What went right/wrong during the last 100 years in the Middle East?

sykes-picot and the eternal anglo

>what went right
Oil

>what went wrong
Ba'athism

america liberating the fuck out of them is what went wrong.

>what went right?
israel

>what went wrong?
nothing else

Fall of the Ottoman Empire

turks and mongols were an inside job
horse archers cant breach walls

it all went to shit after that

You can still find fundamentalist Islam in rich countries. That Saudis fund terror is no secret. I lived in the UAE, one of the richest of the gulf states and, though it was only a tiny minority, there were people honking horns the night of 9/11, something they'd customarily do to celebrate soccer victories.

That said there is a silent majority in many gulf countries who are quite progressive and westernized. It's easy to assume every Muslim wants strict interpretations of Islamic laws but if this were the case I'd probably be in jail for some of the stupid shit I did over there as an American teenager, ex. being busted for graffiti that, in retrospect, was very offensive to Islam.

You're both retards.

The Iranian Revolution and the subsequent Iran-Iraq War, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and the Grand Mosque Seizure of Mecca - all of which happened in 1979 is what led to the rise in the virulent and sectarian form of Islamist fundamentalism we see today.

1979 was the watershed year that changed everything. Faced with the prospect of a revolutionary government across the Gulf that wanted to "export its revolution" and fundamentalist malcontents at home that were willing to go so far as to seize Mecca to further their agenda, Saudi Arabia began propagating Sunni Wahhabi doctrine across the Islamic world to counter Iran. Meanwhile, the Iranian government did the same, but with Shi'ite Messianism instead of Wahhabism (and to great effect in Iraq, Lebanon, and Pakistan).

The Soviet War in Afghanistan would eventually lead to the rise of Al-Qaeda, instability in Pakistan, the rise of prominent jihadi movements in the Middle East and South Asia, and tons of money and arms and munitions being moved around that would eventually fall into the wrong hands.

Eternal Anglo shitting the place up. Should've just left them alone to be savages, but "muh civilizing influence" and "muh resource race" ruined everything.

...

Annnnnnd the reason for the 1979 Islamic Revolution was because the CIA deposed Mossadegh and installed a corrupt, pro-corporate Shah as the leader of Iran, at the request of BP. Oil was literally the reason.

The formation and spread of Al-qaeda probably stemmed from the fact that the US-backed mujaheedeen led by Osama were snubbed in favor of Saudi Arabia.

One of the big reasons why the Middle East has regressed in the past 50 years is because of the rise in influence of their rednecks.

With the arrival of "democracy " and populism, mass media, skyrocketing agricultural output, and a rural Exodus, the rich westernized minority urbanites were no longer making the decisions.

Cities grew crazy fast and became filled with traditionalist rural folks who in the past were nothing more than peasants. This phenomena is quite similar to what happened in 19th century Europe and the rise of nationalism+populism.

This is why westernization has been rejected all over the Middle East.

The borders they have to deal with.

These.
Of course Sykes-Picot / Balfour Declaration / Anglos in general managed to mess up the nation borders in Middle-East pretty well.

But rise of radical Islam happened well after WW2, mainly during the 80's.

Even during the early years of the Israeli state, Arab hostility towards them was not for fundamentalist religious reasons, this was still the time when Pan-Arabist movement was strong, and to any Pan-Arabist movement the pushing of Israel on to Arab soil (from their perspective) by western imperialists was simply unacceptable.

Afghanistan was pretty much doomed to fail form the start.

...

This makes sense
The sykes picot agreement and Israel mandate, the world powers fueling sectarianism for their interests, NATO propping up Israel as the regional power, Saudis getting mad stacks and funding Wahhabi doctrine throughout the middle east.

- forced installation of European institutions and values which doesn't work so good without European context
- ambiguous policy of powers (dictators are bad, democracy is good, but dictators who support as are good and elected governments who doesn't are not)

Oil.

