"Holy" World War 3

[Astarte]

During the Cold War no one, or very few, would have imagined that Abrahamic religion would have been the primary ideological fuel inflaming a third world war (Judeo-Christianity vs. Islam). How far do you feel this warfare in the Middle East will go; is it possible for the third imperialist World War to be a "Holy" one?

[NGNM85]

During the Cold War no one, or very few, would have imagined that Abrahamic religion would have been the primary ideological fuel inflaming a third world war (Judeo-Christianity vs. Islam). How far do you feel this warfare in the Middle East will go; is it possible for the third imperialist World War to be a "Holy" one?

‘Holy’, used literally, is just sort of a nonsense word. By my values, nothing could be less holy than war. Unfortunately, this is not so for the Abrahamic faiths, which exalt it.

First of all, it isn’t totally clear what you mean, but, as I understand it, my answer would be ‘No.’ At present, the Jihadist subculture and their sympathizers are spread out in a number of disorganized, to barely-organized clusters and pockets, with no central leadership or formal program. (Let’s hope it stays that way.) Unless they achieve their goal of establishing a pan-national Islamic caliphate across the entire Middle East, (Extremely bad news.) and declare war against the rest of us infidels, I don’t see this happening. Even if it did, their army, by comparison, would be pathetically unsophisticated, and under-equipped. Lastly, if such an event were to occur, it wouldn’t be Judeo-Christendom vs. Islam, it would be Islam vs. the West.

[GPDP]

The idea that the current conflicts and tensions between "The West" and various groups in the Middle East (whether they are mere Jihadist groups or entire countries) are religiously motivated or have their prime causes in religious differences is laughable. I mean, maybe you could make a case for the Jihadists... maybe. But everyone else? Hell no.

If you are looking for more legitimate reasons for the conflicts, I suggest looking at other themes, such as geopolitics, nationalism, profit, resistance, imperialism, and power. Religion as a major cause for shit going down in the ME lies only in the discourse of liberals and fundamentalist zealots.

[Astarte]

The idea that the current conflicts and tensions between "The West" and various groups in the Middle East (whether they are mere Jihadist groups or entire countries) are religiously motivated or have their prime causes in religious differences is laughable.

It is obvious that a reactionary movement which formed in response to economic inequalities and injustices that have grown from Western ("Christian" world for past couple thousand years) imperialism have simply used used Islam as a political vehicle, as the Catholic Church did when it politicized Christianity as a hegemonic power for so long.

Look at the macro chronological perspective and the collective unconsciousness of the West.

[GPDP]

It is obvious that a reactionary movement which formed in response to economic inequalities and injustices that have grown from Western ("Christian" world for past couple thousand years) imperialism have simply used used Islam as a political vehicle, as the Catholic Church did when it politicized Christianity as a hegemonic power for so long.

Look at the macro chronological perspective and the collective unconsciousness of the West.

Ok? And that's why I said you could only maybe attribute the motivations of the Jihadists to Islam. Ultimately, it could also be strongly argued they are only using Islam to justify their other political goals, as opposed to struggling for the sake of Islam itself.

In the end, if World War 3 comes about, it won't be a religious war, but a political one, with bits of commentary thrown about by hacks about how it's a crusade.

[NGNM85]

The idea that the current conflicts and tensions between "The West" and various groups in the Middle East (whether they are mere Jihadist groups or entire countries) are religiously motivated or have their prime causes in religious differences is laughable. I mean, maybe you could make a case for the Jihadists... maybe.

In the case of many prominent Jihadists; certainly.

I’ve been reading recently about Al-Qaeda and the Jihadist subculture, and what struck me most was how so many of the most prominent Jihadists came from such comfortable, (Even wealthy.) well-educated backgrounds. Sayyid Qutb was a well-0educated man who appreciated art, and liked American movies, until inexplicably converting to an extreme, literalist form of Islam. When he first started writing anti-semitic screeds he probably still had not met a Jew in his life. Ayman al-Zawahiri was from an educated, upper-class family, he went to excellent schools, earned a medical degree, and is, by all accounts, an excellent physician. Osama bin Laden has no immediate knowledge of imperialism or oppression. He grew up comfortably, heir to an inheritance worth several million dollars, and went to an excellent school. Many of his siblings went on to become doctors and lawyers.-

Obscure fact; Before deciding that television offended the prophet, young Osama’s favorite TV show was Bonanza.

