The ‘scale of this conflict’ is still very small if you compare it to, say, the Syrian, Yemeni or Sudanese civil wars.
Of course you’re one of those reactionary evangelists who’ll claim none of these have anything to do with religion and the people in the region are just puppets waiting for the secularist liberals to pull their strings.
Of course you’re one of those reactionary evangelists who’ll claim none of these have anything to do with religion and the people in the region are just puppets waiting for the secularist liberals to pull their strings.
Religion is only the rationalization of universal self-importance and a justification for unjustifiable violence, but the desire for violent domination is always rooted in an intense desire for material security and liberation.
compare it to, say, the Syrian, Yemeni or Sudanese civil wars
And yet they each were still ultimately fighting over the control of land, water, and the material production of their countries. The justification may have been couched in religious symbols and significance, but the outcome was still definitively material.
Edit:
I’ll also add - the existence of secularist liberal states investing in the conflict isn’t an attempt to frame it as an ‘evil secular proxy war’, it is to show that secularist liberals have reason to involve themselves even without a religious justification. It’s a counterexample to the assertion that this conflict is a religious one: if that were true then it leaves more than half the involved parties without any apparent rational to engage in the bloodshed.
The ‘scale of this conflict’ is still very small if you compare it to, say, the Syrian, Yemeni or Sudanese civil wars.
Of course you’re one of those reactionary evangelists who’ll claim none of these have anything to do with religion and the people in the region are just puppets waiting for the secularist liberals to pull their strings.
Or maybe they’re just donuts
Religion is only the rationalization of universal self-importance and a justification for unjustifiable violence, but the desire for violent domination is always rooted in an intense desire for material security and liberation.
And yet they each were still ultimately fighting over the control of land, water, and the material production of their countries. The justification may have been couched in religious symbols and significance, but the outcome was still definitively material.
Edit:
I’ll also add - the existence of secularist liberal states investing in the conflict isn’t an attempt to frame it as an ‘evil secular proxy war’, it is to show that secularist liberals have reason to involve themselves even without a religious justification. It’s a counterexample to the assertion that this conflict is a religious one: if that were true then it leaves more than half the involved parties without any apparent rational to engage in the bloodshed.