"A not-too-bright comment. Completely missing the concept that it is possible to be at war with Islam without killing all or even a large number of Muslims.

Someone named "Munich" might be reminded that the US successfully conducted a total war against Nazism without killing every single, or even most Germans."

First of all, the two situations are completely incomparable - "Nazi" being the name of a political party, not a religion, and the Nazi-led countries of WW2 (all 3 of them) having a standing army against which we could conduct war operations.

But more importantly, your statement describes a "war against Nazism," a war against at least a school of thought or system of beliefs. I don't posit that a "war against Islam" is impossible. As I said, I just wish they would be honest about it, if that's what it is. But a "war on terrorism" is impossible.

If Roosevelt had described our involvement in WW2 as "a war against blitzkrieg tactics" or a "war against surprise bombing attacks," that would be the equivalent of a war on terror. One cannot wage war against a type of act or behavior.

"Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, they didn't even kill most Nazis, which was a shame. Many Nazi death camp guards, who herded little children into gas chambers, lived nice middle-class suburban lives after the war, with backyard swimming pools, etc. - while Holocaust victims continued to suffer in all kinds of ways - financial, emotional, killings at the hands of Eastern Europeans, etc."

Which has absloutely nothing to do with anything.