by Jack
Sometimes there are profound meanings cloaked in subtlety, especially when it comes to the words spoken by a Chief of State like Obama. He carefully crafts his speeches so that every word is deliberate. Recently I noticed Obama prefers to use the acronym “ISIL” to describe the new Sunni army controlling a large swath of Syria and most of Iraq. This made me curious because most of us (media included) have been using the acronym ISIS to describe them. So, this struck me as odd and it prompted me to do some investigating.
I was surprised to find that the difference between ISIS and ISIL is very significant. ISIL literally means the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Levant is the key to this code speak. Levant is a region incorporating the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and part of southern Turkey. The word appeared in English in 1497, meaning the lands east of Italy. However, and this is the significant part, the term is borrowed from the French word “Levant” or rising, as in the rising of the sun in the east. The phrase is ultimately originates from the Latin word “levare”, meaning ‘lift or raise, and it’s not too much of a stretch to think in a modern context it could mean the rise of radical Islam as a global force. The largest religious group in the Levant are the Muslims and the largest cultural-linguistic group are primarily Arab due to Arabization of the region over the centuries.
The majority of Levantines are Sunni or Shia Muslim. There are also Yazidi Kurds, Alawites, Twelvers, Nizari, Druze and Ismailis.
I don’t think I’m overreaching here, because Obama has used the term ISIL 5 times on June13, and 16 times in his commencement speech at West Point on June 19th. So, if it’s that important to him, what’s the message he’s trying to send?
Is Obama saying he sees the rise of radical Islam in these countries or is he stealthily approving of it? There’s a reason why Obama has gone to such great lengths to use the uncommon acronym ISIL. Whatever you may think of this man, he never does anything that is not premeditated and tied to an agenda, so what’s his agenda this time?
One journalist thought Obama might be trying to deflect from his pointed failures in Iraq and Syria. That he would rather eliminate the direct connection between the chaos in Iraq with his inaction in Syria and spread it around within the region of the Levant. “Better that the upheaval in a country to which we committed so much blood and treasure remain the fault of George W. Bush,” said Liz Peek in Financial Times. What do you think?
“The Levant is the key to this code speak.”
Oh, fer heaven’s sake! You should all be on anti-psychotics.
The Levant refers to the pre-imperial configuration of the Middle East. Their objection to the imperial configuration of the Middle East is the ONLY legitimate component of their ideology.
However … their subsequent behavior has completely irradicated ANY such legitimacy.
And … I don’t know why I bother to point any of this out, as your totally psychotic manifestation of paranoia, as in this post, completely precludes any ability of yours to comprehend ANY of this.
Libs…chill, wow, where’s this sharp anger coming from anyway?
However, if “alleged exaggeration” is the yardstick for mental illness you like where does “…totally psychotic manifestation of paranoia.” And “You should all be on anti-psychotics!” rate y-o-u, hmmmm? You sound angry enough to behead one of us, say… uh, you’re not a member of ISIL are you?
“He carefully crafts his speeches so that every word is deliberate.”
“Corpseman”.
Jack: “Is Obama saying he sees the rise of radical Islam in these countries or is he stealthily approving of it?”
*sigh*
“You sound angry enough to behead one of us”
Jack, Italian mothers everywhere called. They want their martyr complex back.
Washington Times: “Boko Haram leader declares Islamic caliphate in Nigeria”
Meanwhile, Washington Times reports:
Congress and the President remain on vacation.
…and Newsweek reports; “Iraq Calls for International War Against Islamic State; Iran Vows Solidarity”
Obama’s preferred method of “leading from behind” is what sheep herders do to their flocks with the help of sheepdogs nipping at the flocks heels.
Sound familiar?
No, there is no chilling. You people are “round the bend”, “off yer rockers” and dangerous.
Libby’s people have presided over developments in the last six (to eight) years and she thinks we are dangerous.
Radical progressive’s have created more dangerous and numerous conflicts and threats and we are dangerous?
WOW!
Libby, I don’t even know where to begin, I just hope you are feeling better soon. Good luck.
Obama derangement syndrome hits again….
The Associated Press, meanwhile, believes ISIL is the most accurate translation of the group’s name and “reflects its aspirations to rule over a broad swath of the Middle East,” AP vice president and senior managing editor or international news John Daniszewski wrote.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1405348/iraq-crisis-isis-or-isil-whats-in-a-transliterated-name/
But I know all the crazy RW Bloggers know more than the president who gets the intelligence briefings…
Now lets talk about McCain and Graham… Shall we make up tee shirts with McCain and the orig ISIS and run him for president?
Or shall we continue not to speak about McCain talking Qatar and the Saudis into funding ISIS now ISIL? Or even ask why he did it?
No just Obama derangement syndrome and the plot to put winning elections over the welfare of American people.
The Plot to sell all public assets to Corporations so ‘mericans never have a say about their own resources…
Dewey under president Obama and the Democrats the American people have dropped into poverty at alarming rates, prices for everything are higher, nobody can make a dime but the rich guys, and our debt has exploded.
Please explain how continuing to do more of what they offer will result in something better.
You have a lot of complaints but offer no solutions.
If you are going to make outrageous claims about the right wing I want you to provide links so we can all see where you get your information.
Tina: “Dewey under president Obama and the Democrats the American people have dropped into poverty at alarming rates, prices for everything are higher, nobody can make a dime but the rich guys, and our debt has exploded.”
Suspiciously, all of these things also happened after the formation of Post Scripts. Clearly this blog must be at fault!
Correlation is not causation, especially bad correlation. All of the trends you mention were already occurring long before Obama became president. The man was inaugurated in the middle of the worst global financial crisis in history. The *entire world* is seeing the effects you describe above. Blaming one president for all of that is ridiculous.
” All of the trends you mention were already occurring long before Obama became president.”
Oh please. I won’t post another long comment again to try to educate you. I understand you have bought the leftist lie and are sticking to it.
We have not seen such bad conditions for the middle and poor classes since Carter in the seventies and we have not seen poverty levels like this since the depression.
You still have not been able to tell us how Obama’s policies work. So far there is little evidence that they do work for anyone other than his wealthy donors and friends who would do well in any economy.
“The man was inaugurated in the middle of the worst global financial crisis in history”
That was the hype…and they drove it into the ground! It was not really true.
Reagan came to the Presidency under equally challenging conditions. His polices stimulated economic investment, brought down the extremely high interest rates, created millions of good jobs, and brought people out of poverty. They created the greatest expansion period America had ever seen! it continued through the nineties (Thanks to Gingrich winning the House – otherwise Democrats would have killed it).
The left is just making excuses now. It’s time to face reality.
I can understand why the Dem Party leaders refuse, they have too much invested in big government solutions. But you…I do not understand you.
Tina: “That was the hype…and they drove it into the ground! It was not really true.
Reagan came to the Presidency under equally challenging conditions.”
This level of denial is not healthy.
Politifact examined Sarah Palin’s ludicrous claim that Reagan faced a “worse” recession than Obama, and unsurprisingly, found it false.
“So back to Palin’s claim that Reagan’s recession was more severe. The barometers we examined aren’t necessarily equal measurements of the magnitude, but collectively they paint a picture that the current recession — so far — is worse than the one under Reagan. Even if we had decided to include inflation as a factor, the measurements would still indicate the current recession is worse. So we find Palin’s claim to be False.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/17/sarah-palin/palin-claims-reagan-faced-worse-recession-obama/
And Ezra Klein of the Washington Post shows how government spending under Reagan’s first time actually grew at a much higher rate than government spending under Obama’s first term:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/charts-what-if-obama-spent-like-reagan/