Please describe how “identity constrains choice” in respect to atrocities committed by individuals (in a group context) in situations of identity-based ethno-national, -religious, or -linguistic conflict. How does this argument of Kreidie & Munroe (K&M) contrast with Stewart & Brown’s explanation of violent conflict?In your opinion, which group of authors’ perspective is more valid: K&M or S&B? Why? Please provide one real-world example to support your answer. ***Your real-world example(s) may NOT include ISIL, Al-Qaeda, Boko-Haram, Taliban or Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). These specific examples indeed are relevant, but all too familiar and I want you to expand your knowledge by researching/referencing more obscure real-world incidents of violent conflict.