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.'"
Problem is, the mainstream Muslims aren't the ones that need to be targeted, but the high-risk volatile ones. The rest of us don't feel anything about the west more than either some admiration on the liberal-side of the political spectrum, or some casual antipathy on the religious/conservative side of politics.
I live in Saudi Arabia. Which doesn't seem to have much of a global image as being progressive these days, and I can still tell you that most grad students these days want to study either in Canada or the US, followed by the UK and Australia (English in highschool is mandatory...hence the destinations of choice being all English-speaking countries).
It looks to me as if the Register has got this one wrong. The original criticisms were of negative tweaks against extremist sites by the government, as the quote they use in their article illustrates. This is about positive tweaking to promote genuine Islamic sites - and it's only, apparently part of a wider strategy of supporting peaceful interpretations of Islam, exactly what the original report recommended.
This would be a hillarious joke for april fools day, but if they want to counter radical muslims this way won't work.
Muslims mostly tend to build local social groups mostly in favour of their origin-region(not country), these social groups are mostly not
radical but, from our point of view their views onto the world differ hughly from ours(*).
But in such communities radical thoughts and comments will occur as a common understanding of that the western society tries to supress the islam.
And here is the catch, these "supported" people and groups will find themselves outcast as they are seen as a part of a western supression strategy.
They will be recognized as traitors, and these former actions like "google-optimisation" will be seen as an evidence and so strengthen the common understanding of a western conspiracy.
Thus can also push moderate muslims into a position, where their word becomes less weight than it had.
Diplomacy will not convert muslims into liberal nude loving naturists, nor will war. We(wester people) should realize one thing
you can only gain someones trust when you not try to betray him, and with trust you can start a discussion about certain things,
like stoning of cheaters and heretics, as a start.
The human rights are a philosophical construct with the intention to make lives better for everyone, I think we should remember
those humanist philosophers, which brought us to a state of self-awareness, and start thinking about our selves and our actions.
Diplomacy does not work from top to down, like a hierachie it works on trust.
(*) This is my point of view as an observer.
Well isn't something alike in the bible too ?
Sorry but this child rape argument isn't really one, there where times were similar things were common even in europe like 500-600 years ago.
This koran is about 800 years old, it cannot be adapted to todays social and cultural standards.
As I might update your view in most muslim countries it will be not possible that a nine year old will marry and get deflorated,
earliest age of marriage is between 14-16 or at least 12/13 (it is but it's mostly ignored! towards higher ages),
neither there are exceptions, such as the yemen where this practice might not be as uncommon as it seems.
You see even if muslims say those words are divine, they tend not to follow the koran in word, they adapt and interpret it.
Like what christians have done with the bible, ok anytime there are extremist people.
I think you should make yourself clear about how we came to todays moral and ethic standards.
And you should not let yourself blind with worn out arguments, you can also find similar things in the bible I guess,
but the more you will embrace those old argument against christianity or islam, you will be clueless about a solution.
But yes I also think that there are muslims, which are a threat to western society but I also take extremist christianism into account to be such a threat.
I am also a naturistic nudist for example, and I don't want to have my freedom cut, to be as I am, where I am.**
**this is irony for those who may have thought else! But I am a confessing liberatarian.
I've been told that in some places in the US, the song gets edited to say "And *one* religion too". Kind of changes the intent a bit, doesn't it.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law in this comment, but I think it's worth mentioning:
In the 20th century, both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany imagined - and tried to create - societies where there was no religion. Consider the number of people who suffered and died under both regimes. I'm not sure where the view originated that the world's problems are caused by people of a religious belief, but there are two very striking counter-examples.
Some people have used religion as a reason for committing atrocities. True. Others have used different philosophies and ideologies. Also true.
People have done great good because of their religious convictions (e.g., Wilberforce and the anti-slavery movement, even today, many Christians are involved in projects like "Stop the Traffik" (http://www.stopthetraffik.org/)) because social justice is a part of their belief. People with no religious belief also do great charitable works.
The world's a lot more complex than "Imagine" suggests.
In the 20th century, both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany imagined - and tried to create - societies where there was no religion.
