John III Sobieski was also a Moslem terrorist, wasn't he?

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jul 23, 2012 at 11:56

Bamaguje wrote :

> Breivik quotes copiously from Islamic scriptures (Quran, Hadith, Sirat) which are replete with violent injunctions. So it is far more likely his violence was influenced by the same Islam that drives Muslim terrorists.<

Interesting. Following your logic one would have to believe that Breivik was a Moslem terrorist , wouldn't one ? By the same "logic" one would have to conclude that e.g. John III Sobieski and Charles Martel were all...Moslem terrorists, all familiar with Islam's notorious rage and violence and hatred of all things kafiri and all reacting to them in an adequate manner. Or to paraphrase an Oriental proverb should we throw flowers at a rabid dog set to bite off our head according to you ?

> After all he stated in his manifesto that - "An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties… We both share one common goal."<

Would you mind giving us the exact page so that we could check the quote's context and your claims construed on it ?

> Breivik even considered collaborating with Jihadists:

"They (Jihadists) will be asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass "screenings" in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc."<

The same sort of "collaborating" as was the case with so many heroic fighters against jihad - the great Byzantine emperor Leo III the Isaurian first "collaborated" with Moslems to know how to smash them later and Iskanderbeg was also for a long time considered a Moslem before he put an end to Islam in Albania.

Anyway, have you really read 1550 pages (or any part ) of Breivik's work ? I doubt you have for otherwise you wouldn't have ever called it a manifesto which is a mainstream PC misnomer. The classical example of a manifesto is "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" from 1848 which has some 40 pages all in all. You can't write 1550 pages and expect it to become an easy read and a tool to manipulate masses with as a manifesto intends to do. It's a thorough , in part scholarly work with strong personal notes in it (just find what he writes on his disgusting daily experience with Islam in Oslo) written by a man well aware of the disaster that Europe is heading to. For me he is sort of modern day Cassandra that isn't satisfied with prophecying the doom of our civilization but tries to do what she can to forestall its approach.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".