Blu has a valid point, the conflict in Iraq may be boiled down to the objective fact that Saddam was nicer to a minority who happens mostly to live in those parts of Iraq that have little oil.
A democratic system of any form is going to take things away from them, and the expectation in any defective culture like the Arab one is that when Gang A takes over, they take everything from Gang B.
Thus some form of arguing is at the very least
inevitable.
However religion can make things worse.
If you have groups arguing over oil wealth, or some other economic issue, you can usually find some sort of deal. If all you care about is money, then it's better to have a bit less of it, than to fight the have-nots. This is not exactly guaranteed, but most Western societies are essentially based upon this and are mostly stable and peaceful.
Money is thus not the root of evil but a motivation for peace, since war is expensive.
But if instead you see the other side as evil, and betraying God, compromise is a lot more difficult to swallow. It's one thing to accept 1/3 less money, and very much another to accept 1/3 more blasphemy and evil.
A person who sees themselves as good, does not negotiate with evil, he fights it.
Someone motivated by money is not going to be a suicide bomber, though it is the case in Palestine that often the families will receive useful cash.
It leads to what I believe is the root problem in Moslem societies. It is not the religion whose historical attitude to violence is no different to Christianity, but their dysfunctional cultural economy.
Huge unemployment is the norm in most Moslem countries. This means that you have men who have no plausible way to improve their lives, and given the demented way that marriages work and women are owned find it hard on several levels.
An absence of social security means that he is pitifully dependant upon charity and patronage.
If my kids couldn't eat properly, or have adequate shelter, a whole range of options would seem quite reasonable to me, that here & now I would not remotely consider.
This means that being part of the right gang, isn't just a social thing down the pub, but personal survival.
In places like Egypt, many of the Moslem groups are in effect charities and very often less corrupt, more democratic and better people than the government.
But they reinforce the notion of sectarianism.
We have relics of this even in civilised societies, where we still have religious schools supported by the state and a good % of hospitals are named after Saints. Good works in the act of helping people, but bad for a society.
A key innovation in Christianity which enabled it to survive even in populations that were increasingly literate, was due in part to Aquinas based upon the Good Samaritan. The idea is simply that you do good works because you are a good person. The recipient
may be "good" but that is simply irrelevant, perhaps even you score more points with God than if you helped a friend. Any fool can tolerate the behaviour of someone they like, or help them out of a tough spot, but a good person helps people they don't like.
Islam evolved in cultures that were often nomadic or small cities. That meant that there was clear "them and us". Charity and what badly translates as "hospitality" are big things in Islam, but it's of the form "don't abuse your power over someone in your tent". That's good, but lacks the notion of seeking people out to help.
That's why Moslem societies basically just don't work, even though Moslems are not particularly evil or stupid. Too much emphasis on personal interaction. It's precepts are great when you have small societies, they just don't scale well.
It's like trying to build a house out of Lego, you can do this, but will leak and altough pretty, quite unpleasant to live in even of built by a skilled Legotian.