Dangerous stupidity or infiltration by Muhammedan agents at Google? Or too many Arab shareholders? Much is at stake here, not only free speech. This is a case that should be fought in the courts, and there should be no shortage of reputable law-firms taking this case on pro bono, or not?

Perhaps I'm hoping against hope. Perhaps, as with the Mohammed cartoons, there are no hero's to stick their necks out.

Unbelievable!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 23, 2006 7:51 PM

How typical!! How disgusting!
Google was quite happy to have an anti-Jewish site running. It was the first one that came up when you typed in "Jew".
I think people tried to get it off google. I don't actually know if it is still there.
Frankly, I am afraid to look!

Yes, freedom of speech and information is going, going, gone!

Posted by: Gramfan at May 23, 2006 7:55 PM

May 23, 2006
Rice: Iran should play a role in Iraq
Why, exactly, will Iran play a role? On what basis does Rice think that Iran could ever be a "good neighbor"? To what extent will the U.S. tolerate Iranian activity in Iraq in exchange for assurances of "neighborliness"?

From AP, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

The US recognizes that Iran has a role to play in Iraq, but wants Teheran to help stabilize the country, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview aired Tuesday on Arab television.
Rice's comments came ahead of planned talks between the United States and Iran over the situation in Iraq.

"Iran will clearly play a role," Rice told the Al-Arabiya satellite channel. "The question is: Will it be a positive role? Will it be a role that is befitting a good neighbor?"

"If Iran chooses to play a stabilizing role, chooses to play a transparent role, chooses to play a neighborly role, that would be a very good thing for Iraq," Rice said.

Posted by Robert at May 23, 2006 07:18 PM | Print this entry | Email this entry

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)
And if Iran does that well, the US can have talks with Iran re: their nuclear weapons program.

Hate to say it, but what's it about the GOP and Iran? In the 80's, it was Ollie North and Arms for Hostages. Now it's Rice and Iran in Iraq.

Maybe the GOP deserves to lose this November

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2006 07:29 PM
as i have said in the past.mahmoud has been put alot of miles on his jet.the world is gona see the fruit of his friendships very soon...this is gona be a very bad war.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 23, 2006 07:38 PM
This is like believing Hannibal Lechter could be a good neighbor, should we bring the chianti?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 23, 2006 07:40 PM
Rice makes no sense. Fantasy talk from a fantasy lady.

Posted by: John Sobieski at May 23, 2006 07:51 PM
Rice has to be one of the most, if not the most, naive secretary of state the US has ever had. But let's face it. She was a politically correct appointee from day one. Bush knows how to play that game well.

So we can all vote democratic in 08, right?. The choice will be Hilliary Clinton with Pelosi as Secretary of State. With Michael Moore as secretary of defense. It just gets worse.

That's the problem with modern America. The choice is always between bad and worse. Why? Because conservatives, true conservatives, like Patton, could never be successful in politics. Look at the trouble he got in just for opening his mouth. Guys like that are kept out of the political process. Liberal democracy has no place for them. Look at Curtis Lemay and his vice-presidential bid. There was a fighter. But politically he was a dead duck. Never had a chance.

Thus the phenonomenom of naive, or downright leftist liberals, running the show, whether they be DEM or GOP.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 23, 2006 07:51 PM
"Rice has to be one of the most, if not the most, naive secretary of state the US has ever had."

In the shortest time ever, she has had probably the most outrageous comments of any Secretary of State that I can recall. Most Secretaries of State stay low-key - but Rice seems to keep going for high-profile, foot-in-mouth comments. You would think she is taking lessons from Howard Dean.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 23, 2006 08:02 PM
If we fail to warn people of the coming war with Islam, their blood will be on our hands (Ezekiel 33:1-6). In order to convince people that Islam constitutes a clear and present danger to the peace of the world, we must first demonstrate that Islam has the will and the desire to destroy us and, second, that they now have the means to do so.

I. The Muslims Have The Will And Desire To Destroy Us.

The Qur'an commands its followers to launch jihads or holy wars of conquest to force conversions to Islam.

Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. (Surah IX:5)
http://focusonjerusalem.com/willislamcausewwiii.html

Posted by: storagemanager at May 23, 2006 8:05 PM

Follow the money. Filthy petrodollars? Google "First, do no evil" already sold out the Chinese freedom lovers. Now us?

Keep up the good work, Frank Salvato, and the rest of us "islamophobes" need to post links to Frank's articles so they continue to be read by many.

Posted by: Infidel33 at May 23, 2006 8:06 PM

That's a disappointment. Muslims, even in a small percentage, are very aggressive in protecting Islam. Petromoney helps a lot too.

Posted by: John Sobieski at May 23, 2006 8:12 PM

The term "Hate" speech used to apply to people, rather than to ideologies, or even religions. For instance, a call for the genocide of all Muslims, or all Arabs, could reasonably be described as hate - justified or not.

But applying this term to a religion (yeah, yeah, I know it's a cult, but just going with mainstream stereotypes for now...)? Does this also mean that ideologies like Nazism, Communism are now protected from hatred - after all, both of them are far less vitriolic than Islam. And will Google ban sites that are intolerant of Scientologists, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, et al - or is it just the squeaky wheel syndrome?

How about sending Google websites that host the Quran, the Hadith and other Islamic texts, so that searches by Mohammedans who want an online version of their Quran comes out empty?

Too bad we can't exactly boycott Google - Yahoo, MSN, et al don't come close. But as the scope of Google's deletions grow, there will be enough of a niche for another company to try and duplicate Google, but including all the deleted material, so that users can make up their own mind.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2006 8:17 PM

Infidel Pride-

Just supercede Google and use the meta-search engine Seach.com. It utilizes Google and all other engines for your needs.

Consider it like rubber gloves between you and these pandering cowards.

The chickensh*ts at Google kowtowed to the Chinese communists, so why not to the pedophile "prophet"'s intimidating minions?

They need to be nicknamed "Gargle", because they'll obviously swallow anything.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 23, 2006 8:49 PM

My blog

http://www.theres-something-about-islam-blogspot.com

was pulled from google search results recently.

My blog has videos that jihadists have made, and articles on Bin Laden, and Islamic thinking.

But anything which is anti-islam will be deemed 'hate'. Such a wonderful all-inclusive term that can be applied to anything that does not tow the MSM line.

Ironically, you can find the KKK site just by typing in KKK in google. First hit. Funny, eh?

What's that about hate sites, Mr. Google? Something about Islam gets pulled, but KKK.com is carried.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 23, 2006 9:13 PM

Oh well thats google deleted from my favorites.

Not much use if i google Islam + terrorism only to get sites that tell me its all a figmant of my imagination.

They say the truth hurts but it would appear the truth smacks muslims in the face with a demolition ball.

Posted by: Berf at May 23, 2006 9:18 PM

Guess it's time to switch to other search engines. Well, there are plenty.

Posted by: traeh at May 23, 2006 9:27 PM

I honestly am having trouble believing this one. If Google has really done this, can jihadwatch & dhimmiwatch be far behind?

Posted by: Vee at May 23, 2006 9:28 PM

At work, though not at home, if I try accessing faithfreedom.org or islamcomicbook.com, they are blocked since they are classified Hate sites. I think the day is not far off when JihadWatch will be part of that. I can't complain, since this isn't work related, but should this ever happen at home, Comcast will have Hell to pay.

profitsbeard, I hear you, but personally, I think search engines are over-rated. Usually, they work well for the first search, but once you've found a trustworthy website, it's very easy to navigate from there and find others. Most of the ones I use - faithfreedom.org, islamcomicbook.com, et al - are sites I discovered through Jihadwatch.

somethingaboutislam, you are a Google customer, since you are using their site. If this is how they treat you, see whether your site can be found by another search engine - altavista, yahoo, msn, search.com, et al and go elsewhere. Move your content there, and ask Google to delete your site and stuff it where the monkey stuffed the peanuts. Does Netscape, Excite or Microsoft offer such services?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2006 9:39 PM

dont worry cair ..we didnt forget about the little boy your islamic monsters murdered;.....The family of Daniel Wultz, the American teenager killed in the Pessah terror attack in Tel Aviv, will attend Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's speech before a joint session of the US Congress on Wednesday. The Prime Minister's Office invited the Wultz family from Florida to be Olmert's guests to honor Daniel's memory.

