Answering Muslim's Defence over the Violence in the Quaran

[TheBlackPope]

Ok, first off let me just put it out there that I do not care either way, I simply enjoy pissing off towel heads by telling them that their religion sucks dick and commands violence because of these verses in the Quaran:

9.29
9.5


I decided to not be a dick one day and actually listen to this Islamic cunt via email.
He made defences for his religion, that if he were right, would utterly undermine my whole mission.

Basically those verses command that Muslims kill infidels whereever possible.

His responces went on the lines of:

Sura:
It was sent to the terrorist phrophet during the time when the terrorist were terrorizing Rome because Rome killed the terrorist's messenger.
When the terrorist prophet claimed he was the prophet, he recieved alot of opposition and the non believers planned to kill him, so he moved w/ some other believers, leaving behind their land/riches/bombs w/e.
The terrorist experienced wars started by the non-believers, they won some and lost some.
Their was some treaty, and the nonbelievers broke it.
So the terrorist prophet went to mecca, and he took over it, w/o a drop of blood. He could have killed all of them because they used to torture him or w/e but he decided not to carbomb them.
Because of all the conditions, terrorist should obviously treat non believers w/ murder beacause their obviously going to break treaties and kill them etc.
The terrorist prophet said churches and temples (People of the book, so people who believed in the God of Abraham) could not be touched.
The terrorist gave non believers four months to make a decision, to either accept terrorism or GTFO. Those who didn't GTFO died of carbombs.



Apparently this completley justifies the command in the Sura to annihilate infidels.
How to respond?