September 12, 1683: Jan Sobieski Day . . .

_{kairosfocus

September 12, 2016

Culture, General interest, Geo-strategic issues}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

For, on that day, Poland — personally led by its king — rode to the rescue of our Civilisation at the gates of Vienna.

(Details — and movie, here; also see on Complacency Day, here.)

Be it solemnly moved that from this day forward, we shall remember:

Complacency Day, Sept 10;

9/11-01, Sept 11;

Sobieski Day, Sept 12.

Seconds?

I close with a paraphrase from Santayana and others: those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed by that folly to repeat its worst chapters. END

PS: Summary video on the charge:

This gives broader background:

Comments

KF, Perhaps somehow related to this OP topic? I posted this in another thread, but thought it may fit here too? Back in August of 1980 not many people would have thought that the historical events that took place in Gdansk preceded major geopolitical changes that took place in Eastern and Central Europe around 10 years later. On December 13, 1981, an internal event in Poland was the tipping point that precipitated (years later) one of the major geopolitical changes in Europe after WW2. It's interesting to observe -looking back from our current 20/20 hindsight perspective- how the POTUS and other western leaders reacted to those events and ponder the effect of their reactions. I thought you and your readers might like to review this almost forgotten recent history. Washington DC, December 23, 1981. 35 years ago tomorrow (start @ minute 4): https://www.youtube.com/embed/9kiFK6xxE08 Additional related documentaries: https://www.youtube.com/embed/hZQwQMj9GKo https://www.youtube.com/embed/CB1KbpuM9P4 https://www.youtube.com/embed/AokG9UTzlDw https://www.youtube.com/embed/by1xk1i2hHo https://www.youtube.com/embed/OiwI1p5T8qQDionisio_{December 22, 2016
December
12
Dec
22
22
2016
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Looks like events over the weekend have unfortunately underscored the point of the OP.kairosfocus_{September 19, 2016
September
09
Sep
19
19
2016
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

I have found a suitable video and will add it to the OP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0GieO5Rj8kairosfocus_{September 17, 2016
September
09
Sep
17
17
2016
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

F/N: Wikipedia testifies (in light of the cumulative force of the evidence):
Sobieski's greatest success came in 1683, with his victory at the Battle of Vienna, in joint command of Polish and German troops, against the invading Ottoman Turks under Kara Mustafa.[27][32] Upon reaching Vienna, with the Ottoman army close to breaching the walls, Sobieski ordered a full attack on 12 September. On early morning of that day, the united army of about 65,000[33]–76,000[32] men (including 22,000,[33] 25,000[32] or 27,000 Poles[27]) attacked a Turkish force of about 80,000[33]–115,000[32] men. At about 5 pm, after observing the infantry battle from the Kahlenberg hilltop, Sobieski led [--> personally] the Polish husaria cavalry [--> i.e. the winged hussars, reportedly 3,000 strong] along with Austrians and Germans in a massive charge down the hillside. [--> at 20,000 horse, the greatest, most decisive cavalry charge in history] Soon, the Ottoman battle line was broken and the Ottoman forces scattered in disarray.[34] At 5:30 pm, Sobieski entered the deserted tent of Kara Mustafa and the Battle of Vienna ended.[30][32] The Pope and other foreign dignitaries hailed Sobieski as the "Savior of Vienna and Western European civilization."[35] [--> actually, Christedom . . . Wiki cannot help itself] In a letter to his wife, he wrote, "All the common people kissed my hands, my feet, my clothes; others only touched me, saying: 'Ah, let us kiss so valiant a hand!'"[36]
We need to go back to turning points of history like this, and learn from them for the days ahead; in the face of a civilisation seemingly determined to forget the lessons of its past (even when they lurk in catastrophic actions by open enemies). From this year forward, let us do our little part by pausing to remember and draw strength from lessons taught by the triple days: Sept 10, complacency day Sept 11, 9/11-01 attack day Sept 12, Jan Sobieski day KF PS: BO'H, explanations, key citations and references enough for a reasonable and responsible person were repeatedly given above, only to be dismissed, distracted from or ignored. Your attempts to refuse to read and apply key citations from historically pivotal passages in Q surah 9 to the 1400 year long history of jihads and dhimmitude as well as linked praxis from India to Spain, speak inadvertent volumes. As in, foundational, classic and modern. You have managed to make yourself into a poster child for why the proposed annual triple memorial is required.kairosfocus_{September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

