That's commendable, but doesn't seem to address what preceded it. You wrote, "Why do people see some people as their enemy? I just dont get it," and I answered, "Some people are enemies. They either intend to harm you or are willing to do so. Shouldn't such a person be viewed as an enemy and treated accordingly?"
I don't see an answer to my question there, just the repetition of your original point. OK, you don't hate them or wish them harm. But you also seem to be unwilling to see somebody who wishes you harm as an enemy. Acknowledging that such a person is an enemy does not require that you hate them or want to harm them, but it should entail some adjustment in how you deal with such a person as a matter of caution.
If your philosophy requires that you not recognize that some people mean you harm or that you have a right and perhaps even a responsibility to defend against being harmed, I think that your philosophy leaves you needlessly vulnerable to that harm.
Actually, all known sentient beings are animals.
That's not part of the definition of animal. No part of biology's definition of animal addresses whether animals are or are not able to accomplish whatever attaining dhamma is. An animal is a multicellular creature usually capable of ambulation, whose cells have a characteristic morphology (eukaryotic cells lacking a cell membrane, etc.).
Universal forgiveness, like loving enemies, is overrated. I neither harbor anger nor seek revenge, but I also don't forget that a person has betrayed me, nor do I allow them to do so again. Do you?
That's a religious belief that you have chosen to embrace for whatever your reasons. I have no reason to believe that.