Firstly, If you are talking about real moslems here, (not the angry bitter murderers who commit crimes out of sin and pretend that it is for religious purposes) they worship God, they try to do good. That's not evil in anyone's book. Being wrong is not the same as being evil.
The so-called 'real moslems' are just as guilty as the extremists, I dont see these so-called 'real moslems' marching in the street for the equality of women. And while we often see them rioting because they hate the west or because a Christian was not executed, we never see them protesting sharia law or intolerance in Islamic society. I'm sorry, but I fail to observe this artificial distinction you claim exists. It seems to me that 'the angry bitter murderers who commit crimes out of sin and pretend that it is for religious purposes' are not the exception but the rule in Islamic societies.
Your second arguement is muddled. This is not the point. We are not talking about to whom the USA has an obligation of protection, this is obvious. What we are talking about is everyone's (Jews, Greeks, Arabs ...EVERYONE'S) God given right to freedom of choice. You (you personally and you collectively, the US) are nobody to take that away from someone else just because you think they are wrong. God gave that right to everyone, you are not God; you do not have the right.
I dont believe I am muddling anything, rather you seem to be. There are two distinct issues here, intersocietal relations and intrasocietal relations:
Every society's primary duty is to the well-being of its members, accordingly it must value it's own members' lives, liberties, and properties above the lives, liberties, and properties of members of other societies. Thus, while I would never support the reduction of the liberties of a citizen of our Republic for the security of either individuals or of the Republic, because we must place the well-being of our society first (a government is formed for the express purpose of seeing to the well-being of a given society) it is perfectly reasonable to restrict the liberties (or security) of others in an effort to increase the the security (or liberty) of the Citizens of this Republic.
Next we come to intrasocietal relations; within a given society the expectation of the freedom of choice is most reasonable, but it is not an absolute right. One's freedom of Choice must, at the very least, not infringe upon the rights of other Citizens. Accordingly, we would say that one does not have the freedom to choose to murder someone because that infringes upon the rights of the one who is murdered. Likewise, one could be said to be free to choose their religion, but if as a result of this choice they kill people who 'apostatize' from their religion or deny equality in freedoms to women then their choice of a religion infringes upon the rights of others and can be forbidden for the same reason that murder is forbidden.
Of course, this is an argument from enlightenment philosophy; from the perspective of Monarchy the argument is more straightforward, these nations (or people within your nation) profess beliefs that are at odds with those of our Lord (or Lady) and Sovereign and if our Sovereign, who rules by divine right, decides that they are a threat, or that their defeat would serve the state, we have a duty to our Monarch and to God to pick up arms in defence of and for the advancement of the Crown.
And your third arguement is again entirely off point. My question was regarding what gives you the right to insist that other people submit to your beliefs: this is hypocrisy, surely you can see that? I did not ask what MEANS you had to spread your arrogant and obnoxious views, I asked what RIGHT you had OVER other people. Why SHOULD only you or only America have freedom of choice and nobody else? And even if it was right that you should have more freedom than anyone else, (which I do not believe is the case) why do you have the right to remove or lessen other people's freedom?
We as a nation, like any nation, have a right to make war upon any nation or peoples that we view as a threat to our liberty, security, or way of life...and Islam is a threat to all three. How could any nation regard itself as sovereign if it were to be impotent in the face of such threats? And while in the 19th Century it could successfully be be argued that the only real manifestations of these threats were foreign invasion, corrupted governments, and domestic insurrection, no longer is that the case. A government or, as we have found out, a religion can threaten our citizen's liberty, security, and way of life from half a world away without making even preparations for an invasion. But though they lack the means to invade we cannot say that Islam and Islamic countries are any less dangerous; and, thus, it cannot be argued that our right to defend ourselves against this threat is in any way diminished.