Daniel Wultz, 16, died last Sunday from wounds he suffered from the suicide bombing at Tel Aviv's old central bus station. Friends of the family said Monday that Daniel Wultz's father Tuly, who was also wounded in the attack, his mother Sheryl and sister Amanda were on their way to Washington, as well as Daniel's grandparents. Sheryl is a relative of Congressman Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), a member of the House leadership.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 23, 2006 9:40 PM

Reading the whole article, it looks like this is a part of an anti-Conservative, rather than simply a Dhimmi trend. Remember that Al Gore was (is?) on the Google board of directors, and that CEO Eric Schmidt has supported the Dean and Kerry presidential campaigns. He has every right to do that, but if Google wants to be universally acceptable and stay ahead of Microsoft, they need to allow the Internet viewing public to make their own decisions after arriving at their algorithmic searches, rather than filtering it for them in ways that are invariably going to be controversial.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2006 9:44 PM

Hullo,

Ladies and gents, the answer is sense.
Write Google and complain

From "Ask the Imam" to "islam.com"
For all of the junk is the same

You know the sites, so stand up for your rights
The thing that's at risk is your brains

Poet Geoff

PS: My brand new Dell computer (which makes a noise on ejecting a CD much reminscent of a neck breaking) just tried to get me to update my spyware detector as I accessed the ol' site here, then informed me that Dell collects "this sort of information" for their records, which they assured me "would be kept confidential". I of course declined to let the comp send it.

...who's watching those who watch our watchmen?

Posted by: Geoff at May 23, 2006 9:50 PM

Infidel Pride, only google had my site listed. It used to come up as the second hit when you typed in the phrase 'something about islam'. Now it is gone totally. The other search engines don't have me. Google did, but removed me.

Obviously, someone, an islamic terrorist supporting mohammad dude, complained and that is all it takes. But like I said, type in KKK and the first hit is the KKK website. So it looks as if google is extra sensitive to criticism of islam. Gee, I wonder why?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 23, 2006 9:52 PM

who's watching those who watch our watchmen?....GOD....the only army i need.

Posted by: storagemanager at May 23, 2006 9:56 PM

Sorry, typed in the link wrongly.

http://www.theres-something-about-islam.blogspot.com

They haven't pulled the site, just delisted it on their search engine.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 23, 2006 9:56 PM

there are other search engines you can use besides Google, such as "coppernic", it is was developed by two Cdns. their basic one is free, you might try that one. and as well email Google about your displeasure and just plain pissed off at them!

Posted by: Lulu at May 23, 2006 10:48 PM

Protest now folks! Here's what I wrote to them just now:

"Dear Google

I am a loyal Google user, but today found out that you are removing sites from the search engine for the supposed reason of containing 'hate speech'. This is one of the sites: http://www.theres-something-about-islam.blogspot.com/

As far as I can see, this site is outspoken, but contains clearly true, though horrific, information that the public has a right to see.

Please tell me exactly what is considered 'hate speech' in this site. Is giving uncomfortable but true information about any religion/belief system forbidden by Google? Or only information you consider incorrect? I note that the KKK is easily available in a Google search, so where do you draw your lines?

Islamism is of concern to many people, not least moderate muslims and muslims wishing to escape islam (as you know, they can be killed for apostasy). Please clarify your rules, and if you plan to remove all sites critical of islam, please let me know which seach engine I should use that will not censor my internet access in this way.

I would suggest that 'hate speech', if you must remove it, should only be counted as information that directly, clearly promotes violence in a way that is likely to have real results, e.g. bomb building information and encouragement to unhinged people to commit violence. There are some islamist sites that do exactly that.

