Do you respect Muslims?

And yet despite this millions of Muslims have Christian neighbors and live in peace with them, including the vast majority of Muslims in Europe.

So let's review the Bible, shall we?

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

I await eagerly you saying that Christians and Jews should never be the majority because their holy book celebrates genocide.

And he used WMD’s to kill Iraqis

WMDs provided by the West, and these atrocities were during the period of his greatest support, for which no one outside of his regime faced any real justice.

Oh, by the way? The U.S. has violated the NPT by not proactively disarming and by backing Israel which is a non-signatory nation, as well as crippling the CWC, and under Bush failed to vote for the BWC. All of that has helped to justify a norm of proliferation globally. Why is it acceptable that America, the country that SUCCEEDED at virtually exterminating its native population (Saddam failed at exterminating the Kurds), should be allowed to maintain a nuclear arsenal, again?

and when he was asked to step down he refused, the world thought he had WMD as Saddam’s advisers were even telling Saddam he had them. It wasn’t only the US but many other countries that said he had WMD and was killing Iraqis. Are you saying that the world should have just stood by as Saddam killing Iraqis?

Maybe the world should have stopped funding him, and those who did be brought to justice. The U.S. could do a tremendous amount to stop evil, terrorism and death in the world: stop causing it. None of which will ever lead you to say that Christians should never be a majority the way that they are in the U.S., of course.

Yes the US helped put Saddam in power, which is one of the reasons I state as why it was the US’s responsibility to remove him.

The people who have ruined a country have the responsibility to keep ruining it. Brilliant. And of course forget international law and treaties that we signed. When someone keeps breaking things, do you tell them to go back and try to fix the things they keep breaking? Or do you tell them to go the hell away and maybe just pay for the damages because they're not helping?

How about the idea that the U.S. had no right anymore to be involved in Iraq at all, and should have funded efforts undertaken by anyone else, including the U.N., to oust the dictator and bring him to justice? That idea was never even floated here because the idea is that we have the right to rule the world.

But, of course, that doesn't justify ANYTHING that happened after Saddam was ousted, so you are still an apologist for imperialism... when it is done by white people and Christians.

Osama was the most historically notable commander, and Senior Operations Chief of al-Qaeda basically he was the head of al-Qaeda and just the leader of any organization he may not have been involved in day to day operations, but as the head he was reasonable for it action.

And Bush was responsible for the torture of many people. Therefore, he should be executed, as should every general serving at that time. Do you ever play this game honestly?

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed that there were WMDs. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:

This is flatly false. And every security expert on the planet was fully aware that

a) If Iraq had WMDs, it would be as a deterrent to an invasion or attack (illegal and colonialist, something you do not care about)
b) Attacking Saddam would lead to looting of WMDs

The fact that we found no WMDs indicates one of two things: There were none, or our attack let them get into the hands of other people. Either way, the invasion was illegal, unethical, and endangered global security.

Maybe that's why the majority of the world keeps identifying the U.S. as the biggest threat to global peace. So why should Christians be the majority of any country again?

By the way: Here's what Blix actually said. Do you have any more inaccurate, misleading and outright false things to say to try to minimize a war that would be illegal and immoral even if all your premises were true?

Wow, didn’t know Bush had that much power to force all those intelligence agencies to lie, and to even get the UN to lie. That’s power.

Yes, that IS power. The United States casts a VERY big shadow, and has the ability to very heavily influence the perspectives of the world: Through media, intelligence actions, etc. Numerous MI6 agents will tell you that the UK was under HUGE pressure by the U.S. to play along. Funny how you sarcastically dismiss a real possibility with no evidence to support your claims when it is a Christian country, but accept the flimsiest evidence to justify that Muslims can't be a majority. It's almost like you are bigoted and are reaching for justifications...

Is the US perfect, no, is Islam perfect no, is anything perfect no. BTW I personally think the US should quit the UN. The UN is ineffective at best corrupt at worst.

The UN is ineffective because the U.S. prevents it from being effective. The UN has accomplished what the U.S. screwed up recently: Getting Somalia much more under control, including bringing back the capital under the central control of the government. And they've also managed to massively scale back what is going on in the Congo. Even U.S. admirals have in the past admitted that "Sometimes in the United States we spend more time beating the United Nations up than we do figuring out how we can influence it and make it a more capable organization", Again, funny how you cite no evidence for any of your claims and end up being repeatedly and massively wrong.

By the way: The UN Security Council permanent members (China, Russia, France, the UK and the US) are all non-Muslim. Moreover, of the 50 founding members of the UN, only Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are Muslim, a rate of 10%. Again, please explain why Muslim majorities are bad even though Christian (and in the case of China Confucian/Taoist/Buddhist) nations keep on creating corrupt institutions like the UN. There's a simple reason why: For you, when Muslims do it, they're intrinsically evil (or their faith is); when Christians do it, well, we're "not perfect".

The only non-bigoted statement you've made is that nothing is perfect. So then there is zero reason to demonize Islam more than anything else.