Why do people hate them? Even other Arabs and Muslims do, the gulfies I've met have been pretty cool desu

>we deserve it
no one deserves to be hated for the actions of his govt

Absolutely no one in the mahreb care, or a fortiori, hates the gulf states. It's literally only internet memes from a tiny autistic diaspora vocal minority on some meme identitarian websites.
The only relatioship between north african population and gulf is Mecca, that's small, even Saudi Arabia have a very positive image because of that. But the average maghrebi have the same opinion on gulf state as they have on indonesia, pakistan or somalia, they dont care.

Nothing makes whitoids rage harder than successful and wealthy brown people

I've been to UAE. It gives rather extremely vibes.
On one hand they are rich AF: skyscrappers expensive cars, on the other it's extremely islamic.

The Saudi dynasty sized the power against the ottoman in the 18th and founded the first saudi state in 1744 also called the emirate of Diriyah
The Qatar royal family aka the Al Thani also took power in the ottoman context
Morocco maintained its monarchy since several centuries despite the wars with the ottoman.
The Idris king of Libya also took power because of the long senussi ottoman conflicts. But gaddafi etc. ousted hil.
Tunisia had a monarch until the mid-19th but he was kicked out.
Irak also killed its king during a coup.
Egypt had a monarchy under mehmet ali until the natioanlists of the mid-20th kicked them out

all MENA countries have monarchies, it's the opposite that constitute an anaomly. Expect Algeria but it's complicated.

We just never had a democracy. And keep in mind Saudi Arabia is so big because they had british weaponry given to them by their allies. Those weapons are what helped them expand.
All of the monarchs were allied to Britain. And the US inherited those allies after it became a superpower.

yeah I just meant our countries deserve it. But I did clarify we as a people aren't truly responsible for it. we hold no power.

makes sense

this is bull though

Also,
the Khalifa royal family of Bahrain rule since 1766 in an ottoman context
Lamine Bey of Tunisia (ottoman context) ruled until 1957, his dynasty started in 1705.
jordania still have its king.
The Oman have its royal family since Al Said took power in 1744
Yemen had the Mutawakkilite dynasty that ruled until the 1970s/.
Again Algeria is the only country whitout any great historical royal family.

Maybe the neo-edgy tunisia, the secular to atheist one, hate the gulf because of what they represent (I guess backward conservative islamic forces that diffuse their mesasge throught tv, media etc.), but it's still a tiny minority in the maghreb, very active on internet tho.
Tunisia is rather edgy in general.

-extra conservative and misogynist society, not asking them to be western tier degenerate animals, but everything is better in moderation
-history of political activism that harmed the region
-ruled by royalty

their gouvermant but it's funny because if they didn't have the monarchy that they have today they would have been as cucked as the eu

Attached: uae-eth.gif (160x265, 4K)

Yo Oman? How's your country? Food? Cheap or expensive? Might visit in a year from now

>extra conservative and misogynist society
I don't see how we are more misogynist than you but I'm assuming you're just referring to Saudi Arabia.

>history of political activism that harmed the region
what?? I think you worded this wrong. Did you mean to say: "history of geopolitical activity that harmed the region"?

>if they didn't have the monarchy that they have today they would have been as cucked as the eu
what's the logic behind this? I'm assuming you mean if we were democracies and didn't have kind dictatorships.
I guess you mean that we would have a lot of immigrants coming in for the oil money and then they become the "new-arabs" just like the "new-europeans"? if that's what you mean then yeah you might be right.

>but my parents - moroccans as me
You have to go back

Because they are hypocrites, they should try to unfuck the middle east region starting from Yemen, Palestine, Syria etc. But no, let's waste this oil money for some vanity projects instead of for the well being of Muslims worldwide.

and didn't have any* kind of* dictatorships

>I don't see how we are more misogynist than you but I'm assuming you're just referring to Saudi Arabia.
i was
>what?? I think you worded this wrong. Did you mean to say: "history of geopolitical activity that harmed the region"?
history of political actions*
ye your wording can work too

the consequence of the arab revolt and then the Hashemite era are the main reason iraq is fucked up today tho.

The whole post-ottoman levant/iraq is a disaster. It was stable under the georgian mamluks but since then...

