ISIS or ISIL: What Difference Does it Make?

March 3, 2015

           ISIS or ISIL: What Difference Does it Make?
                                       By Dr. Tom Barrett

                                                  Obama, along with most liberal news outlets,
                                                  and the Muslim propaganda Al Jazeera TV
                                                  network, prefers the acronym ISIL. Most of the
                                                  rest of the world refers to the group as ISIS.
                                                  What difference does it make?

                                                  Well, whenever Obama and Al Jazeera agree
                                                  on something, it is worth a second look. Both
                                                  are apologists for Muslim terrorists, and both
                                                  criticize Christians and Jews whenever they see
                                                  an opportunity.

                                                (By the way, an interesting historical footnote
                                                about Al Jazeera. Ex-Vice President Al Gore
                                                formerly owned the network–then named
                                                Current TV–which was a failed liberal
                                                indoctrination machine. Glenn Beck offered to
buy the network. Gore refused his offer because Beck’s Conservative viewpoint was at odds with
Gore’s beliefs. Instead he sold it to an Islamic network that “hates America and runs every
terrorist video.” Beck says he would have paid more for the network than the Muslims, but was
not permitted to bid on it.)

So, where do the names ISIS and ISIL come from? The original name the terrorists gave
themselves in Arabic was Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. The first three words
translate to the Islamic State of Iraq while “al-Sham” refers to Syria. So, ISIS = Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria. Their stated goal is to restore an Islamic state or caliphate in the entire region.

                             © Copyright Oak Initiative – Oak Leaf 2015                     Page 1
                              Members Have Permission to Duplicate

What about ISIL? This stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The roughly defined
region around Syria (see map) is historically referred to as the Levant (an archaic French phrase
for the “lands of the rising sun”), which includes modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine,
and Jordan. The Obama administration claims that it uses the acronym ISIL as it believes the
word “Levant” to be a more accurate translation from the Arabic name.

So the question is: Why do the president, Al Jazeera and the liberal news media all insist on using
a name that the group itself did not invent? Remember, when we first learned about them,
everyone used the name ISIS. The first time we heard ISIL was when Obama started using the
term and ordered all his minions (including the State Department and the Pentagon) to start using
the name.

Could it have something to do with the fact that Israel is one of the nations in Obama’s version?
Remember, the Levant includes Syria, but adds Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. We know
that Obama has been the most hostile president towards Israel we have ever seen. We have
watched him keep the Prime Minister of Israel sitting in the waiting room for over an hour,
something that is never done. And recently he has announced that he will not meet with the Israeli
leader when he visits Washington to speak to Congress.

Obama has to pretend to support Israel. Failure to do so would be like saying he hates Great
Britain. But the facts, including his actions, make it clear that Obama does not support Israel when
the chips are down. As a result, for the first time in decades, the majority of Israelis do not believe
the U.S. will support them when they are in danger.

So, why would the term that includes the destruction of Israel be preferable to Obama over the
one that simply has the terrorists taking over Iraq and Syria?

First, it covers up and draws attention from two of his most major policy blunders. Using the name
ISIS draws attention to his mistakes in Iraq and Syria.

As foolish as Joe Biden is, I don’t think he would have ignored the advice of the Pentagon and
pulled all our troops out of Iraq. But Obama’s ego is so huge that he refused to leave even a small
residual force to keep the peace in Iraq. As a result, we hear the pain in the voices of our veterans
who left parts of their bodies and watched fellow soldiers die to win cities and ground in Iraq, as
they watch Obama allow terrorists to retake that ground. They ask, “Was all our suffering in vain?”

His second major blunder was his failure to do anything more in Syria than draw a “red line” which
was promptly crossed with no consequences. Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post
said, “The ‘Obama doctrine’ in Syria does not seem to be working. The country has fallen apart.
Matters have gone from bad to worse. The secretary of state suggests that things are so
bad Barack Obama has asked for ‘options.’ Three years into the war and the president wants a
plan!” So basically, the “Obama Doctrine” was to fumble around for three years before deciding
he needed a plan.

Obama’s other reason for including Israel in the sphere of the “Islamic State” could have serious
consequences for the United States. My take on Obama is that he is lazy and just wants problems
to go away so he can spend his last two years playing golf and taking multi-million dollar trips to
Hawaii.

                               © Copyright Oak Initiative – Oak Leaf 2015                       Page 2
                                Members Have Permission to Duplicate

What would be simpler for him than to have a “peaceful” Middle East that was controlled by guys
so bad that no one would go up against them? We have seen numerous precedents. The
Western nations sat back and allowed Russia to gobble up dozens of nations, until Ronald Regan
and Margaret Thatcher finally said, “Enough.” There were parts of New York City where even the
cops were afraid to go until Rudy Giuliani said, “We’re taking back our city.”

Would even Obama be so evil as to allow allies like Israel and Jordan to be overrun by ISIS so
he could get back to working on his golf swing? I sincerely hope that is not the case. He has
made his antagonism toward Israel clear. But would he sacrifice them for a false peace?

I think his constant use of the ISIL phrase could be a signal to the terrorists that they can have the
Levant (including Israel) as long as they stay in the Middle East and leave us alone.

I know it sounds unbelievable that any president could be this duplicitous. But look at the facts.
He has undermined Israel in international relations. He has offered only token support to the pitiful
coalition that is fighting ISIS. (See my February 8 article, “Obama Totally Mystified about What
Motivates ISIS." In it I quote from a Wall Street Journal article that points out that we flew 1,100
air attacks daily during Desert Storm in 1991, and 800 daily in 2003 when we took down Saddam
Hussein. In the last two months, we have flown a pitiful 7 missions a day on average. These are
not the actions of a president who wants to defeat an enemy.)

I pray that Obama’s antipathy toward Israel doesn’t lead him to make a stupid mistake that would
put our nation in jeopardy. We can never forget God’s words to His people Israel in Genesis 12:3,
“I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt.”

INTERNET RESEARCH:

Obama's Use of ISIL, Not ISIS, Tells Another Story
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Peek-POV/2014/06/23/Obamas-Use-ISIL-Not-ISIS-Tells-
Another-Story

Why Obama’s use of the term ISIL instead of ISIS is actually really important
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/09/15/why-obamas-use-of-the-term-isil-instead-of-isis-is-actually-
really-important/

Glenn Beck: Al Gore Wouldn’t Sell Network to Me, Chose Buyer That ‘Hates America’
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/glenn-beck-al-gore-wouldnt-sell-current-me-chose-buyer-
hates-america-71211/

NOTE: To comment on this article, write to Comments@ConservativeTruth.org and put only the
word COMMENTS in the subject line.

   Dr. Tom Barrett is the Founder and Publisher of www.ConservativeTruth.org. He has written thousands of articles that
   have been republished in national newspapers and on hundreds of websites, and is a frequent guest on radio and television
   shows. His unique viewpoint on social, moral and political issues from a Biblical worldview have resulted in invitations to
   speak at churches, conferences, Money Shows, colleges, and on TV (including the 700 Club). Tom is also an expert
   speaker and writer on the subject of Biblical Finance, and is the Founder of www.ChristianFinancialConcepts.com.

                                      © Copyright Oak Initiative – Oak Leaf 2015                                          Page 3
                                       Members Have Permission to Duplicate

Upcoming Events and Specials

                                         http://www.theoakinitiative.org/partner-oak

                           http://www.morningstarministries.org/other-events/2015-writers-seminar

http://www.morningstarministries.org/events/morningstar-conferences/50-joshua-and-caleb-generation-gathering-knowing-father

                             http://www.morningstarministries.org/morningstar-journal-donation

                                   © Copyright Oak Initiative – Oak Leaf 2015                                        Page 4
                                    Members Have Permission to Duplicate

http://www.theoakinitiative.org/partner-oak

© Copyright Oak Initiative – Oak Leaf 2015        Page 5
 Members Have Permission to Duplicate