Please advise immediately, as I need to distribute this information to relevant sites."

The internet is our only hope of getting the message out there. Don't let this happen!!

Posted by: Lili at May 23, 2006 11:01 PM

somethingaboutislam-

They missed the "NO PEDOPHILE PROPHETS" blog page.

I guess the fact that it is based on Islamically-checkable facts eludes their "hate speech" eradication clause.

http://nopedophileprophets.blogspot.com/

Or maybe Google doesn't want to be forced into a controversy that would have them insisting that Mohammad wasn't a pedophile. (Hadiths, notwithstanding.)

Which would embroil them in something as uncomfortable as the old lawyer's gambit: "Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer only 'yes' or 'no' ".

It would also open up a can of theocratic worms about the idea of a religious leader who, with Allah's blessing, went to bed with a child.

And help to reveal this startlingly bizarre detail -of the Mohammedan's "prophet"'s predatory sex life- to the p.c.-about-Islam, still-dozing infidel world.

What else do you call a grown man who rapes a 9 year old?

Other than "perfect", I mean.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 23, 2006 11:11 PM

It appears that those young idealists at Google have learned that one does not become a Wall Street darling by "doing no evil", but by figuring out what side 'one's bread is buttered on". And if that entails kissing the butts of doug 'the pimp' hooper and his saudi puppeteers, well, so be it. I hope and pray that Google is on the wrong side of history on this matter, and that others are waiting in the wings .... even the dreaded 'Borg of Redmond'.

Posted by: Infidel33 at May 23, 2006 11:13 PM

Type in Hitler- then I'm feeling lucky.
Same for Arafat, it boggles the mind.
Hate sites...what a joke. Just depends on who you hate huh Google?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 23, 2006 11:43 PM

Lili, thanks for the moral support and the letter to Google!

somethingaboutislam

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 23, 2006 11:47 PM

I run a website (with a dating section) and after reading this I decided to remove the term "muslim". Feels good, doesn't it.

And, yes, it has a link to jihadwatch.org

Posted by: disillusioned_german at May 24, 2006 12:02 AM

Will Google now remove JewWatch (Which is the second link when you search the word Jew) and If Americans Knew (The neo-nazi website) or is virulent anti-semitism heroicly going to be defended as Freedom of Speech?

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at May 24, 2006 12:34 AM

Here's a mock letter from Google if they had a brain:

Hi Fred,

Thanks for writing. We received numerous reports about hate content on your site, www.the_wonderful_koran_of_peace_and_love.com, and after reviewing these reports, decided to remove your site from Google. We do not allow articles and sources expressly promoting hate speech viewpoints in Google (although referencing hate speech for commentary and analysis is acceptable).

For example, a number of the complaints we looked at on your site were found to be hate content:

Specifically, your site, in providing access to the Qur'an, happens to contain 164 verses from the Qur’an that promulgate violent jihad and hate against non-Muslims:

002 :178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244
003 :121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167, 169, 172-173, 195
004 :071-072, 074-077, 084, 089-091, 094-095, 100-104, 144
005 :033, 035, 082
008 :001, 005, 007, 009-010, 012, 015-017, 039-048, 057-060, 065-075
009 :005, 012-014, 016, 019-020, 024-026, 029, 036, 038-039, 041, 044, 052, 073, 081, 083, 086, 088, 092, 111, 120, 122-123
016 :110
022 :039, 058, 078
024 :053, 055
025 :052
029 :006, 069
033 :015, 018, 020, 023, 025-027, 050
042 :039
047 :004, 020, 035
048 :015-024
049 :015
059 :002, 005-008, 014
060 :009
061 :004, 011, 013
063 :004
064 :014
066 :009
073 :020
076 :008

We hope this helps you understand our position.

Regards,
The Google Team

Posted by: Television at May 24, 2006 12:41 AM

Okay.... Robert, I have finally decided an answer for myself.

