Islamic extremism is still the main problem, no matter how angry you get over Rachel Riley's tweets

Rachel Riley's tweets aren't the problem, Islamic extremism is.

I don't know Rachel Riley personally, however I've previously said how much I admire the very vocal stand she took against antisemitism and Corbyn’s Labour when it was anything but popular to do so. It strikes me that the chances of a long career in the entertainment industry often depends on not saying anything particularly interesting when it comes to our current political climate. So, I found her courage in this context especially refreshing and valuable.

In recent days, she has found herself at the centre of a news and social media storm for some comments she made on ‘X’ about a fatal stabbing spree at a Sydney shopping mall. The brutal knife attack in question had all the hallmarks of an act of jihadism: bearded male attacker of fighting age, busy public location, civilians (and infants) seemingly targeted at random, carried out to the backdrop of another round of Israel/Gaza hostilities. 

Riley tweeted this out in response to the attack:

It was later revealed that the attack had absolutely nothing to do with ‘intifada revolution’, but rather a combination of mental health issues and violent misogyny. Investigations are ongoing.

Although Riley was technically right (this IS what violent intifada looks like), her critics could barely contain their excitement as they unleashed their favourite labels of ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobe’ in her direction whilst demanding her immediate sacking from her TV gigs. They assumed they had caught her in a prejudiced jumping of the gun.

Riley deleted the tweet and released a statement clarifying her meaning:

‘In the second intifada over 1,000 Israelis were murdered in restaurants, on buses and in the streets by suicide bombings, stabbings, stoning, lynching, shooting rockets. The youngest victim was just nine hours old.

Sydney mall, multiple times over is what they’ve been proudly calling for.’

Not that this clarification mattered of course, because the people that wish to destroy her are fully committed to her destruction regardless of what she said or meant. They'll never forgive her for rejecting the prophet Jezza you see.

The Independent Newspaper went with the defamatory headline ‘Rachel Riley says she’s ‘sorry’ if racist post about Sydney attack was ‘misunderstood’.

Racist? The paper inadvertently confirmed their own racist prejudice by pushing the idea that Islamic extremism or violent terrorism (‘Intifada’) is specific to a particular ‘race’—a ‘race’ which they never seem able to name, for obvious reasons.

Even though Riley didn't mention Islam at all (it was just assumed that’s what she meant), the uncomfortable truth here (for some) is that had she singled out Islamic extremism, she probably would have been right on the money any other day such an attack occurred.

There have been 10 confirmed terror attacks in Australia in the last ten years, 8 of which were motivated by Islamic ideology. In the same period in Australia, there have been 7 foiled terror plots. 6 out of the 7 terror plots were Islamic in nature. According to the 2021 Australian census, Muslims make up just 3.2% of the total Australian population. You don't need to be Captain Statistician to notice the glaring disparity on display here.

Islamic extremism remains the number one terrorist threat, globally. The next time there is a terrorist attack, it will probably be Islamic in nature. This is the reason some might assume the latest terror-like attack was an Islamic one. And when mass calls for intifada occur every Saturday across the UK, it's understandable that prominent Jewish figures may feel a tad on edge and want to make a point about what this looks like in practice.

Indeed, as UK twitter was losing its mind over the assumption Riley was being a bit mean about Islam, it seems a potential Islamic knife attack may have been carried out at a church in the very same city of Sydney. An eyewitness has claimed the attacker shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he was wrestled to the ground by churchgoers. As always, these details need full corroboration of course and the full facts need to be confirmed.

So, had Riley just waited 48 hours, the charges of ‘Islamophobia’ may have been a tad harder to justify, not that it would have stopped anyone from making them.

Continued pearl clutching and smears in response to noticing the chief instigator of global terrorism reminds me of the furore caused by an anti-terror training exercise in my home city of Manchester in 2016. The local shopping centre was utilised for this mock terror attack and the bloke role-playing as ‘suicide bombing scum bag no. 1’ seemed to understand the assignment, screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as the police simulated taking him out. 

Well, footage of this mock training exercise hit the internet and the predictable cries of ‘Islamophobia’ followed, culminating in an apology from the police for ‘stereotyping’. 

A year later, Jihadist Salman Abedi would detonate himself at a Manchester pop concert killing 22 people, the majority of which were teenage girls. But at least no one was stereotyped.

In a lengthy investigation concluded after the Manchester arena bombing, it was found that a concert-goer had seen the suicide bomber Salman Abedi before he carried out his attack, thought he looked suspicious and reported him to security.

Security guard Kyle Lawler then got eyes on Abedi from around 10ft away and described having a “bad feeling” about him because he looked “dodgy”. This security guard decided not to take any further action however, because as he said in his own words:

I did not want people to think I am stereotyping him because of his race. I was scared of being wrong and being branded a racist if I got it wrong and would have got into trouble. It made me hesitant.

So, the fear of being labelled a racist produced more fear in this young man’s mind than the potential threat of a suicide bomber. This is the extreme end point of the stifling of honest discussion about the threat of terrorism and where to expect it.

Yes, people jumping to conclusions about the motivations behind potential terror attacks are a problem. However, it's not as big of a problem as the reliable nature with which one religion in particular produces terror attacks. 

And it's almost comical to witness people getting frothy mouthed with outrage over the former problem whilst remaining completely silent about the latter one. They lean into dramas about tweets because they would rather talk about anything other than the actual problem.

Please let me know your thoughts in the comments