"Permission to spread the religion by war" - here you've already discredited yourself by sourcing the hate mongering religionofpeace.com. But anyways the sourced page at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm says there is no defensive historical context to the verse at Quran (2:191-193). Wrong. Relocating to Medina did not save the emerging Muslim polity from attacks and raids and from the Meccans. Low status followers who couldn't leave Mecca were still being beaten, tortured and killed. But the crucial bit of false messaging in regards to this verse happens here:
"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah]"
Ha! The naive reader might say "gosh thats pretty much a recipe for constant warfare isn't it?". But Fitna doesn't mean that, it more accurately translates to "discord promoting actions/ state of destablizing disharmony" - think Russia's recent actions in the eastern Ukraine.
A similar dynamic is at play with many of the other points on the site. Misleading interpretations or interpretations favored by extremist scholars are put forth as the true face of Islam. More reasonable rulings by more qualified scholars apparently don't count. Devout Muslims who have no problem in being a harmonious part of diverse societies apparently don't count.
Because that might undermine the central fallacious Islamaphobic narrative: It's not bad people, it's bad ideology.
But it is bad people. There is enough room in any ideology to be an asshole.
I'm not going to do anymore than this, because a) I'm not qualified b) I don't have the energy and c) I doubt you're looking for a real debate, propagandists usually are not.
As a postscript I really don't get the end game of these arguments, but it seems to be: "can't we just all come together and hate Islam? Can't you see that's the only way to fix the world?"