The answer is:

NO hate speech with those pieces

Posted by: Johnathan at May 24, 2006 12:57 AM

carolyn2

The I'm feeling lucky leads on Arafat and Hitler were breathtaking - sort of like the ugly baby in Seinfeld.

From what I have seen so far, this isn't Google targetting merely anti-Islamic sites, but a broader section of Right wing sources in general (although the logic of opposition to a misogynic, homophobic, "religious"-fanatical, animal-hostile movement being a "Right-wing" cause escapes these brilliant Stanford grads). As such, this is bound to boomerang on them - as more people on the right - which would be 30-40% of the public - notice what's going on, they are bound to gravitate towards alternatives, which would be only too happy to grab Google's market-share.

OT - why do Netscape, Google and all these Silicon Valley star companies have to be in bed with ideologues who only know how to drain out their cash on moronic projects such as free access points throughout San Francisco,...

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 24, 2006 1:59 AM

I suggest making a stink. This is another Google lunatic Khalifornia PC action. People might also contact the San Jose Mercury News, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Some lawyers might think of other inventive responses. Paper letters and faxes (but only to direct executive fax numbers, not the one listed below) are far better than email.

Sergei Brin, one of the guys who engineered the Google search engine, is Jewish. One might remind him of his heritage. Ditto Jonathan Rosenberg. David Drummond can be reminded that he is on very shaky legal ground here. A lot of noise from bloggers would also be useful.

Google has mad correction before, when enough people pointed out how stupid the company was being, plus the financial and legal implications. As I recall, they were allowing some site that was paying them a fee and selling jihad beheading videos. I may be wrong about this however.

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.
Mountain View, CA 94043 (Map)
Phone: 650-253-0000
Fax: 650-253-0001

Eric Schmidt
Chairman of the Executive Committee, Chief Executive Officer and Director

Sergey Brin
President of Technology and Director

Larry Page
President of Products and Director

Omid Kordestani
Senior Vice President of Global Sales and Business Development

David C. Drummond
Senior Vice President of Corporate Development, Secretary and General Counsel

George Reyes
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Jonathan J. Rosenberg
Senior Vice President of Product Management

Shona L. Brown
Senior Vice President of Business Operations

Alan Eustace
Senior Vice President of Engineering

Posted by: HaMalach at May 24, 2006 3:24 AM

Ironically, you can find the KKK site just by typing in KKK in google. First hit. Funny, eh?

Yes. But that's the search engine not the news site. Rebecca did use the term "search engine" in the original post, but this about how Google's news site -

http://news.google.com/

- gets its stories. Notice also that if you do a Google search in the search engine, say:

terrorism thailand

You also get a link at the top of the page:

News results for terrorism thailand

And clicking this link takes you to current news listings from Google's news site.

Apparently, Google's "spiders" crawl across the web, aggregating pages from a pool of websites. Google analyses them with its algorithms in order to rank them in order of "relevance" and links them from the Google News site. Now, as I understand it, what Google has done is to draw not only on major news organizations, such as Reuters, BBC, the big newspapers, and so on; it also draws news from bloggers. What Google boasts is that this should open up the news area, so that independent voices can be heard, and current stories that might not otherwise reach people who may be interested in them can be accessed.

There has been a series of posts on this at little Green Footballs. Another complaint is that Google has been including sites that act as the political wings of terrorist organizations as "news" sources. Here is an LGF post on that:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20054&only

So, to be clear. The problem is not with the search engine, which is comprehensive in the results it returns and is meant to be, but with whom Google is excluding - and including - as valid sources of "news" (in effect, I suppose, comment on current events) in its news site.

It seems that in Larry and Sergey's world conservative-minded people may not be not a valid source of news but terrorist organizations can be.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 24, 2006 3:41 AM

I went to those sites, and saw the basic truth. As embarrassing as it is, for the Islam-appeasers of the West, who've stupidly decided Islam is their best friend.

Islam is violent, has not enriched our lives at all, it is as it does and it's a false religion created by a vile person who did despicable things.