BO'H: some things are too serious for flippancy. KFkairosfocus_{September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Oh, I should add I'm overjoyed to see that not only are you referring to James Bond's boss, but also his quartermaster. :-)Bob O'H_{September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

kf - I'm afraid I don't have time to chase up a lot of literature at the moment, so as you're apparently not going to give an explanation, I think we should leave it here.Bob O'H_{September 16, 2016
September
09
Sep
16
16
2016
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

--> A reader that gives further background on Caliphate and related issues: http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.htmlkairosfocus_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

BO'H: It seems, you have not read Quran [that is, Q] Surah 9:5 and 29, or related materials regarding the Caliphate, the history, the Pact of Umar and other linked matters directly relevant to both Ottoman Caliphs and acts of men like bin Laden or al Baghdadi. I suggest you do so. As a 101, you may read here then here, noting the significance of names like "Silas" at that site. KF PS: Q, 9:5 >>Sahih International And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.>> --> Silas, here: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm Q 9:29: >>Sahih International Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah [--> a poll tax, de facto protection money] willingly while they are humbled [--> reduced to permanent subject people status ].>> --> this is the root of subjugation of Christians and Jews ["people of the Book"] under dhimmitude, an apartheid-like subject people status, cf Bat Ye'Or http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_dhimmitude.html --> Note, on the Pact of Umar: http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thomas/pact_of_umar.html --> observe, the unlimited character of these texts and their historic role as in effect commission to perpetual war (never mind the hudnahs, temporary truces on the way to renewed offensive war) --> Likewise, Bill Warner's lecture here is appropriate warning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y --> In our day, we have been carelessly playing with fire here . . . part of why we need the three successive days: complacency day 09/10, memorial of attack day 09/11, Jan Sobieski day 09/12.kairosfocus_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Your connection between modern-day islamISM and the Ottoman Empire is that radical islamists want an Islamic state. That's it? Nothing more? Oh, and apparently something to do with James Bond's fictional boss. I was hoping that you would have some actual evidence of a connection between the two. Ah well.Bob O'H_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

BO'H: The connexion -- as pointed out already -- is in the Quran (cf. esp 9:5 and 29 which have commissioning effect historically and double force given abrogation . . . have you looked these texts up?), the Hadiths, the Lives of M, the Sunnah, the history of that first century or so, the pact of Umar, dhimmitude. Caliphs are the leaders of the Ummah after M, and the principal war leaders in the period until Mahdi -- the last Caliph (of eschatological character) completes global subjugation. Where, the last generally acknowledged Caliphs to 1924 were Ottoman (never mind the usual debates). Today's IslamISTS want to go back there, to the agenda of global subjugation under a renewed Caliphate. Many Muslims otherwise are disinclined to perpetual war etc, which makes them apostate in IslamIST eyes. Where, of course Sept 11, 1683 was the last high-water mark of the Caliphate's thrust in the European world [that Caliph being of course Ottoman] so UBL sent a message of picking up from that point in something so insignificant in our eyes as the date of the attack. That his base is in the direction of Khorasan from Arabia and lies close to snowy passes is also significant to those able to read signs in that cultural milieu, per the black flag army hadith. (If that is not meaningful to you that is a sign of how poorly informed we are 15 years after 9/11-01, convenient narratives having been substituted for grim geostrategic truth.) Which goes back to the focus in the OP, the significance of Jan Sobieski. KF PS: Note PS at 20 above:
The fact is, the Ottoman Caliphs were the war leaders of Islam for centuries, down to 1924; and there is a clear move to try to restore the Caliphate, indeed Al Baghdadi claimed to be Caliph. The Ottoman Caliphs were war leaders who had a theologically defined role as leading the expansion of Islam considered as the Umma to global hegemony, hence applicability of the term I used, IslamIST. And it is to be noted that bin Laden’s location in the zone of the direction of Khorasan from Arabia near icy passes is also significant given the black flag army hadith, as Mahdi, the final all-conquering Caliph is to be amid that invincible army and one must join them even if one must crawl across ice and snow. So, bin Laden’s striking on a date that was the 318th anniversary of the high water mark of the Ottoman Caliphate’s thrust in Europe, before defeat by Sobieski the next day is highly significant. Especially given his location. The black flags are now ubiquitous, so that should give you a clue as to how the IslamISTS are thinking. (And yes, I am aware of the ratings debates on the Hadith, you need to persuade the IslamISTS not me on that. I find it is also tied to the Gharqad tree hadith and other traditions that will make it hard to knock down in the minds of such IslamISTS who smell blood in the water.)
kairosfocus_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

kf - Your comment 29 helps a bit, but you've ignored the request for a demonstration of the connection between the Ottomans and modern-day IslamISM. I feel that I'm getting to the point where getting any more clarification will be like getting blood out of a stone. Your verbiage can be quite impenetrable at times, I'm afraid.Bob O'H_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

