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

[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.

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: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: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?

[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?

[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?