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.'"

Comments

Imagine

[Alarindris]

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

Re:Imagine

[rtb61]

Their biggest mistake is failing to understand the militant Islamic movement. It has far less to do with religion and far more to do with male chauvinist pigs, the misogynists. Their underlying hatred of the west has far more to do with the equality of women than it does with prophets and gods.

No amount of propaganda or reason will change their attitudes, there is no middle ground by which they can be approached. They see the independence of women on western media and they feel threatened and they know that their abusive lifestyles are at risk, life styles based upon dominance and abuse and that is the way they react to that threat, with arrogance and violence.

They simply use the masquerade of religious belief to hide behind, a mask to hide the violent lusts that drive actions. They have very reason to feel threatened, their immoral and unethical lifestyles are coming to an end and those that refuse to change will either spend the rest of their lives in prison or perish in their violent struggle.

So the government needs to basically get down and dirty, and break that association and expose the underlying motivation of destructive militant religious movements (to be fair here, the same can be said for fundamentalist Christianity as for Islam).

Re:Imagine

[jmv]

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.

Re:Imagine

[digitig]

Dear Religion, You are a pain in the ass. Please go away soon.

Although religious nutjobs are an easy target, please try to remember that the problem is with the "nutjob", not the "religious", and the atheists can field a fair number of nutjobs too. Militant atheist Sam Harris, according to "The End of Faith" apparently wants to see humanity exterminated, religious and atheist alike, rather than allow religion to continue to exist, which comes over as "nutjob" to me. And "The End of Faith" comes with an endorsement from Richard Dawkins (although I don't know whether Dawkins endorses that particular bit). Basically, if somebody wants to kill me because my beliefs differ from theirs, or as collateral damage getting to somebody whose beliefs differ from theirs, I don't care whether they're religious or atheist, I'm opposed to them.

So how about: "Dear persecution in the name of ideology, you are a pain in the ass. Please go away soon."

Re:Imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Imagine

[stdarg]

Their biggest mistake is failing to understand the militant Islamic movement. It has far less to do with religion and far more to do with male chauvinist pigs, the misogynists. Their underlying hatred of the west has far more to do with the equality of women than it does with prophets and gods.

You think it's genetic or something? That no matter how these people were raised, no matter what belief system they have, they would still be chauvinists?

It's a minor distinction because I agree with you that Islam and chauvinism are intertwined. I just think it's pretty clear that the overarching belief system into which you are born has a big impact on your attitude towards women, not the other way around.

So the government needs to basically get down and dirty, and break that association and expose the underlying motivation of destructive militant religious movements (to be fair here, the same can be said for fundamentalist Christianity as for Islam).

There are LOTS of fundamentalist Christians in the US and how much terrorism are they responsible for? Compare that to the number of fundamentalist Muslims also in the US who were arrested for terrorism plots. It's nice and PC to add "oh and also Christianity" but it's not very realistic.

How to get free government PR for your religion

[XavierItzmann]

So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of Buddhism?

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"

Re:How to get free government PR for your religion

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of NuLabour.
So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of ID cards
So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of more CCTV cameras
So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of bonuses for rich crooks running banks
So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of more taxes to improve things (their bank accounts)
So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of 3 entire towns wiped out to build Heathrow's 3rd runway
So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of Phorm style monitoring of all communications
So, when will a 200-strong unit UK government office flood the internet with 'positive' interpretations of Big Brother, for their gain and their rich friends gain, at our expense.
etc... etc.. etc...

The people in power are put there by us and work for us. They are not there to manipulate us, yet that is what they are doing relentlessly. Yet still, so many people fail to see the danger in not defending against these corrupt people in power gaining ever more power over us all. The people in power are building their own Plutocracy (ruled by the rich), which since the finacial collapse, is looking ever more like a Kleptocracy (ruled by thieves). These power seekers in power don't want a democracy, they want to be the people in power to dictate to us all for their own gain at our expense, literally.

Re:Islam, eh?

[palegray.net]

For once I'm going to have to encourage the mods to actually read an incendiary post (re: parent) in its entirety and do some fact-checking before modding the poster down. There's actually not anything I can find in this post with respect to actual citations and recent events at the hands of fanatics that isn't true. Thought some may find it deeply disturbing and distasteful, including peaceful adherents to the faith, the last paragraph is pretty much beyond factual dispute.

