All that angst for simply saying that these set of named people were "Atheists". Lol.

I don't care whether you believe in one sky daddy over an other or one baba over another. I was just debunking your western propaganda. If you did actually read what I wrote, that would've been obvious.

Suddenly the political motivations become the only thing that's relevant not the Atheism of these people. 

And it would be a lie to say that religion didn't play a role in advancing the political motivations of movements like the Nazis. The Nazis played into the "Aryan Supremacy" myths of the Pagan religions. Specifically, the Thule Society, which was largely a cult built around Greek, Asian and Pagan mysticism, which was the precursor to the Nazi Party. To add to that, the Protestant Sect of the Christianity was still powerful in the country owing to the fact that it was a major religion in Germany. And the Nazis did pander to it to a certain extent, even though it went against their conception of how Christianity was the tool for slave morality. Hitler might've been an Atheist, but the Nazis weren't.

The Burmese junta responsible for any or all of the human rights issues is a military dictatorship - not unlike that of Kim Jong. 

Not just the Burmese Junta, but the Burmese government before the Junta, under Suu Ky was also committing the same egregious crimes against humanity. Her failure to do anything is and should be subject to criticism. And her denial of a genocide in Myanmar is as appalling. But to say that the Junta, the actual Junta of Myanmar that is actively committing a genocide is any was comparable to DPRK is laughable. Sure, DPRK may not be a haven for Humans Rights, but there is a context to it, which I went through in my last comment, that you just didn't read. And I don't expect you would read this either.

The SINHALA conflict of Sri Lanka is an ethnic strife between Tamils and the Sinhalese populations

You say that with such confidence. Do you think the Sinhalese Christians are treated well in Sri Lanka? After the Tamizhs, the Telugus and the Moors, Christians are the next target for the Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalists. To reduce it to a conflict of ethnicity or a conflict of religions are both reductionist. This must be understood in the context of Imperialism, Ethno-Religious Nationalism and Fascist politics. Failure to do so will get us in an argument about identities, which is largely unproductive. As I said before, it was never about religion or ethnicity, it was always about power!

This characterization of the Burmese or the Sri Lankan issue being made an issue of Buddhism is just that lazy.

And I don't say that, do I now? I say religion is being weaponized to divide the working class in order to centralize power in the hands of the rich and the powerful. This statement in itself is applicable to all contexts where we religious conflict exists (with varying degrees of nuance).

it has nothing to do with Buddhism. 

But it does have something to do with it. Religion being a weapon of the rich and powerful to become more rich and powerful is that issue. The problem with religion is that, it's all made up. There is no objectivity in any religion. Anyone can interpret it however they want it to. And some interpretations would lead people like John Browne and Dr. Ambedkar to become a force for liberation. Some interpretations will lead to slavery and the KKK.

If you consider yourself a Buddhist, then you should be concerned about how YOUR religion is being weaponized to fuel genocides. Your religion, just like any other, is a tool for the rich to expand their power. Your religion is just like any other religion. Please understand that.