"Revolutionaries" does not logically equal "Traitors" even when they employ violence. It's a matter of perspective- i.e. Freedom of Thought. If it were a logical equation, then your nation would be a nation of traitors to the
We were traitors, and the british had every right to execute those who played a role in the revolution. Of course, there were many good reasons that, while they did execute many for treason, they avoided attacking the general population and prisoners of war...the latter were not killed because that would mean death for captured British soldiers, and the former were not attacked because of the importance of public opinion in the conflict. Of course, we did our fair share of hanging as well for those who were traitors to our cause...but that's just how wars go.
Defensive war is fine, but we can't logically conclude from this that "might make right", because if it did, then Islam has been right and the Great Church has been wrong for 500 years in Asia Minor.
They won, and they imposed their will upon the conquered population, surely they can't object too loudly if we decide to repay them in accordingly.
And if you do infringe upon them temporarily, you will turn them into real martyrs. What you are suggesting is the same thing Nero, Diocletian et al suggested to manage the "Christian Problem" in their Empire. Like you are suggesting, it involved the demonization/dehumanisation of the followers of Christ (cannibals, traitors etc.) in order to permit any sort of violence against them. I don't think their tactic was very successful, do you? And in the process, the persecutors lost their own humanity.
Christianity was a revolutionary movement and a threat to the Empire...ultimately,m Christianity won the revolution but we cannot condemn those who fought to preserve the integrity of their government. As I've said before, I don't think Diocletian can be condemned for his persecution of the Christians, he acted in a responsible manner in and accordance with his office...his only fault was that he did not convert himself. Nero was just generally insane...it's not only the Christians who had issues with him.
Any attempt to curb freedom of though (temporaily or otherwise) is doomed to fail and backfire. The problem is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want a secular society, but one which bans people on the basis of their beliefs- a complete contradiction. You can ban those who actively try to destroy your society, but as long as there are practicing Muslims who are not trying to do that, but who contribute to the building of your society, it makes no sense to ban Islam. So if you want to eradicate Islam, your only choice is to permanently curb freedom of thought in your society....and what kind of society would that leave you with GiC?
I don't believe history supports your assertions, the entire Mediterranean was Christian at one point, but how many Christians remain in North Africa, the Near East, and Asia minor...a few, but an ultimately insignificant minority. The Zoroastrians faired even worse. So it would seem that a religion can be eliminated by force and reduced to an irrelevant minority.
Of course, with that said, our Islamic Problem isn't so much an internal one, sure we have a few in this country but not too many, stopping Islamic immigration, prohibiting money transfers between external and internal Islamic groups, and a creative use of zoning codes to prevent mosques from being built might be enough to get the problem under control. Thus giving, the US at least, the luxury of solving the problem outside the borders of our state, unfettered by constitutional, legal, moral, and philosophical issues.