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.'"
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voices told him that his religion was a continuation of Judaism and Christianity and that those who followed these outdated religions should be converted or killed.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.
Dear Religion,
You are a pain in the ass. Please go away soon.
Imagine there's no countries.
It isn't hard to do.
Nothing to kill or die for,
And no religion too.
Imagine all the people,
Living life in peace.
Love,
Sane People
After all, don't we want young Buddhists to be much less likely to be directed to extremist material online?
Oh, sorry, forgot the UK government only sponsors your religion when you are violent. If you are peaceful, you are on your own. Do your own damn PR!
"it wants to 'flood the internet' with 'positive' interpretations of Islam and plans to train government-approved groups in search engine optimization techniques"
The next pasture is always greener
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."
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).
Only in civil cases if BOTH parties agree to accept its judgement:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Google UK likes to please governments.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
...as pro-evolution content on the web is succeeding at making the creationists go away.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Not really. Islamic Terrorism has been around for quite a while and while we did help with the resistance against the Soviet Union, that help was directed to people acting towards an invading army not a civilian population.
Terrorism sort of requires an act of terror. While there probably isn't and hard set definition that spans the globe, a military member serving in a country they recently invaded would be expecting the acts and it probably wouldn't be considered acts of terror.
Now, I would admit that some fighting the good fight turned and became terrorist later in life, but considering our help at a different time the same as helping a terrorist is about as inane as claiming the University of Iowa trained and helped terrorist because some grad student learned enough about chemistry to construct a bomb and rocket fuel before going jihad in some terrorist group.
Many more people die from heart attacks and car accidents each year. Why the big fuss over terrorism?
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
Exactly! The noble-minded defenders of "mutual consent to arbitration" also ignore the gangs patrolling the ghettos where these immigrants live that enforce sharia themselves. What do you think happens to people who live there who DON'T agree to arbitration by a sharia court? They deal with the sharia gang.
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
You are right, but Jesus fulfilled Scripture in other ways too. I'm going to take a "rabbi trail" here... In Judaism, to "fulfill" something means to interpret it correctly. This is what Jesus did through the way He lived His life. He full-filled it not only by keeping the commands of the law, but by filling it full of its true meaning.
Moreover, that He fulfilled the law does not mean that we, His followers , are to ignore the law's commandments, which are "holy, just, and good" (Romans 7:12).
Look at what Paul is saying. It's not that keeping the law makes sin your master; rather, legalistic observance of G-d's commands without having understood and received His grace is what makes sin your master.
It should be noted that the ancient Greek language did not have a word for "legalism." There was only this word (in Rom. 6:14, nomon), which is always simplistically rendered as "law" in English.
Look at the context, using another version (CJB):
Is Paul saying that lawlessness is bad, but keeping the law is also bad? Sounds like a lose/lose situation for humanity. But no; Paul professes, "we confirm/uphold/establish (KJV) the law" (Rom. 3:31) But only a keeping of the law that is grounded in a relationship of trusting faithfulness in G-d and His grace for us. Christians nearly always miss this distinction.
He did what was "unlawful" regarding the Sabbath only according to the Pharisaic rabbinical laws. He did not violate G-d's law concerning the Sabbath. He simply held to a less burdensome practice of keeping of Shabbat.
Here, Jesus was, in fact, going strictly by the Book (Deuteronomy 17):