They're really brown and I don't want people looking at them and associating them with us

the money is for the chosen people just a few kilometers away from them.

The people that should get the blame for Iraq are the americans, Saddam, and the terrorist and whoever financed them and their ideology.
Iraq would have been a perfectly normal and stable country if it was an actual democracy without Kurdistan.

Surprised at the Muslim response.

I would say for the 20th it's the Anglo/Brit, French, Americans, the Baathist state, Israel, Saoudi Arabia and Iran.
It's such a mess with many people/states involved, honestly if we go back, it's the eternal split between persia and the rest that caused this.

History wise, Iran under the Safavid, converting the region to shiism, is 50% the reason of modern problem, both Safavid, Qajar, Ottoman, Afsharid destroyed and divided this region for centuries trying to conquer irak.

>History wise, Iran under the Safavid, converting the region to shiism

Attached: 1556223414769.jpg (518x507, 85K)

I'm not taking sides, but the Safavid decision to convert its population to shiism for political purposes (differenciate themselve from the sunni turkish dynasties like Ottoman/Moghols) created a lot of troubles and divided the regions

Iran and Ottoman fought for Irak for centuries, taking baghdad and losing it every few decades. Iran with its militia is just doing what it did for centuries, expect it's 2019 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Baghdad#16th–19th_centuries

I respect any faith but it's impossible to deny that the sectarian split in Irak is the result of Iran/Persian imperialism (legitimate or not)

>until the natioanlists of the mid-20th kicked them ou
*********the nasserists/pan-arabists

This is the only correct answer

>Nasserism is a socialist Arab nationalist political ideology
you don't consider Nasserism as a form of Natioanlism? The Qutbists considered them as nationalists.

Conversion to Shi'ism was the best thing Safavids did for Iran, it allowed for remergence of Iranian culture and identity that was under threat of extinction after the Mongol invasion. Going that far back to justify modern day conflicts is kinda retarded

point is iraq was shia from the begining, a good 800 years before iran converted to shia

because they're horrible people

honestly we should just let Iran and Israel split up the region between them and them watch them duke it out

The Safavid were indeed a good period in iranian history, not denying this, I guess if we ignore the initial violent qizilbash conquest, forced convertion, destruction of sunni mosquee, persection etc. but that's just part of history of that period, it's hard to judge with our current modern values.
But in the end it was worth it as Iran was shining under the Safavid for the first time since the brutal mongol conquest, and then timur's doing.

Still, their long-term consequences are still extremly visible.

>Going that far back to justify modern day conflicts is kinda retarded
C'mon, the whole saudi-iran influence war in the middle east: lebanon (hebzollah), yemen (houthis), iraq (shia militias etc.) are mostly religious based, even if religion isnt the initial issue, it's certainly used by both saudi and iran for their proxy-wars.

I'm not saying that there is bad guy and a good guy, it's a grey area, but you cant deny that religion is one
I guess we can blame the fatimid too.

Honestly dont mind if the region was totally sunni or totally shia, the issue is that it's not one or the other.

Eh, yeah iraq was shia to some degree, but the Safavid/Iranian dynastie accelerated this process in the last centuries.

>Ismail peacefully seized Baghdad in 1508. However, his armies zealously killed Sunnis and actively persecuted them through tribal allies of the Shah.[51] His armies also destroyed several important Sunni sites, including the tombs of Abū Ḥanīfa and Abdul-Qadir Gilani. The Safavids even expelled the family of Gilani from Mesopotamia. After declaring Shiism the official form of Islam in Iraq, Ismail forced his new Iraqi subjects to convert to Shiism and outlawed Sunni practices. He then returned to Persia. These draconian actions by the conquering Safavids caused the Mesopotamian Sunnis to seethe with resentment.[52]

>Likewise, under Tahmasp I, central and southern Iraq, including Baghdad and Basra had remained in Safavid hands and efforts were being made to establish Shiism in place of Sunnism in these lands. Sunni scholars who refused to accept Shia doctrines were executed and Sunni tombs and shrines were destroyed once again, while the main mosques were converted for Shia use only.

It's hard to tell the % of shia/sunni in Iraq 500 or 300 years ago compared to today. But Iran played some role in recent centuries.

The only thing that bother me really is that it was not some faithfull conversion, it was purely political strategy.