A. In the Quran war for Islam in many cases is a holy duty - jihad - to wage war and to kill for Allah and for Muhammad (and his successors). In OT it is simply historical facts that it happened like that - except that Yahweh gave orders and some places was not satisfied with that Israel did not kill or evict enough of the people that lived in the country before the Jews arrived, which would cause troubles later, he said - - - which it did, according to the Bible.
There is one presumably strict limit to jihad: It can only be declared for a war in self-defence. What Muslims do not often mention, is that "it is to be understood in the widest meaning of the word" to quote "The Message of the Quran" - - - and that even this small reservation frequently was "overlooked" in wars of conquest. That makes this often touted limit meaningless - nearly anything can be defined as "self defence" when you go for "the widest meaning of the word" - especially when fanatics themselves decide what is to be reckoned as an attack (mainly anything they themselves dislike or disagree with - no matter if it is true or not) and who are guilty (f. ex. "anyone in the west (and other non-Muslim countries in at least slightly opposition to Muslims), because they pay tax and thus help to finance the "war" against Islam", is a definition used by fanatics and terrorists - no matter that it is not possible for most people in most countries not to pay tax if you at all make a somewhat normal living.). In the hands and minds of fanatics there hardly is any limitation - which is proved by the situation many places today. Remember f. ex. that the Quran says that murder/war is better (for Islam) than suppression. If some fanatics in London or Amsterdam or Oslo or Copenhagen or Paris or Madrid or Moscow or in any town in my dear Germany - or for that case here in Cairo or in Algeria or Casablanca - think that Muslims there in some ways are suppressed, or they simply want to "resist against the attacking West", or "infidels should not rule over Muslims - politically or at work" (there have been many an "intifada" in Muslim countries through the centuries because a non-Muslim got a job with Muslim underlings), that is good and valid reason for "jihad". As we have seen time and again.
B. In the Bible it is told about wars 2000 to 4000 years ago. In the Quran it is not only told about old wars, but given strong incitement and strict orders that to wage war for the belief often is a holy duty - and a sure way to a Paradise with lots of Earth-like luxury and lots of wonderful houries - in the old time, now, and in all future till Islam is the dominant religion, and all non-Muslims are suppressed and powerless underlings obeying Muslim regimes and paying extra taxes.
It is said that Islam is a religion for peace. That may be true among Muslims - though history has shown, and shows today - that it is easy for Muslim leaders to start even a holy war against other Muslims. It just is to declare that the enemies are not real Muslims of the correct belief any more - and of course it is "our" side that represents the correct belief.
As for Muslims and "infidels" it is a most open question - some would say a sure thing not open - how peaceful Islam is towards non-Muslims in Muslim societies and countries.
But remember that also Muslims are humans. Most of them just want to live in peace and quiet with their family and friends and neighbours, and want no war at all.
On the other hand terrorists do not have to disuse the Quran to find verses telling them to fight and kill non-Muslims - - - in a way it is easy to see why some terrorists say peaceful Muslims are wrong. This even more so, as not all verses in the Quran are reckoned to have the same value - some even are reckoned to be without value, as younger verses say something else (there are contradicting points in the Quran - Allah has had to change his mind some times - and the general rule in Islam then, is that the youngest verse is what counts. Because of this, I include the year (AD) when Muhammad told the surahs, if the year is known (in many cases the year is approximately only). But beware that in some cases not all the verses in a surah are of the same age - it can vary wildly, as the verses "came down" a few at a time, and not necessarily were put together in chronological order. I may here mention that surahs from the early periode (in Mecca, from where he fled to Yathrib, later named Medina, in 622 AD) tends (to say the least of it) to be milder than later ones in Medina where Muhammad quickly became more powerful and strongly tended to be harder and more warlike.
The first number is year, as said, followed by my surah serial numbers in ( ) as shown in chapter II - these are on a separate line on top. Then follows the number of the quote in this chapter - quotes showing sure mention of fighting are "named" by numbers, quotes showing likely or probable or possible referring the fighting have letters, whereas 000 refers to fighting of no concerns to Muslims. Finally follows the surah and verse numbers from the Quran in Yusuf Ali‘s translation to English.
Year 611-614 AD, (002).
0Aa 73/20: "He (Allah*) knoweth that there may be (some) among you - - - fighting in Allah's cause". This is the only mentioning of fighting up to around 616 AD, in a period where Muhammad had brought nearly 50 - fifty - surahs, not one of which even mention the word fighting. And as is shown below there is no other unmistakeable mentioning of fighting in all the 12 years before Muhammad had to flee to Yathrib (now Medina) - and even this verse may simply mean mental fighting by means of words and deeds, not by means of the sword. This in spite of how central the war for Allah and for Muhammad became. Did Allah change his mind after some years? Or was it Muhammad who changed as he gained power? This early Muhammad did not have enough followers to really fight with weapons. But in case it at this time only meant fighting with words it is even more strange that Allah later so totally changed his mind, from a peaceful religion to one of war and teaching hate with so much stress on the duty to fight and die for Allah and Muhammad. If he was omnipotent, he should from the very beginning have known what a gift it was to Allah that humans fought and killed each others in reverence to him - not to mention how unfair it was not to tell his first followers about this sure way to Paradise and the houries, etc., and deny them this easy way to the Next Life. Not to mention how unfair it was against the bad ones of his followers not to tell them that they really had a chance to come to Paradise: Be killed in war for Allah, and everything was forgiven, nearly no matter how bad a man you had been.
Year 616 AD approximately, surah 22 (047).
0Ab 22/78: "And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). The word "strive" frequently is used as a synonym for "fight", but in this case it is unclear if it is meant "fight" or mental striving to get more Muslims or "work hard".
Year 622 AD or later, surah 17 (065).
000 17/5: "- - - We (Allah*) sent against you (the Jews*) Our servants (attackers from the east*) given to terrible warfare - - -". Israel was attacked some times during the time of OT but for natural reasons no Muslim was involved (1000 years and more too early).
Year 622 AD Mecca, surah 16 (078).
0Ac 16/110. "But verily thy Lord - to those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions - and thereafter strive for the Faith and pati
a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam. What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting. This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against

