I am Catholic, as it happens and resolutely anti-Muslim. I am Conservative, as well, so sliding liberal in there doesn’t stick either.
In first argument, you make the case that the enemy has defined himself verbally. It could be bluster (and would be if we had real men in charge of our government). It could be a threat intended to intimidate, if it could. It’s called poker when you sit around a table and have cards in your hand. In any case, it is all theoretical.
If such an enemy had so expressed himself (and yes, I agree the Muslim nations have done just this, Iran in particular), then I am arming myself just as fast as I can. I have put early-warning systems in place. I have distributed my armed forces to all locations I consider to be especially vulnerable or desirable to my enemy as targets. I have prepared the populace by not sugar-coating these threats, but making sure they are published so everyone is on their guard against a potentially mortal enemy. I may even place forces in provocative locations (off, Yemen, for instance, or perhaps deep in the Persian Gulf) as canaries in the coal mine.
But, I still do not throw the first punch.
Your second point: I am under no illusion that life as a Christian (an Anglican priest, no less) would be any better than the dhimmitude and likely would be killed outright (if they felt merciful for some unprecedented reason that day). I might be offered the option of conversion but probably not. That is why I would be on full-alert against them. I would leave as little opening for them to attack as I can manage. I would be talking up those I might be able to trust as allies to be further threats to them.
I would still not attack them outright.
As to eradicating the initial problem. That seems to require a lot of cities-into-glass as I see it. That will not solve the problem but would certainly precipitate wider war. If we are perceived even tangentially as being morally in the wrong, we would lose no matter how many Muslim cities we flattened. Once again, we must leave no doubt that we are defended, that we are alert and that they are the ones we are watching day and night. They must have no illusion that we will not answer at least as harshly as we are addressed, and perhaps more (proportional does not mean strictly equivalent: we may up the ante, as it were).
But we still don’t strike first.
I am arguing in fact from the theory of war as enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas with whose writings you may be familiar. It would be novel to suggest he was a satanist. It would be equally novel to suggest it of me
That said, I mean what I say: the USA is founded on principles which are best stated and most deeply ingrained in Christian theology, doctrine and praxis. That the Founders were primarily active Christians was a great advantage in how our governing principles were set up and how the government was structured. Atheists down the ages have tampered with that great structure and it no longer serves the same purposes so well. It was THAT well constructed that it still works better than any other, even in a maimed and defective condition. This is at least partly due to the magnificent vitality, courage and virtue of the American people, who have stood four-square against tyranny in all its forms. It may be we may have to stand against it here at home. But the fact now is that the US is at most a nation populated mostly by Christians. That means that this nation is not strictly bound by Christian ethics and could, should she choose, act as you suggest.
I strongly recommend against it, not least for realpolitik reasons as well as moral and theological ones. The Church never should strike first (even the Crusades were a response and not a unilateral assault), nor should any nation mainly populated by Churchmen and women.
When the last moslem dies, the war is over. Until the last moslem dies (or the last non-moslem dies) the war continues. The koran leaves us no other options. Die or be killed or enslaved. We can surrender this world to satan And sentence all the innocents in it to hell, or we can fight to win.
If we are perceived even tangentially as being morally in the wrong, we would lose no matter how many Muslim cities we flattened.
The war continues until the last moslem dies. Once the last moslem dies, there are no longer any moslems left to fight against us. They will have fulfilled the koranic command to fight until they (or we) are dead. But we still don’t strike first.
So you continue to advocate sacrificing innocent lives and souls to hell. Their blood is on your hands.
I am arguing in fact from the theory of war as enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas with whose writings you may be familiar. It would be novel to suggest he was a satanist.
Not satanist. Just not biblical. Thomas Aquinas may have had some very good writings. But they are not scripture.
That the Founders were primarily active Christians was a great advantage in how our governing principles were set up and how the government was structured.
And these founders fought against the british, firing the first shot in the revolutionary war.