(For some reason I find this strangely fascinating.)

-Ramzi Yousef earned a college degree in England. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, from a technical college in North Carolina. Most of the 19 9/11 hijackers were unusually well-educated and financially comfortable. So, to make a long story short, in many of these cases ideology seems to play a very significant role.

[Astarte]

Ok? And that's why I said you could only maybe attribute the motivations of the Jihadists to Islam. Ultimately, it could also be strongly argued they are only using Islam to justify their other political goals, as opposed to struggling for the sake of Islam itself.

In the end, if World War 3 comes about, it won't be a religious war, but a political one, with bits of commentary thrown about by hacks about how it's a crusade.

For that matter all war is "political". And for that matter every war any religion has ever waged is a "political" ones, since we know that the elites of any societal mode simply use authoritarian religious belief to further their political and economic ends.

It is just through what perspective you view it - obviously a "Holy" war is only intended for those who take stock in such things and storylines, this would discount atheists and the secular. I suppose it is a subjective matter.

[GPDP]

In the case of many prominent Jihadists; certainly.

I’ve been reading recently about Al-Qaeda and the Jihadist subculture, and what struck me most was how so many of the most prominent Jihadists came from such comfortable, (Even wealthy.) well-educated backgrounds. Sayyid Qutb was a well-0educated man who appreciated art, and liked American movies, until inexplicably converting to an extreme, literalist form of Islam. When he first started writing anti-semitic screeds he probably still had not met a Jew in his life. Ayman al-Zawahiri was from an educated, upper-class family, he went to excellent schools, earned a medical degree, and is, by all accounts, an excellent physician. Osama bin Laden has no immediate knowledge of imperialism or oppression. He grew up comfortably, heir to an inheritance worth several million dollars, and went to an excellent school. Many of his siblings went on to become doctors and lawyers.-

Obscure fact; Before deciding that television offended the prophet, young Osama’s favorite TV show was Bonanza.

(For some reason I find this strangely fascinating.)

-Ramzi Yousef earned a college degree in England. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, from a technical college in North Carolina. Most of the 19 9/11 hijackers were unusually well-educated and financially comfortable. So, to make a long story short, in many of these cases ideology seems to play a very significant role.

Perhaps you are right, but I still do not expect World War 3 to come about as a result of Al-Qaeda's quest for the creation of a global caliphate. Hell, when was the last time they held any real threat? The vast majority of the recent conflicts have been a result of imperialist geopolitics and nationalism, not religious zeal.


For that matter all war is "political". And for that matter every war any religion has ever waged is a "political" ones, since we know that the elites of any societal mode simply use authoritarian religious belief to further their political and economic ends.

It is just through what perspective you view it - obviously a "Holy" war is only intended for those who take stock in such things and storylines, this would discount atheists and the secular. I suppose it is a subjective matter.

Precisely, and as a socialist I think it is important we keep our heads and examine the real material causes for war rather than buy into silly "war of the worlds" narratives. It's not about secularism or even atheism, but materialism.

[NGNM85]

Perhaps you are right, but I still do not expect World War 3 to come about as a result of Al-Qaeda's quest for the creation of a global caliphate.

I agree, this is (thankfully) very unlikely.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I still can't get over the fact that bin Laden used to rock out to this;

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bonanza.jpg

[Ocean Seal]

Let the third war be a class war. And let it be as free from bloodshed as possible. Let the people of the world insurrect and revolt against their oppressors. Let them stand against capitalism together. Let that be the Holy War against everything that is unjust in this world.

In all seriousness I don't believe that there will be a third world war in the classical sense (WWI and WWII). The imperial powers have become too economically tied. They no longer see the reason to fight one another as they have decided to split the gains from imperialism and oppress the imperialized nations together.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Religion doesn't have the motivating hegemonic force that it once had in the West.A religiously based WWIII would entail at least a semi-theocracy at home and this would interfere with capital accumulation -biotech, stem cell research, education,etc. and large chunks of the ruling classes themselves are atheist/agnostic.Secularism is one victory of the bougoise revolution which won't be given up lightly.

The US is something of an exception and the situation is more complicated. Religion is often drummed up in time of war but here again I don't see it being used as an official organizing force for a world war.

Unofficially religiosity is a huge and growing part of the US ideology.An extreme Christian fundamentalism is now the semi-official ideology of the US military. Its impossible to have a career in the US military without being a Christian fundamentalist and explicitly believing that the US is a "chosen" country.There is an article in a recent issue of the liberal Nation magazine detailing the control various fundamentalist groups have in the US military, which is scary.

