[Mainan_Tagonist]

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.

[klibertp]

> By historical standard, over the last 10000 years prosperity, democracy and peace have hardly been the norm, don't you think?

Agreed! From my own reading (not a specialist), for example, in Europe, there were only a handful of years (literally) between 3000 B.C. and ~1950 A.D. when there was actual peace on the continent. Wars, rebellions, coups, civil wars, uprisings - every single year for five thousand years there was bloodshed, the borders moved, cities perished, populations starved, and so on.

And yes, this happened both when an empire/global power existed and when none was around. And yes, the Pax Romana (and similar periods) did bring many benefits to the world. At the same time, though, all the empires always incited hatred among the groups under them: the Romans bloodily suppressed quite a few uprisings even during that "Golden Age" (which you know, since you mentioned "zealots" in a previous comment). They wouldn't need to do that were they not an empire, which is my point.

> 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).

The terrorists don't need to be "part of empire" to feel threatened by that empire. Putting soldiers on the ground, for any reason, half a world away, while demanding special treatment for the troops, assuming their country's jurisdiction naturally follows their citizens in other nations, and so on - just one of those is enough to be seen as an imperialist power by the locals. The USA did all of these and more throughout the world, but especially in the Middle East. They didn't have to act that way, but they did, as it's natural for empires. The violent backlash locally and terror attacks at home are just normal, expected reactions to an empire acting like one. It's also worth noting that the entire Middle East is a fallen, fractured Empire. I'm not sure how much that influenced things, but I can imagine it fueled some ambitions in countries like Saudi Arabia to build another Ottoman Empire, this time centered on Riyadh. (Just a guess - I'm not well-versed in post-Middle Age history of the Middle East.)

> 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

Agreed. Though I'd say whether an empire is open and benevolent or strict and brutal doesn't influence the number of terrorist attacks. Yes, if you're benevolent, the hatred may be less prevalent - but then your security is weaker, so you can have the same number of attacks even with fewer "freedom fighters". The issue is being seen as an empire: as long as you can be cast as one, some people will hate you automatically, even if, all things considered, you're actually pretty tame and even beneficial to others.

> 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.

If America is not attacked by terrorists because it is an empire and acts like one - then why? That's what I don't get in your argument. If the USA didn't maintain military presence across the region (ME), didn't wholeheartedly support the "Zionist regime" (which also acts like an ethnocentric empire - Aztecs come to mind as a comparison), didn't historically meddle in the region's politics by both carrot and a lot of stick, etc., would they be hated enough for people to suicide bomb them?

Apparently, 90% of the terror attacks happen in the context of local instability (a civil war, rebellion, uprising, coup, etc.). 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. If it's not the imperialist policies, then what is it? If I understand your argument correctly, it's all religious fanaticism? But then, why would those fanatics attack the US, instead of enjoying some jolly sectarian bloodshed locally, like they did for centuries? There are enough religions and sects in ME to fuel terror attacks for a few more millennia, I'd guess, and it's not like that infighting stopped completely. How come the US was added as another traditional target for "death to ..." calls? I don't think it would happen without America's heavy involvement there...

[Mainan_Tagonist]

"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.

[klibertp]

> That, or maybe you could adjust your worldview, and realise that religious fanatism has been a pretty strong motivator for atrocities throughout history

But I do agree! I'm not trying to say that religion (and culture, more broadly) is not an enabling factor or even one of the important causes for terrorist attacks.

What I'm disputing is the assertion that religion is the sole cause, and the attacks would continue with the same intensity if the policies in the attacked countries were to change.

As I mentioned before, that wouldn't eliminate all the attacks: if your culture is fundamentally incompatible with some other culture, which also praises martyrdom, chances are you will get attacked by religious fanatics motivated by their beliefs. That's the case for Sweden. Germany and Britain sent troops to ME multiple times in the past 20 years alone, at the behest of USA, so they get both the religious fanatics and "freedom fighter" kinds of attacks.

Again, I'm not disputing that some cultures, faiths, and populations have a higher probability of resorting to terrorism. I'm not saying that GTFO of the ME would solve all terrorist attacks. However, I believe the imperialist policy is one of the reasons people try to blow other people up, and that dropping said policy could, in a few decades (!), result in the lower attack rate.

That's all; I'm not trying to say religion (particular kinds of it, especially) is not a factor. It most definitely is. As I mentioned, the sectarian bloodshed is very common and often takes the form of terror attacks. You will always get religious fanatics trying to kill others because they don't fit into their doctrine. However, the foreign policy does matter, and you can reduce the rate of attacks greatly by not antagonizing people who are not religious fanatics, but would still want to blow themselves up to "save their nation", to "reclaim sovereignty", to "destroy the occupiers", and so on.

So yeah: religion is, for sure, a risk factor. But so is foreign policy, and my argument is that the policy is the bigger factor and the one that is much easier to adjust. To get rid of religious-motivated terror attacks, you would need to become Iran (and that wouldn't work: you'd just get Christian terrorists!); to get rid of "freedom fighter" kind of attacks, you just need to stop forcing your way into countries half a world away.