Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion. Alas, all that complicated writing, and it finally dribbles down to this -- a statement for which his dreary Seattle-style writing offers no basis -- not at all surprising, given that his conclusion is baseless anyway.
Sigh. Why didn't he just limit it to this, and save us the trouble of trying to wade through all of the turgid pap that preceded it?
Why do you disagree with the conclusion? Is this not an accurate description of the Islamic religion?