What I was illustrating is that people who professed to be fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians did not in any way elevate themselves above the standard war practices of the day, even when the differences between the groups were fairly minimal (by the standards of today). No there were no real religious grounds for these barbaric practices but those who committed these atrocities (i.e. most combatants in the 1600s) would have come up with some cockamamie quasi-theological grounds for them nonetheless.
I'll overlook the fact that you're clearly a lazy scholar when it comes to terms here. Fundamentalist is
not an accurate or even relevant term to apply to Christians before the late 1800s (the term fundamentalist in fact was not coined until the early 1900s). And define differences as minimal? There are different languages, nations, political interests, and dynasties all involved in these wars and generals who ranged from chivalrous to outright barberous. You're making an honestly foolish mistake of lumping together everyone who would be a Christian and assuming that means 'good person'.
As to theological grounds, there really were none. Sure the Catholics believed the various Protestants were heretics (as did the rulers of Catholic nations who (suprise suprise) saw this as an easy excuse to wipe these groups, who also had very different ideas about politics usually, off the map) and would react as such. But the battles and war were very much just as war is today.
I'll overlook the possible insult and simply ask a question. What were the Crusades if they were not radical, fundamentalist Catholics attacking radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and Jews that never really did anything to anybody except exist? No they were not only about religion and holy warfare and martyrdom but they were the proving ground in which subsequent ideals in these areas tested and refined. They were justified by each respective side (Christian and Muslim) on theological grounds and even if at times that theological basis was but a fine veneer for nationalistic pillaging, they were accepted by the church and mosque of the day.
Again I'll note lazy scholarship (and your pretty obvious bias) and say this, the idea that it was a purely religious war is hokum, absolute hokum. Having read extensively about these conflicts I can honestly tell you that the Pope would not have given a rat's ass about who held Jerusalem unless the opportunity presented him with a political possibility and a practical one. It did on both counts. It allowed him to direct the rulers of Europe away from fighting one another (and questioning Papal authority, conveniently) and to unite them all under a vaguely holy mission with Papal authority giving him a moral trump card. That and of course it put the Byzantines in his debt.
I could go on about the other Crusades (discounting the 8th and 9th which were both horrible ideas) but that would require volumes of words.
I don't think a resident of Gaza would get too far if he publicly denounced the art of suicide bombing....
Gee a terrorist organization with a quasi religious veneer over its overt political tyranny. Golly I never would have thought that
So, like I said, move up the Reformation so fewer Christians feel beheld to RCC traditional teachings on suicide and the like.
Moving the Reformation up is not going to invalidate centuries of religious feelings. Suicide is still considered a sin in MANY Christian groups (not just Catholocism) today. Point in case many Methodists actually view it as a sin.
In the Second Intifada it was quite common. I seem to recall that the Mossad was foiling something like 100 "martyrdom" plots for every one that actually succeeded.
If that's an actual number and not some guy inflating it for an interview still not unsurprising, especially considering where this is taking place. There are a few large demographic reasons for why this is.