DJ, Forgive an error of numbering. I notice, again, however, the pattern of majoring on minors while failing to engage what is focal. KF PS: Hireling -- mercenary soldiers, with Hessians of the 1770's as a typical case in point. Slaves -- quite likely the British West India Regiment, then a literal regiment of slaves with several battalions, and this regiment was definitely engaged in the US in what Americans call the War of 1812. IIRC, also in Haiti which would likely have been noticed in the USA. (More strictly: "regiments" but these were of battalion size, free blacks served too.) Flight, panicked retreat. Grave, the defeated generally suffer heavier casualties once the full price of retreat is factored in. (Clausewitz noted of this same Napoleonic era, that the attackers may often pay a heavier initial price but the fruits of victory are reaped in the chase.)kairosfocus_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

BO'H, I first suggest you read Q9:5 and 29 (the v of the sword and that of tribute), understanding that this was the last or next to last Surah which took precedence over more irenic ayas by the abrogation principle of Islam. Then understand the pact of Umar -- one of the first four Caliphs identified by Muslims as "rightly guided" -- under such and the resulting civilisation of dhimmitude which spanned from India to the Atlantic, including the Balkans. For instance current persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt falls under it. I am afraid, it is you who have made an improper analogy, failing to understand that Surah 9 controls onward praxis in sunnah and in variant groups such as especially the Shia. There is thus a unifying force driven by the founding era and classical period (which includes the jurisprudence that created the sharia law framework . . . observe the press to impose this once there are enough Muslims in a community as it is viewed as superior over "man-made" laws and as permanent law for human communities under Submission: to Allah, his prophet, his law, his warriors). This is why the IslamISTS of our day point back to the foundational framework to appeal to resurgence under an apocalyptic vision that led for instance to the Muslim Botherhood's 100 year global subjugation plan, The Project, captured by Swiss Financial police, or the Explanatory Memo to MB in Egypt from the branches and front groups in the US captured by police in the USA that laid out the settlement jihad strategy. Islam is a worldview and religion, the ISM arises when a global conquest ideology is given [renewed] practical application and religious sanction; bearing in mind that even in Mohammed's day he had to press hard to get followers to go on fighting in perpetual militancy. So, one can readily see how militancy waxes and wanes depending on geostrategic balance of power and the natural disinclination of most people to engage in perpetual war; of course, dhimmitude, an apartheid like state of subjugation, legal discrimination and poll tax against the conquered, is much easier to sustain, in the case of Egypt for 1300+ years for instance. As for continuity, IslamISTS of today target restoration of the Caliphate that Attaturk abolished in 1924; note how ISIS once established styled itself The Islamic State and Al Baghdadi claimed to be Caliph, drawing pledges of allegiance from around the world and indeed muslims making their way to join the fight. This includes 100 - 400 Trinidadians (per debate in The Red House) as just one group from the Caribbean, much less other areas. KFkairosfocus_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

I'm just enjoying the irony of kairosfocus quoting what he thinks is the third verse of the Star-Spangled Banner :
O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation...
That's the fourth verse, kf. To get the contextual meaning of "freemen", you need to appreciate the actual third verse:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country, should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Awkward.DNA_Jock_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

kf - Huh? You've conflated the Arabic empire that got to Spain with the Ottoman empire that arose in Turkey. They are two different groups: it would be like conflating the Swedish empire of the 30 years war with the Spanish empire. Both were Christian, but were clearly not the same entities. I'm afraid I still don't see how you separate Islam from Islamism. Or how you draw the line between current-day radical Islamism,and the Ottoman empire. Well, other than that both groups were/are Muslims. Can you please explain clearly (a) how you think Islam and IslamISM are different, and (b) what the connection is between the Ottomans and present-day radical Islam. I'm honestly trying to understand your arguments, but failing at the moment.Bob O'H_{September 15, 2016
September
09
Sep
15
15
2016
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

