837.

Fantastic post WiseDad.

And don't get me started on the Josie Long video itself. "White men" are a risk. Since when did we start labelling ethnic groups as hazardous and do you think she realises she is a hypocrite or is she just cognitively less privileged than most of us?

There is much in what JL said which is deeply contradictory and ill thought out. She talks about the "far-right" (in her view Farage, Hopkins and Tommy Robinson amongst others) as using "othering" and "dehumanising" tactics to "spread hate". But she is doing exactly this.

So you can't identify figures that are spreading hate because that means you will be spreading hate?

Sorry for the rant. Personally I think child sexual exploitation has destroyed thousands of lives and yet nothing was done for fear of someone calling out "white privilege" and "rascist" just like people have done in this thread. How dare they belittle the real fears of people just because they don't match their ideal victim! Those who call this are the enablers and creators of the situation we find ourselves in

Very true and I don't understand why there isn't more soul-searching from us as a society as to how we have let this happen. Similarly we, as a society, seem to have abandoned many girls to the fate of FGM for similar reasons.

Gad Saad has coined the phrase "Parasitic Ostritch Syndrome" for the phenomenon of the inability of many to see and face the realities, contradictions and logical inconsistencies of their views.

Bert - I think it's more the hypocrisy of alot of her comments. If people said they were fearful of "Asian men" there would be a massive outcry, but it's fine to say "young white men". It's her attempt at being liberal, whilst being nothing but offensive and narrow minded that has gotten people's backs up.

WiseDad
You are of course right, & the vast vast majority of people agree with you.
Something has to be done about these people spreading this crap as they are becoming the real danger.

Interesting article by Sam White "Demonising Douglas". Not sure I agree with every word, but some very good points.

countrysquire.co.uk/2017/06/23/demonising-douglas/amp/

Hang on a second.
I've watched the JL video and CrossWordSalad i

Oops sorry
Is right JL is right it's deeply contradictory, I don't agree with her.

I still don't think there was a bigger "outpouring of grief and horror" over FP than over the atrocities at Westminster, Manchester or London Bridge but this thread has moved on and my comments last night were catty.

There is definitely an open conversation required; I think it's being started. On a global level I think we'd get a lot further if we stopped selling guns to Saudi but that's not going to happen. We keep validating these regimes on a political level.

On a global level I think we'd get a lot further if we stopped selling guns to Saudi but that's not going to happen. We keep validating these regimes on a political level - absolutely!! We're not doing enough to prevent the cause, and peddling the ongoing issue.

crossword that article is piffle. It's also from 'Country Squire' magazine, which sounds like a Private Eye spoof publication.

I know DM. He isn't nice.

That's the second thing you have accused of sounding like a spoof. The other was the "regressive left" if I remember correctly. I'm not sure where it gets us, really.

As I said earlier, I am not really interested in the source of articles, ideas and analysis as a measure of whether they are valid or not. I am interested in the articles, ideas and analysis themselves.

I also am not really interested in whether DM is "nice" or not. I am interested in the ideas he writes and speaks about and whether they are worth listening to.

From the article, in response to the Tweet - "Douglas Murray is a hate preacher, pass it on"

It’s only words, but just look at the toxic intent. It’s a wretched slur. Rather than engaging with Douglas Murray’s expansive analysis of how Islam is changing Europe for the worse, and demonstrating the purported flaws in his argument, it’s simply intended to demonise Murray

I can't disagree with that.

Interesting article. I agree with it. It throws up shades of the trans debate too, with 'bigotry' categorised as 'literal violence' and deemed a greater threat than the type of violence involving blood and death.

crossword because 'regressive left' is a neocon sound bite designed to give ignorant people more shortcuts and slurs when arguing.

All types of terrorism are equally disgraceful. Islamist terrorism comes from the same place as right wing terrorism, and ISIS/Daesh don't want us to admit this (nor do the Daily Mail).

crossword because 'regressive left' is a neocon sound bite designed to give ignorant people more shortcuts and slurs when arguing

Oh, okay, so rather than present an argument as to why the concept of the "regressive left" is unhelpful, you just call anyone who uses it ignorant and a neocon. Some people might be convinced by that

Why don't you explain why you think it is unproblematic that many on the left are unwilling to accept criticism of any aspect of Islam, and are willing to accept (as MN says in the video above) "community leaders", invariably men as speaking for all Muslims rather than trying to empower all Muslims (girls, women, gays etc), since you think anyone discussing this issue is "ignorant"?

All types of terrorism are equally disgraceful. Islamist terrorism comes from the same place as right wing terrorism

I haven't seen anyone on this thread saying otherwise. In fact, several posters, including myself have said that they see Islamism as a far-right ideology.

But taking up your point about shortcutting *Yoko" here is Maajid Nawaz talking about the regressive left:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=qVgvd5BH5Ps

There are plenty of other YouTube videos on the subject.

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"

Actually it is the people who believe that ISIS and the terrorists represent Islam in any way that I consider to be far right. The information is out there.

The "Islamic" terrorists demonstrate by their actions that they are not interested in Islam, where suicide is forbidden for a start, let alone killing non-combatants, drinking, taking drugs, theft, etc., but people willfully insist that they are acting on behalf of Muslims.

The "Islamic" terrorists demonstrate by their actions that they are not interested in Islam, where suicide is forbidden for a start, let alone killing non-combatants, drinking, taking drugs, theft, etc., but people willfully insist that they are acting on behalf of Muslims

Do you know, I have never heard anyone, and certainly not on this thread, say that ISIS are acting on behalf of Muslims.

In fact, several pp on this thread have mentioned the fact that Muslims are often the victims of ISIS.

So I don't know why you would make that claim.

Can I ask what is your authority Atenco for declaring who is and who is not a Muslim and a follower of Islam, given that ISIS declare themselves to be Muslims (of one particular strand and not, of course, holding the same beliefs as many other Muslims)?

What about Muslims in Pakistan, for example, or in Saudi Arabia? Do you deem them to be true Muslims?

Atenco neatly demonstrates the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is alive and well. Alas they also demonstrate that they know little of Islam as a religion and its founder and foundation texts and principles.

Explain the fact that Mohammed married a little girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine. As Mo is the perfect man Sharia has to follow his practice hence the issues in introducing a minimum marriage age in many Islamic countries and even issues in maintaining a minimum age. Take a look at the idea of consent in a marriage for another horrific concept.

Explain the fact that slaves are permitted in Islam. Yes. Mohammed has slaves, and traded them. Plenty of examples.

There are literally dozens of examples of awful ideas embedded within Islam and I regard it as a wonder of life that so many brave souls brought up as Muslims don't live the life as expected by those who follow the texts as were intended. I worry that Salafist drivers are forcing the "no true Muslim" issue on people and the culture of respect and fitting in demands that Muslims follow those around them and can't stand apart.

Just go and find out what the punishment for Apostasy is in Islam. Just read the whole of "he who takes a life" and see it applies to the children of Israel and has an important carve out for those who create mischief (i.e. Fight against Islam and its dominance) who can be killed.

Then work out what value system is the largest danger.

They claim to be Muslim - why do you think we can sit here saying "oh but they aren't actually Muslim". That's just insane.
And as PP asked - what about Saudi then? What about Pakistan? What about all the places human rights are ignored and abused under Islamic states and laws. Let me guess, they're not real Muslims either?