>get owned by the mongols
>get owned by the turks
>get owned by colonialism
>get owned by the jews
>get owned by america and soviet union
>get owned by america again

And now they are owning themselves with isis

The late Otomans and Qajars were late to industrialization. Much like Latin America and the rest of the "third world" they relied heavily on resource capitulations and things like railroad being built by Germans as opposed to self reliance, this led to dependency and a lack of real control over their economy, with most of their wealth being pumped into countries like Britain and Germany where the rich capitalists lived.

World War I only made this worse as the imperialism became more direct with the Mandates and the Sauds being propped up by the British but once again Saudi oil capitulations to the Americans slowed their growth

All this imperialism and poverty despite resources puts a bad taste in one's mouth so anti-western sentiment.

As for the immigrants who do terrorist attacks it's a mixture of solidarity with their people getting fucked over and general disillusionment with their material reality. You're less likely to become a terrorist if you have a good paying job you love.

>You're less likely to become a terrorist if you have a good paying job you love.
i love this liberal myth, half the people joining isis are college educated sociopaths from rich families.
This myth allows liberals to not pass blame on the stupidity of islam

Blaming Islam is the easy uneducated answer. It wouldn't matter what their faith is, it's just something to rally their discontent around.

This is pretty much true

Before 1979 the only people committing suicide bombing attacks were the PFLP aka the gommies in Palestine.

i dont see hindus blowing people up, islam is a poison that regressive liberals are happy to ignore cause HUDRR DONT BE MEAN TO BROWN PEOPLE DURR

Then why weren't there suicide bombers and durkas in WWI? Why were the Bosniaks the less genocidal group in the Yugoslav wars?

Your /pol/ liberal boggeyman is incredibly stupid... anyway basing lifestyle on material condition is a marxist thing not a liberal thing

>Blaming Islam is the easy uneducated answer.
>ur dumb
Everytime. This is the extent of the "liberal" argument.

You should read "the closing of the muslim mind", you might learn a thing or two.

>Then why weren't there suicide bombers and durkas in WWI?
Over 3 million christians were annihilated by muslims for being christians during ww1.

Read this comment
Anyway Hindus can be real SOBs too

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)

CLUCK PROOFS

Indira Gandhi was not a hindu nationalist, she was a marxist.

That's just not true

If you're talking about the Armenian genocide that had nothing to do with religion and the number was much lower.

The Armenians were seen as dangerous because they were seen as close to Russia and therefore seditious. The Ottomans had already seen independence movements break up their empire in the baklans and European sponsored campaigns take their North African empire.

They forcibly moved them and a lot of people died, it was paranoia as they didn't want a violent insurrection on another front when they were already having trouble maintaining a war against the technologically superior British on multiple fronts.

>If you're talking about the Armenian genocide that had nothing to do with religion and the number was much lower.
t. Cenk

Yeah yeah I know the excuses. Same thing for the jews desu, Hitler just wanted to safely move them away from the allied bombings, but they died during the trip! It was all an accident!

That's just not true

She was at best a social democrat... do you even know what Marxism is? What means of production were popularly owned in India? Where were the collective farms?

No historian says 3 million died.

Did you even listen to me or are you just obsessed with trying to prove your prejudice despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

I meant ideologically you stupid nigger. She didn't derive her policies and political opinions from the Rig Veda, but from Das Kapital. I didn't say she was a bolshevik. Learn to read.

>No historian says 3 million died.
I don't know the precise figure. I said 3 million off the top of my head. It doesn't really matter if it's 1 million or 3 million. It only matters to the t*rkroach trying to whitewash mudslime genocides in Anatolia during ww1.

>plays down Armenian genocide

TURK ALERT TURK ALERT TURK ALERT

He never played down the Genocide, GE talked about its causes.

Kiddies from /int/ and /pol/ are a cancer to Veeky Forums

She didn't derive her opinions from Marx either, where do you get the idea she ever read Marx?

>Implying the Ottoman Empire was muslim
It was a early modern empire, do we talk about the Christian genocide of the Jews in 1939? Religion was fairly meaningless to the Ottomans, sodomy was legal 100 years before it was legal in Christian Europe

>what went wrong

Arab nationalism failed. Nasser was doing well up until the Six-Day War. If he'd normalised relations with Israel beforehand, the Middle East would be a whole lot more advanced/peaceful, and militant Islam simply wouldn't exist in the sense it does today.

Likewise, had Mosaddegh remained in power, Iran would have much better relations with Arab states. The Middle East is one giant tribute to the virtues of forward-thinking secular nationalism.

>you stupid nigger

Come on man, can we not have just one board where people actually talk about ideas rather than flaming each other?

Islam

>Eh. The 9/11 terrorists were very well off and well educated.
You inadvertently touched on something that gets lost in these debates about wealth and terrorism. It's not about religion, but ideology (albeit one that heavily incorporates religion) attracting a certain kind of person of a certain mindset.

The 9/11 terrorists were comparatively well off and educated, but in the way many suburban Americans are well off and well educated - aging, losing their grasp on heady dreams of their privileged upbringing, lacking social and economic prospects, and all around depressed individuals. They're the sort of people who, if they spoke English and liked anime, would end up on /r9k/, /x/, or /pol/, but because they were from Saudi Arabia and had no friends were easy targets for Al Qaeda recruitment and brainwashing instead of gearing themselves up for a mass shooting.

like seriously, how shitty do you have to be as a people to get owned by a small group of jews in 6 days.

>i love this liberal myth, half the people joining isis are college educated sociopaths from rich families.
Without good paying jobs they loved, pay attention. If being college educated was the key to happiness, we wouldn't have had 99% rallies.

>oh i dont gots a job guess i got to kill a bunch of people cause god told me to

islam is poison bra

That's a straw man and you know it. There's far more to the mentality than "I don't have a job".

yeah, their fairy tail book of poison tells them to kill non believers

Yet that's what happened in the end, however absurd you try to forcibly reduce the issue. One of the 9/11 hijackers literally spent half a year in his parent's house being a NEET.

When these sorts of effects are spread beyond the social outcasts of societies, you get the Arab Spring instead (and in America's case, Trump/Sanders supporters).

hey are you that guy who blew up on my the first time i posted this?

so you agree islam is poison, if there was no islam this person would not be told to kill by his god.

Radical Islam is only the vessel into which individuals with various social and mental issues pour themselves. It's demonstrable in ways the vague 'It's Islam, stupid!' argument can never be.

Plus, there are many kinds of terrorists. The suicide bomber is not the same as the foreign fighter is not the same as the tribal militiaman.

Radical Jihadi Islamism is poison, yes.

wrong
>sykes-picot
>balfour declaration
>Mcmahon correspondence
>the rising tide of sectarianism following 1979
>operation ajax
>the irgun
>nasserism and ba'thism both failing to provide competent long term arab leadership
>france carving up the syrian coast and subsequent maronite shenanigans
>Wahhabism gaining a platform through saudi arabia
>2003 invasion of iraq
>erdogan
>general economic struggles and inequalities from the fall of the ottoman empire until today

right
>oil for gulf states
>Ataturk
>iran being fairly economically successful folowing fundamentalist revolution and war
>jordan
>oman
>the food is still good?

Demise of Sufism coupled with degrading ecology with, well, western interventions

>and Pakistan

explain

inb4 Kashmir region is an effective shia stronghold

meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

i saw some people do an interesting criticism of this but i cant remember where, i still think it has some good points though

>Religion was fairly meaningless to the Ottomans
That, that's just wrong.
I get what you mean but really the Ottomans of the 15th-18th century were just as Ottoan

Same thing that happened to balkans - in the former Empire colonies and countries. In that case, Ottoman Empire. In balkans, that's Austria-Hungary. Same thing happening to Russian Empire in the Ukraine, happened in Chechenya and Georgia.
Just like the shenanigans and fun when Roman Empire collapsed. It'll take some time to stabilize.