Irony alert:
You reject sources as "romanticists" if they provide information contrary to your own, and you tell me that the various authors of the accounts I've quoted "are not historians" even though they were, with the exception of one who was a journalist.
Yet,
When anyone points out that your sources consist entirely of Islamophobic hate sites, you complain of "ad homs".
In other words,
You challenge people to stop dismissing your sources with ad homs; instead of berating your sources - you say - people should work on proving them incorrect.
However,
when anyone brings contrary evidence, no matter how respectable the scholarship, YOU dismiss THEIR source with ad homs.
Think about it.
***********************
Now, looking over your first source, theamericanthinker ...even though it is blatantly hostile to Islam from the outset, it shows your theory about Muslim intentions to be inaccurate.
Why?
Here is the first entry in their 'timeline':
630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).
Note, as I've said numerous times, if Muhammed's unswerving desire is to kill anyone who did not adopt his religion ("bow to mecca", etc), that he would hardly have bothered hammering out 'agreements' with the northern tribes for paying the jizya.
*************************
By the way, here is something you should know, palerider: thanks to the Iraq invasion, the situation for Christians in Iraq is now more bleak than it has been in decades. I hope you and Mr. Winn are very happy about that.
