So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?

Manchester has a lot of Muslims living in it, and I used to live in one of the most famous Muslim gathering places in the UK. The small minority of extremists that I encountered would hearken back to the defeat of Constantinople (1453). For reasons that are not anti-Islamic in nature, it ranks highly on my non-existant list of historical events that I would change if I could.Anyway, the height of the Ottoman empire was not for another couple of centuries when (and it surprises many to learn it) it stretched as far as Austria. This culminated in the 1683 battle of Vienna which the Turks lost (nobody messes with the Hapsburgs!), and this was the start of the (slow) decline of the Ottoman Empire. The Turks didn't just give up and go home, and the battle for Austria continued. However, just over a decade later they were forced to sign the Treaty of Karlowitz which meant they lost Hungary, and some of eastern Europe (Transylvania included...actually it's my interest in Translyvanian history that provides me with the indirect interest in the Ottoman empire) to the Austrians.This strengthened the Hapsburgs massively meaning the Ottoman Empire would have difficulty regaining any kind of hold on Europe again. The Hapsburg's influence of course was felt with the assasination of the heir apparant which lead to WWI which I'm coming to Before we get there though we should consider the 18th Century. I find it very boring, but the upshot is that the Turks lost even more power to the Russians after a sequence of wars. The Russians became the next big concern for Europe. The UK was trying to keep the Ottoman Empire stable at this time to maintain some kind of balance of power. Without them, Russia would be unstoppable. Having the port city of Constantinople and total access to the Black Sea would not be good.This takes us to the more interesting 19th Century and Napoleon. With Napoleon taking sides with Russia against everyone else, things were looking bad, but Napolean made the mistake that Hitler was to replicate. He invaded Russia and lost shortly afterwards.The Great Powers took sides with Greece in her quest for independence from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman's didn't take kindly but after a quick war with Russia had to let Greece go. More squabbling leading up to the Crimean War which ended badly for the Ottomans; basically the real end to the Empire it might argued (at least as a significant power).After this came WWI; the general era that jar wishes to discuss.

---

Your map shows the Ottoman Empire up to the end of the 17th Century, so is about two centuries out to be 'on the eve of WWI'. The following map is more accurate state of affairs: Sources: My memory and quite a bit of google-walkingEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Giving the Russian Black Sea Fleet access to the Mediterranean, would not be good for a number of reasons that spring to mind. The first is that it would be yet another expansion of Russian power. An expansion that Russia aimed to end in the vassalage of the Turks. Russia would become a pretty damned scary superpower.Also, the British Navy had access to the Mediterranean, and wanted to keep the access 'exclusive' (ie no Russians). I'm sure if Russia went into a direct Naval battle with Britain, they would run into problems, but I don't think that it was the direct threat of a sea battle that was the concern.Like in chess, its not the countering of taking pieces that should be considered, but the countering of the threat of taking pieces.Was Kissinger's book ironically titled?

If it were a river of oil, then each country has equal rights to access. However, it isn't a river of oil (would that it was!)What if Country A has a reservoir of water that it sold to other countries at its leisure. If war breaks out Country A will only sell water to its Allies. Are countries B and C (customers of country A)entitled to take action to secure the vital supply?There is a difference between a resource that is shared by several countries being cut off by one country, than a resource that belongs to one country which decides to limit selling that resource to its advantage.

---

jar, this section of Ottoman History is pretty sparce, so I'll have to read up if I'm going to be an informed participant. If I feel informed enough to jump in, I'll come back to the topic. I still think it is important to change the map (or its caption) in your OP, since it is in error (my reply to the OP describes how).Edited by Modulous, : subtitle and extra paragraph added

Perhaps, but then so is the question of who is entitled to what resource and when, and the whole river/lake analogy falls flat on its face. I agree though - nobody owns any resource, they just exist and we (almost) arbitrarily draw some lines around them. However, if everyone believed (and lived) that there'd probably be no war and we'd all be living in anarcho-syndicalist communes. help help! I'm being repressed! Sounds dangerously close to, yet not quite, 'might makes right'. Does it work the other way around? More on topic, what are the ramifications of genetically altering a tiger (by force) so that it is a domestic cat so it can cause no serious harm? Is it ok to grab its tail then? I have a feeling metaphors are going to cause no end of trouble here

