Why unfortunately? Tolstoy and Dostoevky are generally recognized as great authors. Being Russian does not make them retrospectively Putinist, does it?
"You really need something special for the foreign terrorists to be willing to travel half a world just to blow themselves up on your doorstep"
Yes, and what could be that something special?
Imperialism says you?
Britain and France have been struck by terrorism yet they no longer have an empire. Ok, guilt by association could be a motive...
But then why would Belgium and Germany be struck? oh, and Sweden too? And all these kidnapped christian girls in Nigeria? and in every case by Sunni-Muslim...
Maybe it's anti-imperialism, who knows... perhaps some middle eastern sunni muslims were really upset that Sweden ever had an empire, and decided that ramming a crowd with a truck was a good way to avenge the "oppression" perpetrated by Sweden 300 years ago.
That, or maybe you could adjust your worldview, and realise that religious fanatism has been a pretty strong motivator for atrocities throughout history, and even in such enlightened times as ours, there are still people who would conduct the most horrendous acts for their faith and the credibility it gives them within their group.
In all cases, the Chinese, who also suffered from such attacks (the perpetrators were of the same religion), found a "solution" that is much more aligned with imperialistic norms throughout history. They have not been struck since.
And no, be at rest, I am not for the establishment of a surveillance state, but pointing the wilful blindness in your reasoning.
Indeed, empires do not have to exist, and the world could constitute of individual nations ruling themselves independently in democracy peace and happiness.
By historical standard, over the last 10000 years prosperity, democracy and peace have hardly been the norm, don't you think? Empires have existed all over the world however. Perhaps we should accept what is a fact of life of human societies, and try to minimise its most egregious aspects, rather than wishfulling hoping for the profound change that will never materialise.
The pilots who flew planes into buildings 25 years ago were saudis, Saudi Arabia was never part of a western Empire. They trained in Afghanistan which was never part of a western empire (Alexander the Great does not count).
They were able to strike the American empire because, contrary to the common political discourse on the left, the American empire is a rather open and benevolent hegemon by historical standard, and internal dissent is not crushed or exterminated as it would have been were the Americans behaving as the Ottomans, the Romans, the Mongols, the Spanish, USSR etc...
I am not apologizing the American empire, I am not even american nor do I like the culture that spews out of the US, especially these days, but one has to put things into historical context if we are to understand the nature of terror attacks.
no, it's nothing specific to "The West" or the decisions it has taken. The typical "They hate us because our bad policies" does not explain why every empire (western or not) has had to contend with dissenters keen on overthrowing its "yoke".
How would the Mongols, the Russians, the Egyptian empires have solved the israeli/palestine conflict? Do you know where the terms zealots and sicario come from? Did the Romans solve these terror attacks by reconsidering their "catastrophically bad policies"?
How many retaliatory terror attacks on americans performed by citizen of those countries?
What point are you trying to make? US bad? Anything more thoughtful to offer?
The US are an empire and they have behaved as an empire over the last 70 years (bombing, overthrowing governments, supporting dictators). By historical standard, they have proved less coercive than empires of proportionally comparable reach. Think of the Mongols, the Assyrians, the Japanese...
yet you fail to account for the fact that said people wouldn't wouldn't be in power did terrorism not have occurred in the first place. How many bad leaders in the west resulting directly or indirectly from terror attacks?
And freedom fighters are supposed to actually care about "freedom" while terrorists generally do not. I fail to see what great advancements in freedom for anyone involved have come out of the terror attacks performed over the past 25 years.
Your income may remain constant while your wealth rises significantly (say... because your investments are doing well, because you inherited... etc). The two are often confused when talking about (tech) billionaires.
"- Err, we have no money.
- Sigh. ok. Go and attack our rivals over there."
Strictly speaking, this is not what happened, and a gross oversimplification. The Byzantines were not exactly rivals of the Venetians.
The whole thing was quite bizarre in fact, Roger Crowley has a pretty good story of the events leading up to this in "City of Fortune: How Venice Won and Lost a Naval Empire" if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, Frankopan's Silk Roads was a disappointment to say the least, I was really expecting an enlightening history of the middle east, starting from the early interrelations between the various civilisations (Egypt, Babylon, Harappan) and the progression through time (for example mentioning the Periplus of Roman adventurers into the far east).
Good histories of China (Goldman/Fairbanks), and India (Keay) had whetted my appetite, and I think I'll need to read Dalrymple to be fully sated.
Tim Severin is referenced in the list, so i would suggest as an addition Tracking Marco Polo by the very same author, a fun read indeed.
From Goodreads:
Tim Severin took up the challenge offered from antiquity by Marco Polo. Using the great explorer's journals as a route guide, Severin followed him all the way from Venice to Afghanistan - on a motorbike.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1735662.Tracking_Marco_P...
Don't muslim citizens and foreign residents in Switzerland enjoy more rights than in pretty much any Muslim country?
There is definitely some hostility to some aspects of Islam, aspects which seem to only recently have become central to the exercise of worship for some (the veiling of women for instance), yet this has not translated to some outright discrimination of muslims. Bosnian and Albanian immigrants for instance appear to have been integrated and/or assimilated into society.