"Ah, I love the smell of sarcasm in the afternoon."
There was no sarcasm. I have been trying for a long time to identify the specific error that motivates a class of objections to regarding Islam as the enemy of mankind. You put it right out there.
"So, how do you fight Islam?"
Firstly, were it not impossible, through education. If enough people were aware of the threat, they would use their creativity to devise effective measures.
Certainly, Islam should be proscribed throughout the West.
"Do you make total war on the Muslims who are fighting with us in this war?"
You mean like Tecumseh Sherman did in his march across Georgia during the Civil War?
The term "total war" is a prejudicial term in the first place. I would advocate sparing non-combatants and those who wish to surrender, as far as is practicable on the battlefield.
"Does your statement that Islam is the enemy mean that all Muslims by default become our enemy whether they agree with the Bin Ladins of the world or not?"
If you are asking whether I mean that their lives should be forfeit, then no, many if not most should be spared. However, they are the carriers of a deadly danger, and must be treated like the carriers of an infectious disease -- cured or quarantined.
First and foremost, I totally agree with you that Islam is the enemy. It is nothing more than a plan for world domination couched in religious terminology. Islam will only be content and satisfied when it is ruling the world.
Let's be straight on the definition of the word: total war. Yes, it comes from the Civil War, but it was also the strategy in World War II as well. That was total war. So, I do not mean it in a prejudicial sense at all. Ronald Reagan described total war when he was asked how he would fight the Vietnam War: "I would go in at breakfast, pave it over at lunch, and be home for dinner." Stonewall Jackson described at "drawing the sword and throwing away the scabbard." So, whereas Sherman did march through Georgia...that is not the sole and lone definition of total war.
Ideologies are easier to fight than religions and that is what makes Islam so insidious. How do you proscribe (good word by the way) a religious belief in a society that prides itself on its freedoms.
However, they are the carriers of a deadly danger, and must be treated like the carriers of an infectious disease -- cured or quarantined.
With concentration camps...with re-education camps.
Total war (and you don't have to tell me about Sherman, look at my Freeper name) against a religion means total war against the whole umma, does it not?
Now, these are honest questions...
Whereas we can identify the enemy (that's the easy part) the hard part is how to fight a religion that is practiced by over 2 billion people. How do you fight it?
Sorry it gets lonely on Olympus. You do get cable, right?