Many who closely follow the dueling Islamic terror narratives emanating from the White House are mystified by Mr. Obama's inability (or deliberate unwillingness) to utter the phrase "Islamic terrorists."
Many are curious, too, about why he refuses to call ISIS "ISIS," steadfastly insisting instead that everybody in his administration call the terror group "ISIL."
The agendas behind each diverge widely.
In fact, the variance between the two is elephantine in scale.
ISIS stands for the "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria," a terror group controlling a large swath of both Iraq and Syria...
ISIL, Obama's preference, stands for the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."
According to glaphyridae.com, "[t]he Levant in its geographical sense comprises the following political entities: the west part of Syria, Lebanon, west part of Jordan, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza Strip), Israel and Sinai (Egypt)."...
...That Obama uses ISIL in discussing the terrorists is extremely telling and chilling.
To those of us who keep our fingers on the pulse of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the distinctions separating ISIS and ISIL are by no means meager..."
...Taken together, all of this gets us closer to understanding why Obama refuses to call Islamic terrorists what they are.
His use of ISIL could be a strong indication that he supports re-establishing Muslim rule and sharia law throughout the Levant, and good riddance to Israel.
...Edward Klein, who authored The Amateur, a book about Obama, told the Daily Caller that he interviewed Wright (and has him quoted on tape), who told Klein that he (Wright) "made it comfortable" for Obama to accept Christianity without having to renounce his "Islamic background."
We believe it's time to stop whispering about what much of the nation is thinking, but we leave it up to you to decide why Obama calls ISIS ISIL, why he can't bring himself to call Islamic terrorists what they are, and why he acts in a manner that supports Islam over Christianity at every opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment