 |
| ISIS Demonstrates their Level of Civility |
In June of 2014, the Islamic militant group known as ISIS
declared that it now prefers the name Islamic State (IS). The President BO (the
amateur president) refers to it as ISIL. So is it ISIS, ISIL or IS?
In 1999 the militant group established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
called itself “Al-Qaeda in Iraq.” It was part of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist
network, the one that attacked the US in the 9/11 Twin Towers collapse. The
group has operated under several names. Its current leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
insisted that it is now to be called the Islamic State.
If
you spoke Arabic, you would refer to them in the Arabic language as “Al-Dawla
Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham, or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
The term “al-“Sham” refers to a region stretching from southern Turkey through
Syria to Egypt (also including Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and
Jordan).
The
common English designation of this territory is “the Levant.” That is
ostensibly why President BO (tap) refers to them as ISIL. This way, he does not
have to use the letter that stands for Syria, the last “S” in ISIS. Because PBO
(tap) refused to send troops into Syria to intervene in their civil war, he
prefers not to refer to them at all.
The
Obama administration claims to believe that “Levant” (“L”) is a more accurate
translation of the Arabic name. Linguists disagree, but he doesn’t care. In his
usual narcissistic way, he’ll call them what he pleases.
So,
ISIS is the correct translation of the first three words of Al-Dawla
Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. “al-Sham” is a reference to Syria and
its surrounding region.
ISIL
refers to the undefined region surrounding Syria, but does not refer to Syria
itself. ISIL includes Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan. The
militants want their control to extend beyond Iraq.
IS,
the Islamic State, represents the militant group’s desire to be the main “nationality”
that rules that part of the Middle East. They seek to become the country
referred to when the rest of the world mentions the Middle East.
Many
Muslims reject the notion of an “Islamic State,” stating that ISIS (ISIL/IS) is
neither Islamic nor a State. They want IS to change its name to something more descriptive
of who
they really are. That is probably not going to happen.
The
clearly stated goal of ISIS/ISIL/IS is to restore a caliphate (an Islamic
State) in the entire area. They have also recruited more and more people to
build toward this goal, including Americans. Why Americans would reject the benefits
of America, including the relative peace enjoyed here, to join a vulgar,
uncivilized, barbaric would-be country like ISIS is open to question.
Whether
they are called ISIL, ISIS or IS, this group is growing in number and is
developing the capability to wreak havoc around the world, including the United
States. They need to be permanently deleted.
With
proper leadership, the US and its willing allies could accomplish that with the
same degree of success it won Desert Storm. The press and the world trembled
when we too on that project, stating often that we were crazy to take on the “third
most powerful military in the world.” Our resolve there was total, and we
accomplished the task in short order. We could almost as easily accomplish the annihilation
is ISIS if we wanted to.
For whatever reason, we don’t.
12 comments:
So he wants to avoid direct references to Syria by saying ISIL. Maybe he doesn't want to offend someone.
Isn't it ironic how proficient the non Muslim president is with his Muslim terms?
To me makes no difference they are still calling themselves the Islamic State.
So we can't refer to Syria but now we are arming the rebels there just like we did in Libya and we all see how well that worked out.
Geez!
The following comment has been altered for response. I has not been edited.
Blogger Duckys here said...
"But Desert Storm left Saddam in power and made the Sunni population in Iraq forever suspicious and we became anathema in Northern Iraq."
True
"What you forget, Joe, is the fable of the hydra. Cutting off the most menacing head just produces another."
False. I didn't forget anything.
"Getting involved in the four sided civil war in Syria presents tremendous opportunity to really make things worse."
Trust me. They will get worse under PBO (tap).
"You seem to feel that simply leveling parts of Northern Iraq and Syria will resolve this the way Desert Storm resolved the problem in Iraq."
Actually, that's not what I said. But trust you to miss what I actually said. The meaning of my post is that if we have the will to do so, we can eliminate ISIS. If we have the will. We don't.
September 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM
Aw! Ducky got mad and went away! How sad! (Not). He didn't like that I altered his comment so I could easily address each point individually. Maybe he though I changed words in his quotes. I didn't, but he probably didn't read them closely enough to tell. He doesn't read very well, you know. He's a liberal. What can I say?
