On a reasonably related note, this kind of is true, although lie might be overstating the case. There is a massive amount of linguistic research on the use of media to 'direct public opinion'.

Noam Chomsky's largely turned linguistics into a science on the basis of linguistic statistical analysis of media coverage and news.

His books Manufacturing Consent and The Culture of Terrorism are excellent, largely apolitical, works based on the use of media bias and ownerships capacity to direct or influence public opinion towards agendas of state and interest groups.

Even if you don't like his lefty stuff, these two really step away from politics, and into academic research (he tends to split his work into political and academic work).

Certainly, Manufacturing Consent is probably one of the major publications of our life time (his work has made him the only living thinker/philosopher to make the top ten most important thinkers of all time).

Papers (or any media) pushing their own agenda is nothing new. You have to try and pick your way through fact and opinion. Journalists now a days seem to be more about opinion than fact which muddies the waters even further.

Bert's post grates because he seems to think that everyone follows the Daily Mail type editorial blindly and he is the only one intelligent enough to know what is actually going on in the world. That makes him come across as a bit of a numpty

With respect.... you, Serial T1t and anybody else can level what judgements of me you like, you don't know me ....

It is astounding that all of you have been quick to point out the various different factions of Islam as though it was a massive secret and that you were enlightening the rest of us with your wisdom.

The best thing is that my original comment was a tongue-in-cheek jibe designed to wind you lefties up... fcuk me.... it worked better than I could have hoped for.

However... Despite the different types of Muslim factions that there are in the world, I doubt that it matters much when you hear "Allahu Akba" and are facing a hail of bullets as you go about your business.... I doubt many enquire as to what tranche of Islam their attacker is affiliated to when running for their lives or being blown up or beheaded.

Enjoy the video....

[Link]

Edited by Hoof Hearted (26 Nov 2015 10.13am)

Actually some Turkmen fighting the Kurds (Turkey's enemy and therefore a teeny weeny bit supporting ISIS who Turkey have a bit of an alliance with as they attack Kurds) shot a pilot while he was parachuting down. I don't give too much of a f*** as he was probably killing civilians as these brave bomber pilots attacking areas without much air defense tend to nowadays. Not like the old Pathfinder boys.

But if one of "our boys" got shot while parachuting I suspect you would feel less at ease about it.

Actually Syria is all about oil pipes, which is why Cameron originally wanted to bomb Syria because Assad chemically attacked his people has became Cameron wanting to bomb Syria and protect Assad against ISIS. ISIS are sitting on the pipe line that we wanted the rebels to have to so we could have it.

It simple really and to do with money and not people. There is nothing humanitarian about our involvement or Russia's involvement in Syria.

Edited by Bert the Head (25 Nov 2015 10.41pm)

Oh dearie me.

Not the most intelligent or correct post ever.

Yours or mine ? You are not born a Muslim,Christian, or any other religion you become one, I suggest you and your ilk return to the dictionary and look up exactly what the term means, in fact look up racist as well should put you and a few others stright.

Muslims like Sikhs and Jews are religious groupings. Perhaps out of the three Sikhs are closest to being a single race.

So now your saying Muslims are not a race ? make your mind up.

Try the Human Rights Act 1998 or the Race Relations Act 2000.

I would assume the above would be your favourite bedtime reading, so would have hoped you have actually read them, The human rights act does not state that religion is to be considered "race" nor does the race Relations Act. Sorry to have to correct you again but its the Race relations Act 1976 Amendment 2000.

I would suggest reading "From race to religion : The new face of discrimination".

Why would I read a book that by the title alone Proves my point, It is saying that religion is fast becoming a larger factor in discrimination, than race historically has been.

So in that respect well done ISIS, If their goal was to bring the rest of the known world togther in it's hatred of them whilst forgeting years old predjudice against each other, then they are doing marvelously