BO'H: I think you should start from the general meaning of -ism, then notice I speak of a founding era, a classical period and a modern period. Between 611 and 711 - 750, Islam as state and ideology of global subjugation underwent a huge initial expansion, largely by conquest. [I add: cf. Raymond Ibrahim's simple summary here. (See if you can decode the messages in the name.) ] This took them from Yathrib and raiding Meccan caravans, to the invasions of India in the E and 150 mi from Paris in the W. Yes, in Spain they were gradually pushed back until 1491. But in E Europe there was a major thrust, the one that was finally turned back at Vienna in 1683. As for trying to set up a dichotomy between ambitions of Caliphs and religiously sanctioned ideology of conquest, both were aligned in the classical doctrine that divided the world into dar ul Islam and dar ul harb, houses of submission and war. Where, classically a hudna, a truce to rebuild to resurge was not to exceed 10 years. Now, as the balance of military power shifted against the Caliphate or other relevant power, there was some pragmatic softening. Today's IslamISM is in significant ways a return to that past [and note the hope of a restored caliphate post 1924], whether in Salafist or Mahdist-shiite forms. Of course, this sketch is utterly at odds with conventional wisdom, which should give us a clue as to how much we have been dodging hard realities. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

kf - are you saying that the Ottomans were Islamists? I'm surprised - Islamism (as a movement) seems to have been developed as an alternative to the Ottomans, as a response to their decline. Am I wrong? (well, OK, that's the same as asking is Wikipedia and its sources wrong, in this case) I'd be interested in seeing what line you draw between the Ottoman Empire and current radical Islamism. I assume it's more direct than both groups sharing the same religion. How did the Ottomans aid those developing Islamism?Bob O'H_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

BO'H: You clearly confirm your utter unseriousness. I have already twice -- TWICE -- explained that I spoke to orders of magnitude [where 100's of years -- another way to use round numbers -- does not get over the point that we are nigh on a millennium] . . . which should have sufficed for any reasonable person. But it is plainly too rhetorically tempting to be able to side track the thread on an irrelevancy rather than face the grave issues on the table. As to verging on a brazen lie, you pounced on a round number to improperly infer and project ignorance on substantial issues (which claim you were not able to support . . . even while you keep on doubling down and resorting to bigoted projecting of an unjustified aura of ignorance [we IDiots must ever be painted luridly as ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked]). Speaking with disregard to truth hoping to profit by what is said or suggested being taken as materially true. All this, to rhetorically ground dismissal without consideration -- fallacy of the willfully closed, hostile mind. If you tried that stunt in my living room, you would be out the door for cause and you know it. That unserious behaviour on your part speaks saddening volumes, but it serves to show that your ilk have nothing of consequence to say in the face of sobering geostrategic issues. Duly noted, distraction over. KF PS: Has it registered with you that for YEARS at UD and elsewhere I have consistently carefully distinguished Islam and Muslims from IslamISM (classic/ foundation era and modern forms) and IslamISTS? To the point of consistently violating normal spelling to emphasise the distinction? [Cf my use of natural vs ART-ificial in speaking of the causal trichotomy tracing to Plato in The Laws Bk X.] In short you here set up and knocked over another strawman caricature in your presumed superiority.kairosfocus_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

kf - you could have just acknowledged that I was right (if perhaps pedantic), rather than attacking me & accusing me of "verging on a brazen lie". Then we might have been able to progress somewhere. Like perhaps a discussion of the extent to which the Ottomans were motivated by religion or whether they used religion to justify their power grabs? Or a discussion of the effects of the Crusades on radicalising Islam? These historical matters certainly aren't as simple as you imply - Islam, like Christianity, isn't a single entity. And terrible things have been done in both of their names in the past, and indeed the present.Bob O'H_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT}

B O'H: stop doubling down on a strawman caricature that serves only to distract the thread from its focal issue. I have already pointed out that I spoke to round numbers giving an order of magnitude -- notice the date I gave was the conventional date of the fall of the W [marking an era], and you have had to realise that I could not have been giving an exact number -- and once you raised issues that called for dates I gave a more precise range and context. Further to this, that you strained so hard to find some imaginary flaw to blow up out of proportion shows two things. First, that you are trying to avoid facing pivotal matters of grave geostrategic import and which indict the opinion leadership of our civilisation. Second, you here reveal just why I have a right to hold your ilk guilty of a dirty dilemma argument: If I speak briefly in round terms I will be attacked for imagined flaws based on pouncing on out of context points wrenched out of their setting; but if I take time to elaborate I am guilty of being too long to bother with. Such heads I win tails you lose tactics speak to a fundamental insincerity and lack of seriousness on the part of your ilk. This, in a context where what is on the table is a matter of grave geostrategic import. Your ilk remind me of the vulture-like attitude of Louis XIV in the face of the Ottoman invasion. Maybe it has not registered that Sobieski was not a natural ally of Austria, but because he recognised the gravity of the geostrategic threat, he magnificently came to their aid once he (with the aid of the papal nuncio) could overcome Louis XIV's attempts to suborn the infamous Polish-Lithuanian Parliament of consensus. Indeed IIRC on Sept 12 1683, he was literally riding one of the first three horses in that magnificent charge of the winged hussars, at the head of the charge of 20,000 horse 5:30 on that afternoon, after a day of fighting that set up the approach-march for the charge. It seems we need to learn from that part of what he did, too. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

