EXPOSED: Why Barack Obama Says ‘ISIL’ Instead Of ‘ISIS’ When Referring To The Islamic State
When you hear President Barack Obama speak about deadly attacks, he never says “Islamic terrorist attacks.”
I think most people are wondering, “What is this ISIL? Why does he keep calling it ISIL? It’s ISIS.” They’re not saying, “Well, that’s because ISIS he can pin to Bush, but ISIL he can’t, so he doesn’t want to –” I just don’t think that anybody in the Regime even thinks that people are going to think in these terms. I think there’s a totally different reason for this. And I don’t know how to say it. (laughing) (interruption) Well, it does. Snerdley is asking me, “Doesn’t it have something to do with Israel?” Yes, because the Levant is the entire region.
ISIS stands for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or Iraq and Syria, that’s the I-S, and ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant includes more than Iraq and Syria. It would include Israel, which, to these people, Israel is a fraud. Israel doesn’t deserve to be there. That’s all Palestine and that’s what I think is behind the pronunciation, this insistence that it be called ISIL. He’s the only one that does it. I mean, others in the Regime do. Even the media calls it ISIS, but he sticks with ISIL.
I think he’s got a different audience for the term. I don’t think he’s talking to the American people. I think he’s talking to Iran. We just heard Walid Phares say that Obama’s linkage here is not to oppose ISIL because Iran supports ISIL, and it’s all to do with the sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites and the fact that Iran capitalizes on the sectarian violence, does not want it solved because they hope to end up controlling the entire Levant — uh, sorry — region. Didn’t mean to say that.
So your explanation makes total sense if people were attuned, the American people domestically were attuned to when ISIS began, when it didn’t began. See, I don’t think — I could be wrong about this. Very rare that I would be wrong, but it’s possible. I think the American people are so far beyond “Bush did it” and this and that. I mean, Bush is eight years ago now, seven-years. They know Bush had nothing to do with San Bernardino. He had nothing to do with Fort Hood. People know that when Bush was president, this stuff didn’t happen. People know that when Bush was president, there wasn’t an ISIS. ISIS and all of this happens to coincide with the election of Barack Hussein O. But the use of the word “Levant” has an audience in the Middle East. He’s not talking to us.
Even when referring to a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths in San Bernardino, California, Obama goes out of his way to slam Israel. Just which side is Obama on, anyway?
Here is a recent video which goes into further detail about the differences between “ISIS” and “ISIL.” A real leader in the White House would call out Islamic terrorists by their real name, instead of playing this dangerous rhetorical game:
As William Shakespeare asked, “What’s in a name?”
When it comes to long-standing geographical disputes between Israel and the hostile terrorist-harboring nations which surround her, apparently a name means a lot!
Watch (above) as this YouTube presents an interesting theory for why President Barack Obama is so insistent on saying “ISIL” Instead of “ISIS” when referring to the Islamic State which is beheading American journalists and wreaking havoc in the middle East.
Hussein uses ISIL because it refers to the Levant. Levant is an ancient title and refers to the geographic region that includes Israel but the name denies the existence of Israel.. By using the name ISIL Obama is signaling his buds that he too denies the legitimacy of Israel
Do you agree with this theory? Or is it far-fetched? Please leave us a comment and let us know what you think.