Slashdot Mirror


UK To Train Pro-West Islamic Groups To Game Google

Hugh Pickens writes "The British government's Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT), a 200-strong Home Office unit created 18 months ago, has said in meetings it wants to 'flood the internet' with 'positive' interpretations of Islam and plans to train government-approved groups in search engine optimization techniques, which it is hoped will boost their profile online and battle radicalization. A Home Office spokesman confirmed search engine optimization training is part of the government's anti-radicalization strategy. 'In order to support mainstream voices, we work with local partners to help develop their communication, representational and leadership skills. This support could include media training, which can help make their voices heard more widely, and support the development of skills which allow communities to be more effective in debate.' However the effectiveness of search engine optimization in reducing traffic to extremist websites has been dismissed by academics. A report produced by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) said young Muslims were much more likely to be directed to extremist material online by web forums and offline associates than by Google or other search engines. 'Tweaking the results for supposedly extremist terms would be largely ineffectual, not least because it is unlikely that any but the most callow wannabe terrorist would use a mainstream search engine to find banned material.'"

14 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. Islam, eh? by Fanboy+Fantasies · · Score: 2, Informative

    Islam is the Middle East's response to the Mormon religion/cult. Islam was created by the Arab "prophet" Muhammad, yet another guy who heard voices in his head. These voices told him that his religion was a continuation of Judaism and Christianity and that those who followed these outdated religions should be converted or killed. Since he forgot about Zoroastrianism, he apparently thought that his religion was the third and final in the monotheistic trilogy. And being the third, it is inevitably the most shitty of the three (think Spiderman 3 or The Matrix Revolutions, not The Godfather, Part III).

    However, Islam may well be an honest continuation of God's word -- that is, if God is a giant asshat. Whether by suicide bomb or an heroic murder spree, through making threatening phone calls or through biological, chemical, and/or nuclear terrorism, Islam is well-situated to guide humanity to certain death.

    Those who follow Islam are termed Muslims, which probably makes sense in some non-English language. Muslims follow a magical book called The Koran, which is a slightly less lengthy version of the Holy Bible. The only difference is that it contains a somewhat more descriptive account of the Muslims' annihilation of those infidels who dared to practice peaceful religions and somewhat more child rape, primarily on the part of known pedophile Muhammad:
    Muhammad married a 6-year-old girl and had sex with her when she was nine.

    Seriously.

    It's in the fucking Koran.

    1. Re:Islam, eh? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I'll note that the Talmud prohibited sexual intercourse with its child brides. You had to wait until they hit 12, the religious Jewish age of majority.

    2. Re:Islam, eh? by maestroh · · Score: 2, Informative
      It sounds like you're one of the people the British government is targeting. Here's what you say:

      These voices told him that his religion was a continuation of Judaism and Christianity and that those who followed these outdated religions should be converted or killed.

      Yet here's a verse from the Koran that states God's view of Christains and Jews. It's verse 62 of the second chapter:

      Surely, those who believe, and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians, whoever have faith with true hearts in Allah and in the Last-day and do good deeds, their reward is with their Lord, and there shall he no fear for them nor any grief.

      The verse is pretty straight forward, but I'll sum up what it says. If you believe in God and try to do good deeds, you'll go to Heaven. It's pretty simple. The verse is from Surat Al-Baqara (one of the best chapters of the Koran) which outlines many concepts in Islam. http://www.ahadees.com/english-surah-2.html

      On a side note, I find it interesting that he community on Slashdot regard intelligence and knowledge in high regard, but ancient books with ancient knowledge are dismissed as some sort of fantasy. These books are the record of our ancestors. They passed down knowledge to us so that we as their children could improve ourselves. They learned these lessons through trial and error, yet we still make the same errors today because we don't read our own history.

  2. Once again I apologise by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Informative

    For the British Government. I find myself again having to explain to non-UK readers that we do not elect the Prime Minister, and owing to our elective dictatorship system, the present Prime Minister has never, in fact, been voted for by anybody outside the Scottish province of Fife. The Home Office is run by someone, Jacqui Smith, who makes Condoleeza Rice look like the greatest liberal brain on the planet (and charges the taxpayer $3000 a month for her sleeping in her sister's spare bedroom). Unfortunately, just like you with GWB, we can do nothing about it until next year. Until late 2010 then, be ready for a stream of "how stupid can the British Government get?" stories.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Once again I apologise by mrphoton · · Score: 2, Informative

      This relay irritates me. Whenever somebody criticises Gordon and his dreadful Stalinist government, somebody always pipes up an says well the conservatives are no different and there is nothing we can do. Well for a start if you vote Conservative we will not get the dreadful ID cards: http://www.conservatives.com/Campaigns/ID_Cards_Labours_Bad_IDea.aspx

    2. Re:Once again I apologise by blackest_k · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't see how it will stop in 2010 regardless of who is in power, the only difference will be which asshat is in power. Obviously the political parties will offer us all something that we like the sound of and try to bury the unpopular policies. So a new government comes in or gets restored they then make some show of implementing or delaying implementing the popular policies that got them to power and at the same time doing things we distinctly dislike.

