[aardvark1]

When you are in a conflict and you don't know the true nature of your opponent, you are at a tremendous disadvantage

I think the problem is worse than this. I believe we actually do know the true nature of our opponent, but in our attempt to have the appearance of fairness, we refuse to act on what we know to be true.

[livius]

"we refuse to act on what we know to be true.

I think this is partly a distorted attempt to be "fair" and partly real confusion about how to deal with this ancient enemy of the West (and of Christians, Jews and even Hindus everywhere).

We are more or less prepared to fight the modern "isms" but not for a resurgence of an enemy that has, since its birth, been trying to conquer or kill anyone who refuses to accept it. One of Spencer's excellent points was that there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam, and that the "moderates" are, sadly, the ones who are out of step with Islam, because it is violent in its scriptures and from its very earliest years.

If I recall correctly, Mohammed fought 70+ battles - and only one of them was defensive.

[norraad]

The clearest understanding of the danger of icklam is right here on freerepublic. Thank you all.

[FreedomPoster]

>>I think the problem is worse than this. I believe we actually do know the true nature of our opponent, but in our attempt to have the appearance of fairness, we refuse to act on what we know to be true.

If you're talking about Dubya and "peaceful, friendly Muslims", I have another "take" on the situation:

Often, diplomacy consists of saying "nice doggie!" to a snarling mongrel, whilst looking for a rock.

Hopefully I'm not just whistling in the dark.

[tsomer]

When you are in a conflict and you don't know the true nature of your opponent, you are at a tremendous disadvantage."

Even worse-- when you're in a conflict and don't know yourself.

At least Bush doesn't have that problem.