>If you mean the war between the US on one side and al-Qaeda and various other Islamist groups on the other, that’s…a pretty bad example of a war that doesn’t i

>If you mean the war between the US on one side and al-Qaeda and various other Islamist groups on the other, that’s…a pretty bad example of a war that doesn’t involve religion. Ya I included that intentionally because it was the only one I could think of that was related to religion in anything I would consider close to meaningful. It really depends on how loosely you want to define "involve," like I said, wars involve sticks and shoes because everyone uses them. Nearly everything involves language does that means all wars involve language? I guess so in a pedantic sense, but still, so what? Wars don't involve language in any meaningful way other than a means of communication. I would argue because of that, language is far more important than any semblance of religion in all of the wars I listed. What's the point of your or the OP's argument? Following the definition of "involve," anything involves religion, even an atheist walking down the sidewalk, because the sidewalk was funded by at least one person who happens to be religious. Not overly meaningful. Here's OBL's "Letter To America," where he states his reasons for his attacks. In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[3][4] he said that al-Qaeda's motives for the attacks included Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, support for Israel in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[4][5][6] US support of Israel,[7][8] and sanctions against Iraq.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_a... I mean I guess if you really wanted to make a connection to religion you could, but in the statement he mentions Israel, not Judaism, so it would be a stretch in my mind. The only connection to religion is the term "Muslims," and those citations are always followed by "in" a country. Hell, even the crusades weren't fought over religion, they were fought over resources and power, the church just used religion to get free cannon fodder. Of course Bush, in his infinite wisdom called the WoT a "crusade," which again I guess "involves" religion in that it was mentioned in a speech, but again, not in an overly meaningful way. What I think the OP was trying to say, perhaps I'm wrong, is that religion is bad and as an example, all wars involve religion. If that's the case, I disagree with the premise. All wars involve dirt therefore dirt is bad. Prophetic!