You're really underestimating the existence of islamist movements with a propensity for political violence prior to the 1980's - the Egyptian Ikhwan, for example, wasn't exactly a bunch of hippie innocents back in the 1940's and 50's - and al Qaeda is as much an outgrowth of Qutb's, and the wider Brotherhood movement's, ideological descent into political violence against Nasser and the Free Officers as anything else
The Islamist movement in Egypt is a reactionary force against Monarchy imposed by the Briitish empire and eventually against Secular dictatorship(not imposed by any external influences but a wrong apparatus to use in ruling over a nation . Religious movement has been used as form of defence against economic and social oppression, of course something that isn't to be condoned and a wrong way to solve problems as it only breeds more violence.
Afghanistan ( along with Algeria and Egypt ) were the testing grounds for this back in the 1990's - they had precious little to do with the reality of the Afghan struggle against the Soviets in the 1980's
Afghanistan; got mixed up in a cold war, an almost similar situation that Syria is finding itself now.
Algeria; We all know about the French colonialism and the effects its having on France now like Charlie Hebdo attack.
Egypt; Testing grounds for what? If I may ask.
]Juhayman and his cronies who took over the Grand Mosque? Mahdists
A rebellion against Saudi Monarchs.
Mahdists? A rebellion against British empire, Sudan right? Yup, its well documented
The current Saudi state is the third such incarnation since the mid-18th century - it's genesis had nowt to do with British Imperialism, had a lot to do with the original alliance between the Al Saud's and Abdel Ibn Wahhab, and was an aggressive reactionary "imperialistic" movement against Ottoman control of the Hijaz in its own right,
capitalising on the vacuum that temporarily opened up when Napoleon upended Egypt and, when they had a spare moment,
One question, Who gave Al Saud and Wahhab weapons to conquer all the tribes in Hijaz?
[/quote]The Ottoman empire was already dead and buried by the time the current Saudi state coalesced in the early thirties - the British actually supported the Sharrief of Mecca in the first instance, but he proved incompetent and unpopular, and got relegated to the kingship of Jordan.[/quote]
It may be dead but Sykes-Picot agreement was the real genesis of the mess that is currently going on.
The US was desperate to impose Maliki on Iraq? You must be from an alternate dimension.
Whoa! Slow down homie. I didn't say they were desperate. I said they put Shia as the leader,I got that right only that I got the name wrong.
They were desperate to impose Iyad Allawi, who, having failed against Ibrahim al Jaffari the first time round, failed again, with Maliki emerging as the face-saving compromise that was cooked up when it was obvious that Allawi could never electorally succeed to the premiership.
How is this relevant?
I'm not going to downplay the issue of foreign meddling in the region as part of the problem, but the Middle East was never tabula rasa, and has been the site of both internal and Islamic imperial conflict since the 7th century ( or more accurately, since forever ).
I never said Middle East was a tabula rasa but it still doesn't absolve West responsibility in invading the region. Western Imperialism should be condemned as we condemn Islamism as they are both proven to be an oppressive forces to humanity.
What we're actually seeing is one of those periodic revivals of Mahdism - and these are always responses to the fact that things change, that power systems get reconfigured and that history moves on.
What are the features of Mahdism movement if I may ask?
As for the bolded part, true. True but it still doesn't mean we should condone or downplay the destructive role that imperialism had on humanity and just focus on the symptoms such as Islamism.