Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
When people define the problem in the context of the religion of the participants, they are not only superficial in their analysis - they create a problem with no solution other than genocide or pure suppression of one party by the other.

But that is not how the wars of Christian Reformation ended (wars to throw off the control of the Holy Roman Empire by Western Europeans, ending at Westphalia).

And that is not how the "Protestant vs Catholic" conflict (resistance insurgency waged by Catholic Irish against their Protestant British occupiers) is resolving either.

Why? Because ultimately these types of conflicts are about governance and power. Those who wish to wield power understand full well that few things work better than religion to motivate those fed up with existing governance to act out illegally for change.

Shirts vs skins. It isn't why we play the game - its how we define the teams.

Get past this impossible framing of the problem, and then maybe we can get past silly ideas that simply killing the leaders (CT) or bribing the people (pop-centric) can lead to a durable acceptance of the status quo of governance. The status quo is the problem. If those who keep that status quo refuse to make wise and reasonable refinements, then those promoting radical change will lead the people to blow that intolerable status quo out.
Only criticism of the current approach, no realistic recommendations for alternative approaches. For one that recommends we stop relying on history, you seem to be clinging to it, and conveniently conflating the Reformation with the current conflict to fit your model. While there are similarities, that doesn't mean there are parallels.

As you once said, anyone can criticize, but it takes a little, or a lot more, to come up with realistic alternative strategies. The call for good governance without a roadmap on how we're supposed to enable that is not an alternative to what we're doing now.