Religion is used (at various levels and in various venues) as a justification for imperialism and the "collective unconscious" of the Crusades is appealed to, but we won't go back to the days of Richard the Lion Heated and Louis the IX.

[Astarte]

Religion doesn't have the motivating hegemonic force that it once had in the West.A religiously based WWIII would entail at least a semi-theocracy at home and this would interfere with capital accumulation -biotech, stem cell research, education,etc. and large chunks of the ruling classes themselves are atheist/agnostic.Secularism is one victory of the bougoise revolution which won't be given up lightly.

The US is something of an exception and the situation is more complicated. Religion is often drummed up in time of war but here again I don't see it being used as an official organizing force for a world war.

Unofficially religiosity is a huge and growing part of the US ideology.An extreme Christian fundamentalism is now the semi-official ideology of the US military. Its impossible to have a career in the US military without being a Christian fundamentalist and explicitly believing that the US is a "chosen" country.There is an article in a recent issue of the liberal Nation magazine detailing the control various fundamentalist groups have in the US military, which is scary.

Religion is used (at various levels and in various venues) as a justification for imperialism and the "collective unconscious" of the Crusades is appealed to, but we won't go back to the days of Richard the Lion Heated and Louis the IX.

Yeah, that is what I am talking about the intermarriage of fundamentalist right wing Christianity and the military industrial complex ... who are fighting Islamic fundamentalists ... seems like at least 2/3 of a "Holy War".

I know this is a little cliche but the ideology and religion of the ruling class is usually the predominant ideology in society as a whole...

[RadioRaheem84]

I’ve been reading recently about Al-Qaeda and the Jihadist subculture, and what struck me most was how so many of the most prominent Jihadists came from such comfortable, (Even wealthy.) well-educated backgrounds. Sayyid Qutb was a well-0educated man who appreciated art, and liked American movies, until inexplicably converting to an extreme, literalist form of Islam. When he first started writing anti-semitic screeds he probably still had not met a Jew in his life. Ayman al-Zawahiri was from an educated, upper-class family, he went to excellent schools, earned a medical degree, and is, by all accounts, an excellent physician. Osama bin Laden has no immediate knowledge of imperialism or oppression. He grew up comfortably, heir to an inheritance worth several million dollars, and went to an excellent school. Many of his siblings went on to become doctors and lawyers.-


Still don't get why Bin Laden and other member of jihadist groups coming from wealthy backgrounds has anything to do with their "struggle" not being one based in material reality?

Just because someone is well educated doesn't mean they're free from social conditions. What the hell kind of Newsweek/Time Mag BS analysis is that? Their legitimate concerns due to US/Western foreign policy and for the people of the Muslim world, had them take a religious path toward liberation. The geopolitical strategy of supporting dictators in the region quashed leftist alternatives and left a void which religious zealots filled.

The issue is largely political in nature and scope.

No need for this Bernard Lewis, clash of civilizations Huntington bullshit. Religion, like ideals, are not the guiding force behind history, NGN.

For an anarchist, you are the worst materialist I have met.

[Viet Minh]

In terms of religion you could almost divide the World into 3, ie Christendom (allied to Judaism in the form of Israel) Dar al-Islam (Eurasia, North Africa, Middle East, West Asia) and the Dharmic religions in East Asia. It all gets a bit Orwellian! There are further factors though, for instance Sunni and Shia nations, to an extent Catholic and Protestant (for instance a divide in North and Central/ South America) then endless political differences. Here is my attempt at a map of the NWO, the borders between the religious and political divisions actually correspond fairly accurately with ongoing conflicts.
http://i53.tinypic.com/20z1qtk.jpg
*I should clarify that this map isn't entirely based on fact, it was done as a half-assed attempt to reconcile the novel 1984 with the current political climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastasia_(Nineteen_Eighty-Four)#Eastasia

[hatzel]

...I have no idea what the difference between the red and the blue is...:lol:

[Viet Minh]

...I have no idea what the difference between the red and the blue is...:lol:

The red countries are slightly less fascist! :cool:

[Astarte]

No offense, but this map is totally ridiculous and does not even do what it sets out to.


In terms of religion you could almost divide the World into 3, ie Christendom (allied to Judaism in the form of Israel) Dar al-Islam (Eurasia, North Africa, Middle East, West Asia) and the Dharmic religions in East Asia. It all gets a bit Orwellian!

