According to that logic: so we may not adress poverty as long as we cannot drive back gloabl warming at the same time? And nuclear proliferation is not an issue worth to be solved by it's own as long as we cannot wipe out all disease simultaneously (which will never happen, since there always will be new diseases)?

that cannot be a serious argument.

Withdrawn. Such an arguement is in direct violation of my theory of the futility of arguement. My apologies to the forum members at large.

You left out:

e. spam
f. hackers
g. software pirates
h. Commies!

That wasn't my arguement. But if you're going to eradicate something you need certain ingredients: a plan that will not exacerabate the problem you are trying to solve; a movement to bring awareness of the problem to the masses; a leader to lead the movement and ensure unity of purpose and action; and, lastly, and most importantly, power on at least a national - if not international - scale to act on the problem you intend to solve.

All the things I gave examples of are problems where we are somewhere along this point toward a solution, though nowhere near it. Where do you see yourself within this framework on the "problem" of Islam, which appears to me no less insurmountable?

Can't follow your way of connecting things that have nothing to do with each other.

Everything is connected. I thought you were a Buddhist, you should know this ;)

You thought wrong.

Well everything except for C&D can be easily taken care of...problem being nobody that has the capability to do it has the willpower or motivation to make it happen....