350, thanks for your well-reasoned and thought-provoking argument. It should be noted, however, that there are some inconsistencies.
1 - The Koran supports the general principle of conversion by violence. It is not described as a one-time event, but rather as a life principle. The Bible, in contrast, has essentially one major war which was a single one-time event ("Israel -- go take the Promised Land."). Yes, it lasted quite some time, as the Israelites didn't finish it all at once, but it would be a phenomenal stretch to argue that the Bible in any way supports violent religious conversion -- not a defense you can make for the Koran. Further, it is clear from the context that the actions ordered were one time events -- definitely not marching orders for modern Christians.
2 - The violence associated with Islam is neither recent nor isolated. Islam originated as a band of desert hijackers in Medina, north of Mecca. Mohammed tried to convince the Medinan Jews to join his cause, but his revision of the OT was too extreme, so they refused. Muslim history books will explain that the Jews "refused his perfectly acceptable offer of peace," at which point Mohammed ganged up on each of the three separate Jewish communities and killed them all. His gang of bandits grew in power as outsiders realized their choices -- be killed, be subjugated to crippling occupation, or just convert to Islam. Again, Islamic histories will describe this as "The influence of Islam spread..." In light of the history, I would hardly call recent terrorist actions "isolated." Rather, recent terrorist actions are merely a continuation of hundreds of years of the same, and an honest living-out of the fundamental principles advocated by their guiding document.
3 - Christian violence performed over the "past thousand years" is primarily isolated to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.
The number one purpose of the Crusades were to liberate Jerusalem from Islamic control, after the Muslims had captured and occupied the city -- this is no different from the US invading Germany to free the French, for example. There were certainly actions taken by individual battlefield commanders that could not be justified Biblically, but to cite the individual sins of arbitrary Christians as a gross condemnation of all of Christianity is purely foolish.
The Spanish Inquisition was a single period of stupidity which was not supported Biblically. You'll be hard pressed to find any modern Christian who honestly supports the SI. You'll be especially hard pressed to find anything like Biblical support for the SI, as it doesn't exist.
The same cannot be said of Islam -- there are millions of Muslims who believe that the Koran advocates violent conversion, that terror is an excellent route to supremacy, who have no remorse for any of the past actions of Muslims, etc.
4 - I don't know too many people who spout both of those beliefs. In fact, I can't think of anyone who claims both "Islam promotes terror" and "Terrorists hate us for our money."
Hmmm, only 4 major inconsistencies with reality in a 3 sentence post. You're improving.
Dan