Blue is suppose to be associated with Judeo-Christian society (i guess); "the West". Seeing as though it consists mostly of NATO countries and some of their ex-colonies.

Green is suppose to be associated with Islam ... yet India is Hindu, consists of 1.1 billion people and just seems to be glossed over in this map as "oh - that is the arab world too". No. Tensions between Islam and Hinduism via Pakistan and India are historic and present even today on the international stage.

But the hardest one to figure out is Red, consisting of Russia, China, some Latin American nations that are left leaning, some that are not and some ex-Soviet satellites. It is like some old Cold War Marxist-Leninist's wet-dream of the Socialist bloc. Russia is a wild card I feel today, and could align themselves with anyone, having one foot in both the East and West as a kind of Neo-criminal imperialist power they have no real loyalties to either, but will do what best serves the interests of the ruling class. I think Columbia being Red is a little farfetched as time and again the ruling class and the mode of capitalism has been most concilliatory to US Imperialism.

[hatzel]

Well, it does say underneath 'I should clarify that this map isn't entirely based on fact, it was done as a half-assed attempt to reconcile the novel 1984 with the current political climate', so I don't think it really matters if it's not, you know...factual...:rolleyes:

[Viet Minh]

No offense, but this map is totally ridiculous and does not even do what it sets out to.

It wasn't really set out to do anything, it was just basically a doodle I made ages ago using the wiki map template, out of boredom and not exactly researched in depth. So no none taken!


Blue is suppose to be associated with Judeo-Christian society (i guess); "the West". Seeing as though it consists mostly of NATO countries and some of their ex-colonies.

Sort of yes. Its a very vague interpretation of the west and their allies, eg NATO, some of the EU countries.


Green is suppose to be associated with Islam ... yet India is Hindu, consists of 1.1 billion people and just seems to be glossed over in this map as "oh - that is the arab world too". No. Tensions between Islam and Hinduism via Pakistan and India are historic and present even today on the international stage.

Yes but the tension is not rleigiously based for the most part, Muslims in India don't support Pakistan for example. Pakistan is actually mroe of an ally of the West, some might describe the ongoing conflict in Pakistan as an extension of the conflict in Afghanistan with US backing. India is the hiome of Buddhism, and originally was in my Dharmic nations category, but their relations with China are also fairly frosty so I changed it. Partly also because this was a half baked idea for a novel of some sort, adding India balanced the numbers a bit! I am interested in making a genuine map showing poilitical allegiances, but I haven't found any good sources yet.


But the hardest one to figure out is Red, consisting of Russia, China, some Latin American nations that are left leaning, some that are not and some ex-Soviet satellites. It is like some old Cold War Marxist-Leninist's wet-dream of the Socialist bloc. Russia is a wild card I feel today, and could align themselves with anyone, having one foot in both the East and West as a kind of Neo-criminal imperialist power they have no real loyalties to either, but will do what best serves the interests of the ruling class. I think Columbia being Red is a little farfetched as time and again the ruling class and the mode of capitalism has been most concilliatory to US Imperialism.

Yeah again forgive my ignorance, this wasn't particularly in depth research to say the least :D There is some basic truth to the idea of a western war against Islamic nations, but this map is far from an accurate portrayal of it.

[Viet Minh]

Well, it does say underneath 'I should clarify that this map isn't entirely based on fact, it was done as a half-assed attempt to reconcile the novel 1984 with the current political climate', so I don't think it really matters if it's not, you know...factual...:rolleyes:

Still I did sort of derail a sensible discussion, sorry! :p

[Astarte]

Yes but the tension is not rleigiously based for the most part, Muslims in India don't support Pakistan for example. Pakistan is actually mroe of an ally of the West, some might describe the ongoing conflict in Pakistan as an extension of the conflict in Afghanistan with US backing.

I think Pakistan is fundamentally unstable, and more than likely to eventually break with US Imperialism. The roots of the conflict have been apparent on the world stage since 1947, and they too are entrenched in religious soil. Just because the ruling classes of nations play on religious conflict and exacerbate them for their own ends does not take away from the quality of "religious war", or "religious tension", somehow negating that aspect and making it "not so much religious but political". The owning class in the capitalist epoch seems to like to latch on to and co-opt religious conflicts which can be traced back hundreds or thousands of years for their own ends.