Decades of British and American intervention in the oil-rich Middle East motivated the London bombers, Ken Livingstone has suggested. ... he argued that the attacks would not have happened had Western powers left Arab nations free to decide their own affairs after World War I. Instead, they had often supported unsavoury governments in the region. ... Mr Livingstone was asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme what he thought had motivated the bombers. He replied: "I think you've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. "We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic."
During the Cold War the USA had to align itself with some unsavory leaders; this was practical, and not unlike how FDR and Churchill used Stalin to defeat Hitler. Some unsavory Arab nations fell in that category. Let's examine them closely, though: Iraq, Syria, Egypt (until 1970), and Libya, were all "clients" of the USSR; (2) Iran was a "client" of the USA and the UK - AND IT WAS BETTER FOR IRANIANS UNDER THE SHAH; Algeria and Morocco and Tunisia and Ethiopia were more influenced by the French and the Italians and the Germans than either the USA or UK; Jordan was "NEUTRAL" - remember, it was the late King Hussein (a Hashemite descendent of Mohammed) who defeated Arafat and kicked him into Lebanon (without aid from either the USA or the UK!). AND FINALLY: In fact, the EU has largely been anti-Israel and pro-Arab since Munich in 1972 - which is 33 - YES THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO! So nearly VERY ARAB ALIVE TODAY HAS EXPERIENCED A EUROPE AND A UK WHICH IS MUCH MORE PRO-ARAB THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN PRO-ISRAEL.
ALSO: much of the world's oil comes from outside the Arab world: Africa, Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, the North Sea nations and Russia produce as much as the Arabs do. The USA and the UK do NOT get most of their oil from Saudi Arabia. While Middle Eastern oil is vital to the West, it is equally vital to the ENTIRE WORLD. Leftists who contend that the West got rich by stealing resources or labor from the Third Word are NUTS. If that was truen, then Africa and Soiuth America would be rich NOW - soince colonialism died fifty years ago. BUT THE FACT ITS... that "Arabia" and Africa and South America have gotten POORER - just as Asia got richer. WHY IS THIS SO: Because Asia largely embraced freer trade and free markets (China did in 1979, and stopped being a poor basketcase as a result!). Socialism is what makes the Arab world poor. YUP: Baathism is nothiong more thasn Islamic Scoailism. Youi can look it up; just Google BAATHISM.
BUT THE MOST GLAROING ERROR RED KEN MAKES IS THIS: the Arabs - especially the jihadofascists - do not see the world in terms of oil-producers and oil-users, or divided into Western versus "oriental", but Islamic versus infidel. And to them there are two types of infidels: the dhimmi who pays tribute to Islam (and therefore may live, albeit as a second-class human) and the infidel who must be murdered. Arab jihadoterrorists actually go even further: they divide the world into the ummah and the others; the Ummah is the Arab/Islamic people - which transcends nation-states.
STILL NEED MORE PROOF? Well, the Buddhas of Bamiyan had NOTHING to do with Europe or Arabia. And the Hindhus slaughtered at the Ayodhya Temple in India had NOTHING to do with Europe or the West or oil or Israel. YOU SEE, the jihadists have goals that transcend the Middle East and London and NY and Israel. They want to re-establish the caliphate under Wahhabist sharia, and they will kill or convert anyone that gets in their way. THEN, they will exact a trubute/tax from the rest of the non-Muslim world.