Our worst enemy is not Islam, but self-loathing, self-destructive Islam-appeasers amongst us. It must be so embarrassing for them, the way Islam acts, day in and day out. It must get so tiring trying to make excuses or shift the blame all the time. So when they can't manage that anymore, they just hide the truth. They lie for their pimp, Islam, whoring all their principles and ethics for it. Vile.

Posted by: feralee at May 24, 2006 9:22 AM

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19235114%255E25717,00.html

Feralee
You are spot on with this!

"Our worst enemy is not Islam, but self-loathing, self-destructive Islam-appeasers amongst us. It must be so embarrassing for them, the way Islam acts, day in and day out. It must get so tiring trying to make excuses or shift the blame all the time. So when they can't manage that anymore, they just hide the truth. They lie for their pimp, Islam, whoring all their principles and ethics for it. Vile. "

I am putting in a link from OZ journalist Andrew Bolt.
He just did a review of the Da Vinci Code,,,but has juxtaposed it with lack of scrutiny of islam in Hollywood.
I think you guys will enjoy this!
(hope it works).

Posted by: Gramfan at May 24, 2006 10:19 AM

Well thanks Google, I picked up some great links here today I had not heard of before. Put them in a folder called GOOOGLE HATE SPEECH REJECTS.

This sounds like a great biz opportunity for a savvy programmer to set up a GOOGLE-HATES search engine.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at May 24, 2006 10:56 AM

Since the news of Google's decision to not have anything conserivitive or on the issue of jihad listed, I have decided to use instead the Dogpile search website. It is an excellent website and it does not play what I call the online politics game.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 24, 2006 11:10 AM

The problem is not with the search engine, which is comprehensive in the results it returns and is meant to be, but with whom Google is excluding - and including - as valid sources of "news"

The originating problem may not be with the search engine, but the search engine, being the main money-maker for the Google corporation, should be the focus of any punitive boycott.

Posted by: Television at May 24, 2006 11:24 AM

Muslims are very good at complaining with veiled (and not so veiled) threats. It is happening the world over, not just Google, which makes sites, newspapers, politicians...anyone who stands up to them deserve our thanks.

Posted by: Celsius at May 24, 2006 12:46 PM

Television,

I should think you're right there. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, because:

(1) That might take some organizing, and it's not clear to me that enough enthusiasm for that could be raised worldwide, or even just in the U.S./English-speaking world. Google must get millions (billions?) of search requests from all over every day.

(2) Others are certainly playing games - even with web search - even with what one would be entitled to suppose are results returned from spiders that have crawled almost everything on the web. Compare:

Google image search: mohammed cartoons

Yahoo image search: mohammed cartoons

(3) Google has become popular for a reason. Its results are good, because it's spiders crawl further and more frequently than those of many competitors; furthermore, its ranking algorithms (based on such things as counting how many other sites link into a site for information) are very good and paid inclusions are clearly marked as such.

One would hope these were decisions made by someone lowish down the food chain and do not necessarily reflect what senior management there would want. (But it is disheartening to learn that Gore is cruising for dollars at Google and may have influence at high levels.) If bad publicity results from this maybe that someone will get his knuckles rapped, and Google will conclude that a fair range of mainstream U.S. opinion is appropriate and, OTOH, material from known violent extremists is not.

I'd hope so. As I said above, Google's search is good. AlltheWeb seems to have followed Google's lead and now marks up "Sponsor Results" and "Web Results"; some others don't. However, I don't know how good AlltheWeb's algorithms are. They are obviously not the same as Google's compare:

Google search: jihad

AlltheWeb search: jihad

Note, the quality of the algorithms is also why the so-called meta-search engines, mentioned above, are not necessarily an improvement - because good search is primarily down to how good your algorithms are, and diluting well-calculated results with badly-calculated results from other sources and commercial material is a step back not forward.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 24, 2006 1:03 PM

The Andrew Bolt article is a good one, thanks Gramfan.

