Why has the Middle East been such a continually unstable place to live? Reading the history of the region...

Political pisslam and the eternal indifference of industrialisation and infrastructure that the Ottomans couldn't wrap their heads around.

Israel no really Israel, without Israel the M.E would still be under Ottoman or Sassanid rule.

And what did the Ottomans ever do for their territories? Brainlet tier analysis user. If you look past the cool concept of emire, you'll find that the Ottomans neglected anything they conquered other than Istanbul which was already a monumental city before them. All tge cities the Ottomans established were shit and on par with shanty towns. They never industrialised, at one point even Bulgaria under the Ottomans was more industrialised than their own rulers due to native Bulgarian entrepreneurs. Israel is the only half decent place in the middle east along with Cyprus and maybe Jordan. But blaming religious autism on Israel is silly.

During his last years, his face was pregnant with a baby potato.

>US did not intervene over there until very recently.
The CIA supported the 49 coup in Syria

So you are wrong

They also sent troops to lebanon iraq and a lot of other states during the 60s

>And what did the Ottomans ever do for their territories?
Who cares what they did, at least those areas would be stable. The bullshit in the M.E is not religion its ethnic territorial disputes caused by the european cancer not returning the Ottoman and Sassanid territories leaving people to form their own states.

>at least those areas would be stable
No

Not him, but it's not like Europe was stable during the time periods in that picture.

Do you know when the Sassanids were last around, user?

Most the fucking middle east is desert dotted with settlements near rivers or the coast. They don't have the climate to suite modern infrastructure like in the west as easily. If it weren't for the shitloads of oil and being on naturally important global trade routes they would be as backwards as North African countries. Geography = Destiny

But user, the Ottomans were a foreign power too

>Geography=destiny
user I have so many examples do disprove your entire post

Gimme sum nigga

Not that guy, but

Israel, Singapore, North and South Korea.

>not knowing who Süleyman the Magnificent is

shame!

>North Western europe
>North Eastern europe
--------------------------------
>South America, Africa
>Australia, South Africa, New Zealand
---------------------------------
>Japan & Korea
>The rest of northern Asia
---------------------------------
>Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus
>the levant
----------------------------------
>UAE
>the rest of the middle east
-----------------------------------
>Europe
>The caucasus and Stans
----------------------------------
>The clusterfuck that is Southern asia

Geography doesn't come first, it's how you play your cards, or how the cards are played on you.

kek
got no argument? just blame the anglo

>Singapore

Go on.

Pretty much. Singapore was lucky enough to be a massive trading hub and lucky enough to be administered by a sane rational man who learned from the British.

South Korea decided to invest in its people as a side effect of not having much natural resources.

North Korea...is a buffer supported by China (for the momement)

But geography can be a destiny if you're stuck with an initial shitty ruling regime with control of natural resources.

Washington, by stepping down, set an example for the US that is fortunate. Of course Washington, and the early generations of the USA, would benefit from a soil quality that would make them nearly a foot taller than their European counterparts.

It's all in the politicunts hands my child. Resources are always there to be acquired. Not all resource rich countries by geography are prosperous. In fact, it's mostly the opposite. Resource rich countries tend to be drained for wealthier, less self-sufficient ones.

*builds prosperous and statistically safe nation in the wild jungle*

by stealing nukes and shekels from the U.S.

Even the pre-Islamic cultures were hellbent on each other's destruction.

Nigga who cares they have an OK country in the middle east! I'd quicker choose to eradicate all radical pisslamist morons then risk the safety of a successful, passive state.

>thinking support for = direction of
the instabillity was internal to begin with, not external. Ditto on lebanon, if anything the international community has repeatedly attempted and failed to stabilize the region with peacekeeping forces

>this buttmad arab

>as backwards as North African countries
How are middle eastern countries any better than north african ones?

>Anglos/French set the boundaries before promptly fucking off with relatively stable countries left behind.
I have no Idea how someone can look at Irak borders and say that.
You call a country with 3 different groups, of more or less equal numbers, who don't want anything to do with the other stable?

Not really of equal numbers, but still big enough to stir shit up in a new country with no sense of patriotism yet.
No seriously they had no excuse for this, especially when you consider that the armenian genocide showed the dangers of 2 rival ethnic groups living in the same country.

>US did not intervene over there until very recently.
?

under the ottomans it was relatively peaceful(except for eastern Iraq)