Re:Sharia Courts?

[1u3hr]

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.

Re:Sharia Courts?

[Patch86]

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.

Just as likely to succeed...

[jmv]

...as pro-evolution content on the web is succeeding at making the creationists go away.

Re:Once again I apologise

[abigsmurf]

I don't think you grasp what a dictator is, nor how our electoral system works.

Our country is run by the party, not by the prime minister. The Prime Minister is just the appointed representative/head of the party. Don't like the decisions a part makes? Don't vote for them. If the party doesn't like what the prime Minister does, they do a vote of no confidence or vote against his law changes. The PM only has as much power as the party allows.

Re:Islam, eh?

[Spazztastic]

Stop using monospace for your posts.

Re:Islam, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the biggest problems is that their prophet is held up to be the model of behaviour--the most perfect man, and is to be emulated in all things, (and there is no expiration date on this stuff). So, when an approximately 50 year old man (who happens to be the prophet of islam) "marries" a 6 year girl, and has sex with her when she is 9, those present day restrictions are pretty hard to enforce in an Islamic country because it is well documented that Mohammed did it. And if he did it, then it must be ok.

Secondly, by saying "...there where times were similar things were common even in europe like 500-600 years ago", you are making weasel excuses. It does not excuse the behaviour, nor make it right. It does show an attempt to deflect accusations of wrong-doing.

Pedophilia (even when practiced by that Islamic prophet Mohammed) is wrong.

Re:Islam, eh?

[WgT2]

...you can also find similar things in the bible I guess..."

Let me end your guessing: you will not find similar things, as in: pedophilia being committed by one of the authors of one of the books of the Bible.

Is terrorism such a big issue?

[master_p]

Many more people die from heart attacks and car accidents each year. Why the big fuss over terrorism?

Re:Islam, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity takes its name from Jesus, and is based on the idea that if Jesus is not god (trinity), then he is at least the son of god.

Taking a look at the old books of christianity, we find that Jesus upholds the old testament. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Armed with those words, the whole bible is open as a source for religious guidance, such as rape being punishable by a payment of 50 pieces of silver to the victims father and then taking your victim as your wife. Rape victims who are betrothed are to be stoned to death. If you see a female captive who you like, then take her. Selling your daughter as a sex slave is fine.

That's just some of the parts dealing with rape. It's also O.K in the bible to kill gays, witches, adulterers, disobedient children, fortune tellers, non-believers, false prophets, anyone living in a town with non-christians, brides who are not virginal, blasphemers and anyone who works on the sabbath.

Is it "weasel excuses" to say that christians don't generally behave like that anymore, or just double standards?

Re:Islam, eh?

[h4rm0ny]

This Koran is about 800 years old, it cannot be adapted to todays social and cultural standards.

A bit like monospace, then?

Re:Islam, eh?

[History's Coming To]

Yeah man, I live right next to one of the biggest mosques in my country and you can't move for all the beheadings, child rape and intolerence.

Which is, of course, nonsense. The mosque runs a very popular cafe serving cheap curry, it's enormously popular with every demographic in the area (excluding those who don't like curry), local Muslims drink (non-alcoholic) drinks in the same pubs and clubs as the rest of us, work in the same places as the rest of us etc etc. Just because I find religion in general a little fuzzy and misguided doesn't mean the Muslims are any worse than your average Sunday churchgoer or crystal-waving new-ager.

Of course there are extremist elements all over the world, just like some evangelicals in the US marrying multiple teenage girls, or Jehova's Witnesses who will allow a child to die from a curable operation. Pick your religion, somebody does something weird and usually harmful, but it's also a minority.

The point of the original idea is that the extremists, usually by definition, shout the loudest even though they're a minority. This aims to redress the balance a little. Us atheists could take a well-thought-out leaf from that book.

Re:Islam, eh?

[Darkness404]

Um, I don't think you understand Christianity in the least. By "fulfilling the law" basically Jesus was claiming that he was the messiah that was referenced heavily in the law (which refers to the old testament).

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