kf -
BO’H, please stop pushing dates into my mouth that do not belong there. Nowhere above have I said that from its outset Byzantium was a bulwark against Islam, and the first time I gave a date . . . when it became relevant in light of your strawman caricature
What you wrote in 11 was "For 1,000 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire had been the bulwark against Islam in the East". The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, so yes you did give dates, or at least an event with a specific date. So you are clearly referring to 476AD to 1476 AD (give or take a few years). Now, Muhammad was born in 570AD. So for at least the first 100 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire the Eastern Roman Empire couldn't have been a bulwark against Islam.Bob O'H_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

BO'H, please stop pushing dates into my mouth that do not belong there. Nowhere above have I said that from its outset in the days of the division of the Roman Empire then after the fall of the W in 476 AD, Byzantium was a bulwark against Islam; and, the first time I gave a date . . . just now, when it became relevant in light of your strawman caricature . . . I alluded to Mohammed's threat against Byzantium, which then led to the thrusts under the first four Caliphs onward to final collapse in 1453. Surely, you can understand the use of a very round number WITHOUT dates as I used at 11 above? Something that assumes general familiarity with the events? Did you not see further round dates of 300 - 3000 years further above yet? Should that not give you a clue that I spoke to orders of magnitude not exact dates? Or, was the temptation to try to find some flaw to skewer rhetorically and sidetrack the thread irresistible? That you seemingly need to double down on a strawman caricature (now verging on a brazen lie to try to dismiss what I have raised substantially) to try to discredit the source rather than address the substantial matters on the table speaks volumes. Stop trying to rearrange deck chairs, man, Titanic has struck an iceberg. KF PS: The fact is, the Ottoman Caliphs were the war leaders of Islam for centuries, down to 1924; and there is a clear move to try to restore the Caliphate, indeed Al Baghdadi claimed to be Caliph. The Ottoman Caliphs were war leaders who had a theologically defined role as leading the expansion of Islam considered as the Umma to global hegemony, hence applicability of the term I used, IslamIST. And it is to be noted that bin Laden's location in the zone of the direction of Khorasan from Arabia near icy passes is also significant given the black flag army hadith, as Mahdi, the final all-conquering Caliph is to be amid that invincible army and one must join them even if one must crawl across ice and snow. So, bin Laden's striking on a date that was the 318th anniversary of the high water mark of the Ottoman Caliphate's thrust in Europe, before defeat by Sobieski the next day is highly significant. Especially given his location. The black flags are now ubiquitous, so that should give you a clue as to how the IslamISTS are thinking. (And yes, I am aware of the ratings debates on the Hadith, you need to persuade the IslamISTS not me on that. I find it is also tied to the Gharqad tree hadith and other traditions that will make it hard to knock down in the minds of such IslamISTS who smell blood in the water.)kairosfocus_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

kf - I see you don't attempt to refute my point (i.e. that your dates are wrong). If you can't even get basic history right, can we really accept a more detailed analysis? FWIW, I've never seen the Ottomans as Islamic fundamentalists. They were not, after all, Arabic, and never got a reputation as religious fundamentalists. They were empire builders, just like the Romans before them. And just like the Swedes during the 30 year's war. That's how power was gained by the elites in those days.Bob O'H_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

B'OH, in the face of what is on the table, that is what you have to say? Thanks, we know the timeline of Byzantium, and how from c 630 AD - 1453 AD it stood as bulwark until it fell. Thereafter we had the 230 year surge that saw two sieges of Vienna -- strategic gateway to central Europe -- in 1529 and 1683. After 1683, the long retreat of IslamIST power in East-Central Europe began, but now that we see a reversion in Turkey, we must remember that IslamIST power can readily start from holding the Bosporus, again. And the Levant down to the Nile corridor joins the Bosporus and Anatolia as the node where three continents come together. With the Nile corridor leading into the heartland of Africa with continental scale strategic resources in a continent that is by and large poorly governed and worse garrisoned. Compare the pivotal importance of E Europe from 1914 - 1991, as Mackinder warned in 1904. Then ponder why it is we are so utterly unaware and negligent about the geostrategic perils of our day. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