I haven't seen any justifications for terrorism here, perhaps you should explore why you think that this is the case. From what I can tell, its an exercise in understanding why the animosity exists. If it justifies anything it is only that the Middle East is justified in its anger. We could just say 'it doesn't matter', and if that is your opinion you are welcome to it. I'd rather have some insight as to why things are the way they are. Perhaps it might light the way to a solution one day, or at least some measure of peace. At this time, but not historically. Lots of different people have engaged in suicide bombings, and suicidal attacks are in the Bible too.. The article discuses Crusaders, Kamikaze pilots and Samson's death. Also - look back at the actions of Irgun.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The Romans? Perhaps we should blame the failing Roman empire for the ascendancy of Islam and the strengthening of the Ottomans.It doesn't matter though - I don't think the reason the Islamic world might be annoyed is because of this...I think it comes later with the start of the fall of the Ottoman Empire...beginning at Vienna.Whether or not the West is justified in being annoyed at the Middle East is not really important to the discussion, whether or not the ME is justified in being angry is not important. In all reality all that is important to this thread is understanding why they are angry.

But why would a movement like that gain any strength? We could blame WWII on Hitler's expansionist ideas, but it only gained strength because of what the other countries did to it after WWI. We need to look way before Suleyman to get first causes.The Greeks and then the Romans controlled large sections of the Middle East as part of the Eastern Roman Empire (which became the Byzantine Empire). The capital was Constantinople, which would become a central point in Christian worship for the Eastern part of the Roman Empire for centuries (notably the Greeks).The Byzantine Empire included Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (which is a significant part of modern day Turkey).As the empire began to lose its grip on these far away lands, the Muslims began to grow in strength and anger at their ancestral homelands being subsumed by Christians. So they fought back and took Syria, placing Turkey as the Frontier land. The Romans were unable to hold on, and the Empire began to shrink as more and more states became independent. It was only a matter of time when the empire would come crashing down under the pressure from the east. Mongols as well as Muslims of course, but it was the Muslims that broke through, carried on towards Austria and were then themselves pushed back and surrounded by the (almost) united west which had once again begun to grow strong.So yeah, if we look at who started the aggression in the first place, it should the Greeks and the Romans. Perhaps you can go back further and find someone else who started it? You evidently haven't been paying attention to anything that I have said. Of course Europe had to defend itself - my point was that whether or not Europe was justified in its actions is not relevant to why the Islamic world might be annoyed with us. Personally, I think both sides had justifications for doing what they did, and we have to come to an agreement whereby we can live peacefully with one another into the future and that the first step in that process is to accept that other side has a right to agrievance. I questioned its relevance to the thread, I did not question whether justification exists. Perhaps, or perhaps it began with the west taking their pagan lands and converting them into a monotheistic religion, followed by their conversion into monotheism and their outrage that their ancestral homelands were being used to worship a man as if he were God. If you read my first post in this thread, you will learn that is precisely what I have been saying. It isn't simple and the presentation of history you put forward is very simple: the Muslims invaded our land and we retaliated - the fault lies with the aggressive religion of Islam etc etc. It isn't that simple, I think we can all agree. Its a long and complex history, which this thread intends to explore - which is why people are getting annoyed at offtopic attacks against one religion as being the sole source of the aggression. Its amazing. No matter how often this accusation is levelled at me, no matter how often I counter it, I still have to deal with again a few weeks later.I fucking hate fundamentalist religious types of all religions. Particularly the Abrahamic ones because I have had to deal with them more regularly. That includes fucking idiot Muslims who want to kill innocent people and fucking stupid Christians that think murdering doctors is OK.I hate the fucking lot of them.Hopefully the language and the repitition helps it sink in.I am not trying to defend Islam, read my first post in this thread and you will see I am actually biased against them - and for the Hapsburgs.

But what drove the conversion to Islam? Mohammed and his successors must have tapped into a desire...a zeitgeist as it were much like Hitler. Its like saying that Nazism has its own internal driving ideology and that explains everything. It doesn't. No. The Holy Roman Empire continued into the 17th Century. Did you read what I wrote about the Byzantine Empire? You should take a look into it. No Muslims in the 15th Century? So who invaded Constantinople? The Eastern part of the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire. The Greek speaking part of it. Check out when Constantinople fell, (1453) and the siege of Vienna (1529/1532) and the Battle of Vienna (1683) the latter of which I discussed as the definitive start of the decline of the Ottoman Empire as a superpower.

Yes, yes they did. That's why I said they attacked Syria.