September 11, 1683

en.wikipedia.org...

John III Sobieski of Poland arrives on Kahlen Hill, leading to the Battle of Vienna the following day.

Why is this date so important in the mind of Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists?

Battle of Vienna

The Battle of Vienna took place on the 11 and 12 of September 1683 after Vienna had been besieged by the Ottoman Empire for two months. It was a battle of The Holy League versus the Ottoman Empire and fiefdoms of the Ottoman Empire near the Kahlenberg mountain in Vienna. The battle marked the beginning of the political hegemony of the Habsburg dynasty in Central Europe.

The Viennese army was led by Ernst Rüdiger Graf von Starhemberg subordinate of Leopold I Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor.

The large-scale battle was won by Polish, Austrian and German forces commanded by King of Poland John III Sobieski versus the Ottoman Empire army and the Ottoman fiefdoms armies commanded by Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha.

The Holy League is also very important:

Holy League of 1684 was initiated in by Pope Innocent XI, and composed of the Holy Roman Empire, the Venetian Republic and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Tsardom of Russia joined the League in 1686. This alliance opposed the Ottoman Empire in the Great Turkish War and lasted till the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699.

But why exactly was this battle so important?

The battle shaped the outcome of the entire war as well. The Ottomans fought on for another 16 years, losing control of Hungary and Transylvania in the process, before finally giving up. The end of the conflict was finalized by the Treaty of Karlowitz.

The battle marked the historic end of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe .

(That quote can be found in the Battle of Vienna link)


The Battle of Vienna marked the turning point in the Ottoman Wars, where the Ottoman empire after that began to lose control of its territory in Europe. When it lost its territory after 16 years Islam, which was finally expanding out of the Middle East lost the wars and was forced back into a small corner of the world, this allowed for the Christian West to dominate the culture, politics, arts, philosophy, economics and trade of the world. Islam was struck a massive blow that day, to all Islamic fundamentalists that day is seen as one of the most humiliating days in their history.


This does not necessarily mean that this is the only date that Bin Laden chose to attack the west, even though it would be very symbolic. It could just be a coincidence that they attack the West on the same day that marked the defeat of expanding Islam 318 years before.

And for all those people out there who think 9/11 was an inside job it could have been symbolic as well, a way to mark another time when they can launch an assault on Islam and the Middle East, the same as what John III Sobieski of Poland did in 1683.

You know what's funny. That a few days after 9/11. I recall a documentary about the hijackers choosing a day for the attack. Something with a birthday cake and 2 candles. I would have to look it up.

I was actually going to post this exact same thing kudos

I'll write more later but I doubt it's a coincidence; from either side Bin Laden or Bush... Bush as a "Christian Crusader" it would seem befitting, as well as on the side of Bin Laden to get back at "Christian" Bush or to mark the re-ignition of that same age old war.

Bin Laden, Hijackers, Terrorists

Your looking in the wrong direction buddy

Originally posted by Master Shen long
Bin Laden, Hijackers, Terrorists

Your looking in the wrong direction buddy

You don't read entire OP's do you?

Try going back and reading the last paragraph.

reply to post by Misoir

Interesting information that I've never heard of before. I especially like the symbolic ties into either belief. Nice job.

As a side note, I'm going to play the number manipulation game here even though I don't believe in it.

From 9/11/1683 I can derive that 9-11=2, 2+1+6=9 and 8+3=11

From 318 years I can derive that 1+8=9 and that 3+8=11

reply to post by Misoir

I've always assumed that the date was chosen so that Americans would think of it every time they used the "Emergency" number. Psychological warfare.
The British equivalent is "999"- there was no particular way of using that.

reply to post by DISRAELI

I've often thought the same about 9/11 but what about 9/9/09 for the British equivalent? It even works regardless of which way one writes their dates.

The Arabic wiki page dates the battle from the 12th like in most other languages. A few other dates it from the 11th/12th. Only the English page dates it from the 11th in the right box.

Speculate now

Originally posted by Three_moons
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I've often thought the same about 9/11 but what about 9/9/09 for the British equivalent? It even works regardless of which way one writes their dates.

That would have meant waiting, though. They were too impatient, and went for a different approach.
Actually, I'm not sure it would have had the same effect- I don't get the impression that quoting dates by the number of the month is a British habit. It does require that habit to make it work.