D, what amazes me is how, fifteen years after 9/11-01 by and large we have not even learned the obvious reason why bin Laden et al chose Sept 11th as attack date. I recall how on or about the day itself, in Jamaica we were conversing about how symbolic the attack was . . . aircraft are an American invention as are skyscrapers. WTC was a key node and symbol of the financial power of Babylon on the Hudson. The Pentagon is a symbol too (there is no way an aircraft could destroy it). With so much symbolism involved, it should be no surprise that the date, too, would embed a message. As in, we are taking off from the date of the previous high-water mark of IslamIST expansionism in the West. Where, we must not forget the force of the settlement- civilisation jihad strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood . . . as has been argued in the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs founded by Huma Abedin's mother and on whose editorial board Ms Abedin was listed for a decade. I first encountered this Journal as the venue for publication of a tendentious attempt to rewrite the history of the Caribbean and West Africa as Islamic, on the part of an agent of influence based in a history department right here in the Caribbean. So, let us -- on this 333rd anniversary of Jan III Sobieski's victory at the gates of Vienna -- ponder the implications of an obvious agent of influence as chief aide to the leading candidate for the US Presidency just fifteen years after the 9/11-01 attacks. Let us ask ourselves why there has been such a refusal to draw the obvious lessons from 1400 years of history, and why it is that men were willing to speak up and fight for a far more imperfect manifestation of our civilisation 1/3 of a millennium ago, but -- in too many quarters -- not today. Then, let us ask pointed questions regarding the threatened collapse of our civilisation, which properly is to be called Christendom [being rooted in the Pauline synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome evident already on Mars Hill in AD 50 as is recorded in Ac 17), and what would follow. Ponder, especially [cf WJM's parallel thread] the obvious moral, intellectual and cultural bankruptcy of lab coat clad evolutionary materialistic scientism and the patently nihilistic nature of the radical IslamISM championed by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram [= [Western] books -- and so, education -- are religiously banned . . . ] and more, not neglecting the renewal of the Persian Empire and its obvious grab for nukes. Then, let us dare to raise the Reformation cry, back to the roots and let us set out on sound reformation. KFkairosfocus_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

For 1,000 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire had been the bulwark against Islam in the East. KF
Of course, for the first few centuries of that period there was no Islam. Incidentally, the creation myth for the croissant appears to be that, a myth. Unfortunately.Bob O'H_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT}

The future of Europe? EU Commission President says Europe facing a "battle for survival" against nationalism Suggests UK will not have access to single market when it leaves Announces creation of 100,000-strong EU "youth corps" to tackle refugee crisis Uses murder of Polish man in Essex as example of what happens if Europe "does not unite" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/eu-facing-an-existential-threat-in-the-wake-of-brexit-jean-claud/ Paris is a post-apocalyptic hellhole of public urination and litter. Hurrah for the incivility brigade http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/paris-is-a-post-apocalyptic-hellhole-of-public-urination-and-lit/Dionisio_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

333rd anniversary of the Battle of Vienna
According to reports of his speech to mark the 333rd anniversary of the Battle of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said: "Will there be an Islamic conquest of Europe? Many Muslims want that and say: Europe is at its end." “God have mercy on Europe and on thy people, who are in danger of forfeiting our Christian heritage,” the cardinal reportedly prayed. He claimed that this was already being felt "not only economically, but above all, in human and religious matters". The speech was made on Sunday at the "Holy Name of Mary" church festival, which marked the 333rd anniversary of the Battle of Vienna in 1683 in which Christian forces defeated the Ottoman Empire army. In April this year, the parliament passed a controversial, hardline new law to restrict the right of asylum, allowing authorities to reject most claimants at the border. The government is now able to declare a "state of emergency" over the migrant crisis and limit any successful asylum claim to three years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/austrian-cardinal-tipped-to-be-the-next-pope-warns-of-an-islamic/Dionisio_{September 14, 2016
September
09
Sep
14
14
2016
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

The 3rd verse of The Star Spangled Banner:
O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation. Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.' And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
kairosfocus_{September 13, 2016
September
09
Sep
13
13
2016
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply