“A relatively small percentage of the population that is highly radicised, highly motivated in a cancerous doctrine can subjugate the population.”

OK, then you specifically target radical people who have demonstrated an inclination toward violence and subjugation. Not the general population.

“If you’re not in favour of ruthlessly destroying cancer, I guess you would have been in favour of letting Hitler run rampant, because we shouldn’t use violence to suppress people, right? I mean don’t prod the Nazis because that’s mean and everything.”

So let me get this straight. I’m opposed to sending millions of people to concentration camps for their religion, and that’s finding sympathy for Hitler? You really think the average Muslim Chinese citizen is somehow similar to a tyrant who needs to be exterminated? By your logic, if you thought Jews were as problematic as Muslims, wouldn’t you support the holocaust?

My position is that while certain religions may be more toxic than others, it’s a problem of ideology and not individuals. The people within the religion mostly grew up inside of it and know no better, and are often victims themselves. Sending peaceful Muslims to re-education camps is a net harm to society. That’s not destroying the cancer, that’s destroying lots of valuable people along with some cancer. I think China can manage to find more peaceful ways to control the influence of Islam.

“Christianity isn’t violent…”

Well, we could certainly debate that one. Are you a Christian in favor of re-education camps? And in favor of stomping out Islam with the same violent methods that you criticize them for using in the past? That’s interesting.
It’s getting beyond the scope of this topic though so I will say goodbye.