It's not religion..believe me. It's something else

[The Grand Nudger]

Christmas is coming early this year....lol.

[Minimalist]

Don't call it christmas.  Call it "the holidays" to annoy the WLB.

[Belacqua]

Hell, you know very well that when people fought, it usually is for money or land. 

This is certainly correct, and bears repeating. 

Wars labelled as religious have very seldom been fought over what religion will be practiced. Religion becomes an excuse or a rallying point, or a recruiting tool for soldiers, but the goals of the leaders are power and money.

For example people will still point to the Thirty Years' War. At the beginning there was some religious motivation there. Politically powerful Protestants were fighting politically powerful Catholics for political control. So lines were divided by religion, and it caused political regions to divide, but that wouldn't have happened without unsustainable inheritance practices in German-speaking areas. More importantly, the war was sustained and dragged on because Catholic France, under Richelieu, saw it as an opportunity to undermine the Catholic Habsburgs. So for most of the time it was in essence two Catholic powers fighting for dominance in Europe. To call it a religious war is oversimplification to the point of error. 

And the same is true in the Middle East, of course. Since Jimmy Carter started arming and training Islamists to oppose the Soviet Union it's the power and money people who cause chaos, and religious alliances provide useful tools. This is clear when we see Israel allied with extreme Islamists in opposing more secular government (though of course not good government) in Syria. 

Here is where atheists, and particularly anti-religion type atheists, have to be more careful. By blaming violence on religion we may overlook the more proximate causes: usually our own governments and our own desire for resources. If we blame evil religion, we take the blame off ourselves. We can say it's the irrationality of those crazy believers, when most of the trouble is the rationality of capitalism.

Christopher Hitchens supported the evil Iraq war. His Christian brother opposed it. The brother was right. 

World War 1 was the next huge war, followed by World War 2. and non of them were waged because of religion.

Here I can speak from experience: if you get a historical detail like this wrong, people will focus on the detail and miss the point that your main argument is correct. [/quote]

[Minimalist]

At the beginning there was some religious motivation there.

The rulers have their own reasons for everything but religion was a very useful tool for getting the dumber ones to gleefully kill and be killed because they thought god was on their side.

The best thing about the 30 years war is that is basically marked the beginning of the decline of jesusism in the west.  Traditionally, the Age of Enlightenment is dated to the generation after the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the war in 1648 and marked the end of even the dream of catholic hegemony over Europe.  But religion had been dealt a fatal blow because of the misery caused in its name.

For that, we should be thankful!

[Angrboda]

Hell, you know very well that when people fought, it usually is for money or land. 

This is certainly correct, and bears repeating. 

Wars labelled as religious have very seldom been fought over what religion will be practiced. Religion becomes an excuse or a rallying point, or a recruiting tool for soldiers, but the goals of the leaders are power and money.

For example people will still point to the Thirty Years' War. At the beginning there was some religious motivation there. Politically powerful Protestants were fighting politically powerful Catholics for political control. So lines were divided by religion, and it caused political regions to divide, but that wouldn't have happened without unsustainable inheritance practices in German-speaking areas. More importantly, the war was sustained and dragged on because Catholic France, under Richelieu, saw it as an opportunity to undermine the Catholic Habsburgs. So for most of the time it was in essence two Catholic powers fighting for dominance in Europe. To call it a religious war is oversimplification to the point of error. 

Wars have always arisen, and arise today, from territorial disputes, military rivalries, conflicts of ethnicity, and strivings for commercial and economic advantage, and they have always depended on, and depend on today, pride, prejudice, coercion, envy, cupidity, competitiveness, and a sense of injustice. But for much of the world before the 17th century, these “reasons” for war were explained and justified, at least for the participants, by religion. Then, around the middle of the 17th century, Europeans began to conceive of war as a legitimate means of furthering the interests of individual sovereigns. (Emphasis mine).

~ Axelrod, Alan & Phillips, Charles. Encyclopedia of Wars, quoted in Fact Check: Religious Wars: Only 123 of 1763?

[WinterHold]

Sure, but we'd support anyone that could deliver on what your current regime does.  We have no particular interest in fucking you, and your being so thoroughly fucked by your government is blatantly in opposition to all of our western ideals about good governance.

Unless we invade your shitty country and kill the headman, that's going to have to be a problem that you solve, yourselves..because it's a you problem.  Get a better headman.  That's what we do when we don't like ours.

Look at the contradiction in your post:

Sure, but we'd support anyone that could deliver on what your current regime does.
.
.
.
your being so thoroughly fucked by your government

The western regimes are part of the crime, I don't care about your motives, I care only about your actions.
The west created Israel, created Islamic terrorists -Afghan soviet war-, created the atomic bomb, that is a lot. The west was a pioneer in writing the lines for apocalypse, the next world war would show that clearly.

My country is shitty because the dictator ruling it is so favored by the west. Without his western friends, he'll be in deep shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

The western regimes are part of the crime, I don't care about your motives, I care only about your actions.

You mean, the act of engaging in diplomatic and economic cooperation with the governing authority of an important sovereign state?

The west  created Israel, created Islamic terrorists -Afghan soviet war-, created the atomic bomb, that is a lot. The west was a pioneer in writing the lines for apocalypse, the next world war would show that clearly.

My country is shitty because the dictator ruling it is so favored by the west. Without his western friends, he'll be in deep shit.

Would he be, or would he just kill dissidents without any need to explain himself to us? With no one even remotely in a position to hold him accountable, by yanking directly on his purse strings, for example. Truth is, the only people who would suffer if we pulled out, is You The People. Mad Kings gonna be just fine Mad Kinging to his hearts content.

[WinterHold]

But it wasn't the mistake of Bush alone. When the invasion of Iraq took place in 2003, Bush and a whole administration had the U.K as an ally, and a whole bunch of Arab governments as allies, and let's not forget the Shiite Iraqies who were the replacement of Saddam Hussein.

The American people didn't move until the economical aftermath broke their back; because of the unjust war and the sectarian disaster the U.S caused in Iraq.

Let's be straight about this: the west stood with the two components that set the Middle East to flames: the Shiites in Iraq, and the Wahhabi Sunnies in Saudi Arabia. The support the U.S gave to these to components was behind their terrible crimes in the region for so long, that if somebody is willing to research what I'm saying.

Where were the American public from this unjust turn of events, caused by their government of choice? the one and only part gaining from the war between Sunnies and Shiites is the western powers, and the missionaries keeping the iron heated.

Even today in 2018, the American public repeats the same action by voting Trump.
It's not a blame game Brian; I do treat everyone as an individual, I don't blame you or label you or judge you. But your labeling of yourself is what I mostly take: you are a human born in the U.S, that doesn't mean you are pro Bush or Trump.

But the last elections show that so many there are not like you. Almost a majority.
And the case of Kashoggi is another evidence

---

Supported by the west, especially the Republic zionist regime of Trump -which was favored by almost an Evangelical majority and almost an American majority-.

Populism is the new way, they say

Populism runs Saudi Arabia and Iran too.

Humans are tribal and? 

That is no excuse to give up on humanity. I will never give up on the prospect that there are plenty of individuals worldwide that still see beyond our local labels. If you ignore that, you do yourself a disservice, and you ignore my support of YOU the individual.

Our species has a evolutionary history of protecting that which is local. It is an unfortunate side effect of our species not being able to see that we are NOT a separate species. If I am willing to give you credit for bucking your government and population social norms, then do the me the favor off accepting that I am simply stuck in a different location.

I HATE my species tribal thought, and far too often defaulting to conflict putting that over diplomacy. BUT I will not give up on individuals who can and do see beyond boarders and labels.

And who told you I'm Saudi, Brian?
Living there doesn't make you a Saudi. 

The Saudi regime and the Irani regime are fought and criticized in almost every post I make, I know they are run by populism and I have stated that without the western governments they will not survive.

There are western countries -like Canada and New Zealand- that have little interaction with these populist regimes in the Middle East, but the rest are supplying them with enough arms to stay in power for years.

We are tribal as a specie, but we also have a consciousness that creates black sheep out of the crowd. We are not a herd; Brian, we are special, and our brain is the evidence of that. Why do people fight slavery, fight cannibalism, fight necrophilia, but not fight the actions of their own governments? actions like cannibalizing on other nations using proxies? Robbing poor nations out of their resources?

Why don't the brain that fought the former, also stand and fight the latter?

It's a fact; Brian: I treat everybody as individuals and that is how I think, but so many individuals choose to be a herd of sheep, something more of a "domino formation" meant to only follow; not invent or have a personal stance.

Boring copies of each other. The same type of carbon copies that fought in WW1 and WW2.

[The Grand Nudger]

People also fight -for- slavery, and against their own governments.  That much was at the heart of both the american revolution and the civil war.  Your question above seems wildly out of place when people find themselves on both sides of any disagreement or conflict in any of the areas you mentioned.

Speaking of, you know we have a long history of bankrolling "freedom fighters" in the middle east.  Don't you think the US might be interested if someone wanted to topple the saudi regime and replace it with a body that better engenders western ideals of governance?  The PR is already built in..you'd be fighting to dethrone a king.  Murrica loves that shit!

[WinterHold]

I'll also point out that theists like Atlas are fond of claiming that the deaths under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Gang Of Four were motivated by religion.  

And whatever else you might say, the Israelli situation, Afghanistan, ISIS, and Sunni and Shi'ite violence are all about religion.

I don't know the type of drugs you injected yourself with, but I never said anything like that ever in this forum; and please quote me if I ever said something like that.

The dictators like Hitler and Stalin weren't moved by religion.