Middle East conflict and whether Western blame oversimplifies its causes

Amazing isn't it. A "foreign" brutal dictator is an horrific brutal dictator. But an "English" brutal dictator was not. It appears he was doing it "for the good of the people" ? Or something like that.

And for long after Cromwell it was still going on. Open warfare in the UK during the '45. Go into the start of the 20th century even.. striking miners in Wales... send the army in. Famine in Bengal... let them starve.

Iran wasn't actually colonised by the west.

Alexander the Great would disagree as would his Macedonian general, Selucid
Trajan might also have a point of order as he did in fact conquer and colonise Parthia- a kingdom that made up a good part of Iran.

Yeah, in Ireland for example, his army genocide 1/3rd, ethnically cleansed 1/3rd by selling them off as ‘servants’ in the colonies and ethnically cleansed the last 1/3rd of the surviving Irish onto Gaeltags (reservations) in the west of Ireland. Refusal to be ethnically cleansed was a hanging offence, so you’d be added to the genocide tally.

No brutality there.

I agree with the basic premise that it’s too complex to point a finger at the west and blame the west for all the problems in the Middle East.

But OP you picked an example of the opposite- suicide bombing is a terror tactic that was taught to Iranians by Russians. It originated in the West.

Quote " Er, no, Cromwell was NOT a brutal dictator in England..."..

Erm, I note you specified that by saying in England.

Of course he was a brutal dictator. They pretty much all were.

The first suicide bomber - not due to any conflict with a Western power but arose from the conflict of Iran/Iraq.

Um no, the 1st suicide bomber was in 1881 Russia, not 1980 Iran

You have mistakenly? Paraphrased the linked article which stated:
The modern Middle-Eastern suicide bomber, the archetypal face of 21st-century terrorism, did not first emerge from the rubble of 9/11 nor the insurgencies in Iraq and Syria. Rather, the modern architecture of martyrdom was born earlier, in a different war and under a different banner: that of the Islamic Republic of Iran during its brutal conflict with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s.

The first suicide bomber was in Russia, St Petersburg.
On 13 March 1881, Ignaty Grinevitsky watched as his accomplice threw a small bomb at the convoy of Tsar Alexander II outside the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. Safely enclosed in a carriage made from bullet-proof material as a gift from Napoleon III, the Tsar stepped out, dazed but unhurt.
Grinevitsky saw his chance. The young man, a member of The People’s Will left-wing terrorist group, rushed towards his target, dropping a bomb at the Tsar’s feet killing them both.
The night before the attack Grinevitsky had written: ‘I shall not live one day, one hour in the bright season of our triumphs, but I believe that with my death I shall do all that it is my duty to do.’ And in that deadly act, Grinevitsky was to make his mark on history: the first recorded suicide bomber.

And we all know that Russia was a close Ally to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Sending weapons, arms, training their forces.

The idea of suicide bombing was probably taught to Iranians by Russians.

So, yeah, the West has its sticky dicky fingerprints all over suicide bombing as a tactic for a century before the Middle East adopted it.

Er, no, Cromwell was NOT a brutal dictator in England and neither was Charles II. Very interested in who Charles hunted to the ends of the earth? You perhaps misunderstand the seriousness of a regicide in those days though. Anyway, These are nonsense comparisons. Obviously the definition of a strongman dictator is that they rule by draconian rule. The existence of these people is not the fault of the West.

Then you totally misunderstood my post. The only way strong men dictators, like Gaddafi, remain in power is by draconian rule. I'm not saying it is right but when a country, like Libya, is divided into different tribes and factions, all vying for power, the only way any political leader is going to survive is with tactics which we would class as barbaric. This is nothing new. In the UK, before we became a constitutional Monarchy, which is our form of democracy, Oliver Cromwell was a brutal dictator. When Charles II came to power, although he pardoned his enemies with the Declaration of Breda but not the ones who were actively involved in his fathers execution. They were hunted to the ends of the earth. (The angel of Hadley is an interesting story). The point is brutal suppression of opposition is nothing unique to Gaddafi. The current state of Libya, however, a destroyed country in tatters being run by criminals who care nothing for the people, is the direct responsibility of the West.