Wrong. Nazi Germany did not. The storm troopers' belt buckles used to say, "Gott mit Uns."
That's propaganda put about by the believers to try to persuade people that atheism leads to totalitarian fascism.
He's discrediting the Koran, and thus Islam, by pointing out that its founder was a pedophile.
Pedophilia is bad, I agree to that. But let's look at the bible.
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.
Is pedophilia so much worse than that? Really? Bible has a lot worse stuff in it than pedophilia. And so has Koran.
If you could GUARANTEE to me that the Tories would actually follow through on this and the 30 other Labour fuck-ups that they've promised to undo (databases, cctv etc.) then i might, just might consider voting for 4 years of Cameron.
But you can't, can you? You can't promise that he won't be just the same as the previous Tory dogs and be a big business promoting dick who uses Scotland as a guinea pig for 'classist' taxes.
Even worse, Cameron actually strikes me as being cut from the same cloth as Blair! A cheeky young upstart taking the party in a different direction to win the election, then turning round and biting our collective asses once he's in power.
As it is, I'll be voting Lib Dems. Not because they stand for anything worth it, but because it'll be the last refuge for ex-labour voters with half a brain and they have a decent chance of getting enough votes to force the Tories into a coalition government. Followed by a vote to the dreaded SNP two years later so we can leave the fucked up British system behind (never used to support independence, but 12 years of Blair/Brown and the prospect of 4 years of Cameron is enough to persuade even the most resolute of us).
Well, if we're going by chemical, biological and nuclear weapons use the Christian west is far, far more bloodthirsty than the most fanatical Muslim has ever been.
Islam is the filthiest and most savage of the bunch
You have /got/ to be kidding, right?
At this moment they *might* be savage, but the lovely christians killed off other peoples (yes, peoples) by the thousands, and some are still doing so today, under the banner of religion.
The Hindu's despise a large chunk of their own people and use them as serfs for the sake of their religion.
The "orthodox" jews in Israel make it a sport to starve out an entire people because their religion tells them it's their chunk of land.
The animist people who listen to shamans in black Africa are hunting down and chopping apart albino blacks because they are thought to have magical properties.
In conclusion, religion is just plain and simple evil disguised in a robe with a funny hat (why do they all need funny hats to make their statement??)
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. Romans 6:14
Shows that Christians are not bound by the Old Testament laws because Jesus fulfilled them. There are several references to where Jesus goes opposes society's norm such as Mark 2:23-28 where Jesus plucked grain on the Sabbath. And another instance where he saved a woman from stoning because of adultery*
Jesus can easily be taken as a good role model, even if you do not believe he is God. Muhammad on the other hand can not. Find me one instance in Jesus' life that would be morally wrong today. And you can find several in the life of Muhammad (pedophilia, etc). It would be hard to argue that Muhammad was a perfect role model for a good life. *This instance was not documented in some of the earliest manuscripts and is a point of debate for theologians to this day
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The Great British Venn Diagram
Personally, I quite like the fact that I live in a country that needs a four-colour diagram to adequately describe. It neatly fits in with my concept of how the world actually works.
Child brides were very common, yes, but not the actual sex part! DUH!
In most societies of the time, puberty was regarded as the cut-off point, rather than a fixed age (largely because innumeracy was rife and it was not uncommon for poor people not to know their own age). 9 is quite young, but certainly not without precedent for a girl to enter puberty, although it is very unusual for a girl to survive childbirth if she conceives that young.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Egypt was God's 'Mulligan'? THE definer of good and evil needs... a 'Mulligan'?
Or, you can interpret Jesus' statement about fulfilling the law and the prophets in the following manner:
Beyond the establishment of a culturally-relevant written code, the law was established to demonstrate man's iniquity, and ultimate inability to be completely blameless before God. It also established religious practices providing for atonement in that regard, but nothing which was permanent.
The prophets, by and large, wrote about a time when God would send a savior, who would offer a permanent redemption from the curse of the fall and from the judgment of the law.
In this regard, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law (in that man's nature would still be fallen), but to fulfill the prophets in establishing redemptions from its judgments.
Not that that's a theologically complete description of the law, but is at least a very different way of interpreting Jesus' words in this regard.