JC: "How dare you further the ISIS/ISIL agenda of fear and terror by distributing that image?"
Because It is terrible and liberals pretend it isn't happening.
"How does posting a photo of a terrorist cutting the head off of an innocent hostage fall in to your Christian faith?"
Because the Christian faith is real and we deal with real issues; not like liberals who bury their heads in the sand.
Goodbye. You won't be missed that much.
I find it amazing how the left goes out of their way to defend the savagery of this primitive culture.
I think they have one thing in common ,they both hate America.
I guess Ducky would prefer to see a KKK lynching photo to show his disdain for the white man.
Lisa: Ducky and JC were so offended by this post that they behaved uncivilly and bid me adieu.
Yea!
Lisa, again you've made an unsupported statement. Where has the left even hinted that it is acceptable to behead your enemies?
Where has the left defended the most brutal savage elements of the extremists within Islam?
I think we can have an intelligent discussion about whether the culture of Islam is compatible with the western values we hold here in the US and what, if anything we should do about related to immigration. But, that it is a far cry from defending or condoning their "savagery"
I'll await your links showing our defense.
DM: "Where has the left even hinted that it is acceptable to behead your enemies?"
By lack of deliberate, effective action.
"...whether the culture of Islam is compatible with the western values we hold here in the US."
So, if your value system is different, beheading is OK?
"I'll await your links showing our defense."
What does that even mean?
Sorry Joe... that was supposed to read "I'll await your links showing your evidence."
Joe, what type of deliberate action? Conservatives are calling for something to be done, but suggesting nothing, apart from Phil Robertson demanding conversion or face death and ted Cruz who is asking to bomb them to the "stone age."
What suggestions do you have?
Beyond that, you seem to equate lack of action with approval, or acquiescence... is that a universal value and applicable across all views, or just this one?
We frequently hear conservatives use that logic, yet when they are branded by the same logic, for the idiotic statements of the GOP and extreme conservatives, and we hear nary a peep of disagreement, they cry foul.
Again folks... can you provide any statements by liberals where they state that they are in favor of savagery and beheadings? If not, all you have is unsubstantiated conjecture.
DM: "Joe, what type of deliberate action?"
Bombing them to the stone age would be one viable option. But consider another: we have more than enough troops to advance in two-by-twos (or more) and individually take out every ISIS member and sympathizer. If we wait long enough, they'll have too many for that to be possible.
"We frequently hear conservatives use that logic, yet when they are branded by the same logic, for the idiotic statements of the GOP and extreme conservatives, and we hear nary a peep of disagreement, they cry foul."
I almost edited that part out (a right I reserve to myself). See, it's a non-statement without corroboration. We can just as easily say, "We frequently hear liberals use that logic, yet when they are branded by the same logic, for the idiotic statements of the Dems and extreme liberalism, and we hear nary a peep of disagreement, they cry foul.
Your statement does is not backed up with any facts...the very thing you accuse me of all the time. What does "frequently" mean and how is it supported? What are the idiotic statements GOP makes vs DEMs? Have you listened to Harry Reid lately?
Joe... here's a great example of a conservative call for the moderates to speak out, and his equating their supposed silence to acceptance of the actions of the radicals.
he fact that “moderate” Muslims remain silent about all the hideous bloodshed, torture and murder being done in the name of their religion, their god, and their prophet, is most telling indeed.
Here's the link... http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/06/17/the-myth-of-moderate-muslims/
As for my mentioning the GOP, I've never yet heard a GOP leader denounce the birther claim against President Obama. Using the above writers logic that he uses against all Muslims, would it be consistent to assume all GOP party leaders accept that President Obama was not born in the US?
A GOP congressman said that women's body do not get pregnant when there is a case of legitimate rape.
Not one other GOP congressman stepped up and said he was wrong. Again, using the logic that noncondemnation is acceptance, would I be wrong to infer that all GOP congressmen agreed with this guy?
Now Joe, I've provided some examples, and even a link.
Can you show me any links where liberals say they the Islamic beheadings?
DM: "... heard a GOP leader denounce the birther claim..."
You've been sleeping again.
Post a Comment