What does Saddam say ?

All the nasty things he did but just to his opponents (so that's ok).

I don't understand what you are saying. Made him do what?

So the West made him do it is what your argument boils down to. Which does neatly take us back to what some of us have been saying.

At no point have I said that Gaddafi was not ruthless with the ones he perceived as opposition and did not commit crimes against humanity. This was not really the point of the thread though. The thing is about dictators like him is they know they have to be brutal because there are groups who are vying to exploit any chink in his armour to violently overthrow him. More importantly and in relation to this thread, they know from the history of other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq and Abdul Kareem Qasim, if the US/West want them out, they will support whichever group they want in order to facilitate that overthrow as they eventually did with Gaddafi. In Gaddafi's case, they didn't just passively support, they intervened with direct military action just as they have done in Iran but so far failed. There is no doubt that Gaddafi insisted on absolute political obedience, but a couple of quotes I have heard from Libyans being interviewed in programs since his overthrow but at this moment I can't remember which, "Keep your mouth shut and you live like a king" or more poignantly I remember one saying "We had no freedom under Gaddafi, but we had security. Now we have neither". (The quote I gave earlier I think was by Jude Bella but I'm not sure why I put it as a quote as it is a summary of what he said). The point is, Gaddafi was monstrous to whomever he perceived as his opponents but was more than benevolent to not just his supporters but anyone who didn't actively oppose him. That would be the majority of the country.

Well the ones who were raped, tortured or killed by him would be yeah. Or is all of that justified of other people turn out okay? Crimes against humanity are no big deal if you approve of his economic policy.

And you have the gall to call other posters sickening for their views.

BTW, it's usually good manners to say who you're quoting, especially when you're using it to defend monsters.

Saddam Hussain says otherwise.

And do you think your average Libyan is better of today without him?

"While the Obama administration celebrated the intervention at the time as a success achieved without American casualties, the lack of post-war stabilization planning caused Libya to instantly fracture into a lawless failed state. The vacuum opened the door to a decade of brutal factional civil wars, the rise of extremist groups, and human rights crises."

"His biggest sin though was when he tried to unite Africa and move away from the petrodollar."

What did he do for his people? Repress them, massacre them, torture them, rape them. But "The West" didn't like him so I'm sure he was lovely.

Keep the population compliant? You just can't accept the fact that he might not have been all bad and cared about not just his people, but the whole of Africa. Once again, don't take my word for it, ask some actual Libyans. You really believe he was overthrown by internal forces he tried to crackdown on. He did try to crackdown on the rebellion but if you want to know why he failed, look up Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Quote "Just sounds like something a despot might say doesn't it?"

Not if that despot was put into power by the west.

Incidentally the stability of a dictatorship is preferable to anything else is a position most often put forward by either dictators or people speaking from the comfort of a democracy.

Like I said above, like all effectuve dictators he did things to keep the population compliant and there was some genuinely positive improvements. I doubt very much that political opponents, or the indigenous groups he was repressing saw much of it. Most people prefer stability over chaos, but the stability for some came at huge cost for others, and even for them. So it would very much depend who you ask. Gaddafi was overthrown by internal forces that he tried to crackdown on!

Okay, I'll give you a list.

Free healthcare including the government paying for foreign health care if it wasn't available domestically.

Free electricity and water.

0% interest on loans.

If anyone wanted to become a farmer they were given a plot of arable land, a farmhouse, agricultural machinery, seeds, and livestock completely free of charge to jumpstart their business.

Newly weds were given $50,000 towards buying their first home.

If you wanted to buy a car, the government paid 50% of the value of the car.

Education was free including foreign study and even more, if a graduate could not find a job they were given average equivalent of the salary in their field until they found a job.

Yes, he was authoritarian and political dissent was not tolerated but ask a Libyan whether life was better in Libya before he was overthrown. As I said, what got him overthrown was the Gold Dinar for the whole of Africa which he was trying to introduce. That idea died with him. What a coincidence.

To be fair he had a lot of oil money to invest.

Its right out of the populist playbook like blaming the EU for the state of Britain today. There's someone somewhere still going on about the Norman yoke no doubt.