In legal's world, if you don't alienate people they won't wish ill or attack you.

It goes back to my description of people who don't really understand the nature of humanity. Only people who have never really had to fight for anything really think like this.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Oh he wouldn't mingle within a thousand miles of them given the choice.

But he'd die for their rights no doubt.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

A reasonable and sensible question merits a sensible response in my book.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "military" tactics.Counter-insurgency, as other posters have noted, concerns a lot more than just the purely military aspects.Bit more to it than just Stirling's a real man's a real man so lets stick it up 'em and have a real men's "fight" approach.That begun to become passe as a cure all circa post 1917-39 and more so from the early 50's onards ,but that's in keeping with Stirling's era of mind set.Stirling might be amazed to meet some of the people who deal with this "quasi psych-ops" stuff in the real world hands on,often in my experience nothing like his stereotype of a "real man",some are even women (or his ideological mindset,or your own for that matter).

I despair of some knee jerk responses to situations like the current one. I have no particular special experience,I studied counter insurgency in the British Empire post WW2 a long time ago and have retained an interest,that's all.And through my travels and work I've been exposed to some of this stuff overseas and also to stuff re the "salafist jihadist" ideological modus operandi.Stuff you don't get from the newspapers.And as a "leftie" I was interested in theorists like Gramsci who stressed the battle for "hearts and minds" in the "battle of ideologies".

As for "unbiased",of course I have biases; we all do. Very few things about this are truly objective.I think what is important to have an increased prospect of a better outcome is to try and understand the other "side" and historical roots, and not to be blind to one's "side's" own shortcomings, including historically, and after all, propaganda comes from all directions including one's own. Importantly,not to needlessly alienate and demonise those its important not to. That way,there is IMO a better chance of coming up with a coherent strategy with any prospect of success, rather than just blasting a few people from the face of the earth (however understandable it might be to wish for that at times) but alter the bigger picture and longer term not necessarily a jot.

Edited by legaleagle (04 Jul 2015 11.48pm)

Just thought I'd tease you, seeing how you're so obsessed with me.

On cue, you come right in.....with your stereotypes of what I think.....Like for like I suppose.

Still, thanks for the smile it afforded.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jul 2015 11.39pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Legal thinks a 'hearts and minds' strategy can be implemented with people who don't like us in the middle east.

I'm recommending legal for instant drafting into the 'intelligence' team for this.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Agree and I think you agree I'm not one who only gives out but doesn't take it too,but at the current time I think counter insurgency is serious stuff...so forgive me if buffoonery (leaving the "mocking" bits out since they're nothing) as a response didn't appeal in the current heat

Edited by legaleagle (05 Jul 2015 12.07am)