      While you can argue that perhaps that it seems reasonable for a general election to be called on change of prime minister, its not backed up in practice

      http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/politics/comments/unelected-prime-ministers-the-political-and-constitutional-importance/

      "'When a party in government replaces its leader, there is no need for the new prime minister to call an early general election. Macmillan waited 2¾ years, and Callaghan three years until he was forced to hold one by a Commons vote of no confidence. Douglas Home waited a year, and John Major 15 months, but they were near the five-year limit before an election has to be called. Eden called an election almost immediately after taking office, but the parliament was more than 3½ years old. After succeeding the dying Bonar Law in May 1923, Baldwin went to the polls within six months on the issue of tariff reform, only a year into the Parliament, but lost - an unhappy precedent.' "

      So its a bit of a mixed bag theres been a few unelected prime ministers from both sides. John Major was the last Conservative Prime minister to do so.
      If Gordon Brown wasn't Prime Minister, it would probably still be Tony Blair but definitely not David Cameron till at least 2010.

       

    3. Re:Once again I apologise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that's not quite how it works in practice.

      In practice when people disagree with the party and don't keep it a secret they are removed. The cabinet and other important positions are picked by the PM and are filled with Loyalists.

      I know its a crazy idea to have appropriately skilled, educated and experienced ministers in positions as opposed to the PM's best mates and biggest yes men - but if the party was really in charge, wouldn't it be dictating the positions? Oh wait, the party is in charge, and the PM is in charge of the party, ergo...

  3. Re:Sharia Courts? by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Informative
    hasn't the British government been allowing Sharia courts to operate in Britain for some time?

    Only in civil cases if BOTH parties agree to accept its judgement:

    Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996. Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

    Obviously this could not apply to normal criminal matters (theft, violent crime, etc). So no hands chopped off for theft, no adulterers stoned to death. It's just arbitration, where the arbitrator happens to be Muslim.

  4. Re:Sharia Courts nothing to worry about. by auric_dude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not as bad as it sounds http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm as you can see other religions can also pass judgements upon small non-criminal sectors of the law meanwhile all criminal matters are reserved for the UK's state courts.

  5. Re:Sharia Courts? by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's worth highlighting that that legislation allows pretty much any body to be used as arbitrators in civil cases, as long as both parties agree to be bound by its outcome.

    It "allows Sharia courts" only insofar as it allows you to appoint anyone to solve your dispute for you.

  6. Re:Sharia Courts? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Informative
    It "allows Sharia courts" only insofar as it allows you to appoint anyone to solve your dispute for you.

    Of course, all these poor near illeterate immigrant women brought up in a strict male dominant hierarchy will know their rights and refuse to "appoint" these mullahs, imams, muftis as their arbitrator and seek the full protection from the agents of the crown. Yup, these groups have a sterling reputation for standing up to peer pressure & social pressure, defy ostracization. Their fiercely independent streak is known throughout the world. Yeah, sure. It is just arbitration and the mufti is freely chosen by both parties.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. Re:Imagine by dintech · · Score: 2, Informative

    Either your geography is bad or you didn't even look at that map. Notice it's just England, not the whole UK that has a state religion. Scotland, Wales and Northern Island, which are also constituent parts of the UK, don't have a state religion. Please stop calling the UK England and vice versa. They're NOT the same thing.

  8. Re:Nice idea, but... by Omegamogo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Homophobic much?

    And no, in fact, it doesn't. At least not for martyrs. Even the shaky Hadith I spoke of earlier specifically promised that those who will have 72 Houri in heaven are those who got the LEAST reward in the afterlife. In other words, those who have barely stopped themselves from being utter assholes in THIS life.

    The Houri? Often simplistically translated simply as virgins, usually, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. As far as anyone can gather, it refers to otherworldly creatures altogether, ones described as having ethereal beauty and purity. Possibly the form that humans are said to be reborn as. "Purity" possibly being the point of mistranslation, since in archaic contexts it's occasionally used interchangeably with virginity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri

  9. Re:Sharia Courts nothing to worry about. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are missing the point. The Arbitration Act only allows Sharia courts, Jewish courts, or some form of secular arbitration, to apply if both parties agree to it. If you are a non-muslim and you consent to have your case judged according to Sharia law then you get what you deserve for crass stupidity.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News