Reading the "My God! A Bible" article I found one of his comments very amusing regarding the whole PC idiocy phenomenon :

"I mean, forget suicide bombers. Have you any idea how much havoc you'd cause if you threw a loaded joke into a crowded living room?"

hehe

Posted by: Mike_W at May 24, 2006 1:05 PM

Keep in mind how bravely Google has defended internet intellectual freedom in China. Anything for a buck? Own Google stock? Buy Danish ham!

Posted by: MP at May 24, 2006 1:10 PM

Yes -- guilty as charged -- I do in fact "hate" the tenants of Islam. But here's the clincher -- I'm not the least bit sorry!!!

Bottom line -- I hate lies, deceit, murder, cruelty, perversion, and anything along those lines -- as these are some of the hallmarks of Islam.

But I do love Truth, and anything and everything associated with it. And Truth says that true "peace" will NEVER be found with Islam, because Mo had NO IDEA what real peace was.

Mo was a fool -- but you don't have to be one by following him.

Posted by: champ at May 24, 2006 2:10 PM

I use Dogpile, too
http://www.dogpile.com/

Posted by: Carolyn2 at May 24, 2006 5:50 PM

hate to break this to ya, folks, but.....

Omid Kordestani
Senior Vice President of Global Sales and Business Development

Omid is a Iranian Kurd. He developed Google's online ad sales strategy, and as VP of International Sales, he brought in $6 billion of Google's revenue last year, with his comissions giving him the highest take-home pay in all of Silicon Valley.

As an Iranian-American, I doubt he wants to help spread hate speech about Islam that might push Americans towards war with Iran.

Just a thought.

Posted by: jehana at May 25, 2006 12:51 AM

If Omar Kordestani of Google is interested in the fate of the Kurds, is he not more likely to wish for Iran's break-up, and for the Kurds in Iran to join the territories they presently inhabit to an autonomous or, still better, an independent Kurdistan?

And by the way, isn't this Exam Period? Shouldn't you be studying rather than spending time at Jihad Watch, especially at this godforsaken hour?

Posted by: Hugh at May 25, 2006 1:08 AM

I quess yahoo will have to do.

Posted by: mustang65 at May 25, 2006 9:22 AM

Google is glaringly anti-Bush. Just type "Failure" in the search box and hit the "I Feel Lucky Button" to see where their politics lie.

Looks like I need a new home page and search engine, now that Google can't be trusted.

Posted by: Know Your Enemy at May 25, 2006 9:32 AM

Google is glaringly anti-Bush. Just type "Failure" in the search box and hit the "I Feel Lucky Button" to see where their politics lie.

Try the same thing with this phrase:

french military victories

There are many other examples. Many of them are right-wing jokes, too. It's not Google that puts these jokes - left or right - there. It's bloggers exploiting the way its ranking system works in order to get a cheap laugh.

As I mentioned above, Google ranks a page higher for a particular search-word or search-phrase if a lot of people are connecting in to that page with that word or phrase. The assumption is that if many people are looking in a particular place for information on that particular thing, then that place is likely to be of interest to them.

The weakness is that, if you want a cheap laugh, all you have to do is construct a page and get lots of people to link into it with a particular word/phrase. (Such ideas can go around the blogosphere like wildfire.) The page will automatically move up the rankings - finally to the top where it will be pulled of in an "I'm feeling lucky" search.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 25, 2006 4:34 PM

"And by the way, isn't this Exam Period? Shouldn't you be studying rather than spending time at Jihad Watch, especially at this godforsaken hour?"

if my other exams are anything like the ones given by the above poster, i could probably ace them in my sleep. :p

b-school de la noche now, so its all group projects for me.....

Posted by: jehana at May 25, 2006 8:47 PM

If I see one more blathering of "censorship" or [suppression of] "free speech" regards Google doing whatever the hell it likes with its own property, I'm gonna puke.

So they're assholes; and you don't like the company they keep -- ? Well, big whoop-de-do. Go patronize one of the three dozen other search-engines giving away their product for free.

Crybabies.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at May 26, 2006 1:14 AM