Check out some similar questions!

Athos · Oct 16, 2014, 03:49 PM

Why did the media change "ISIL" to "ISIS"? ISIL is clearly the correct choice.

Catsmine · Oct 16, 2014, 04:35 PM

Much speculation in the media has gone into why the President prefers the "Levant" acronym to the "Syria" one. Israeli sympathizers say he doesn't want to recognize Israel in the discussions of the Islamic State while Israel bashers say he doesn't want to remind people of all his red lines.

While the Levant is the more accurate name for the region, the Islamic State's eventual goal, they have said, is to rule the entire Dar-al-Islam, or the area of the Ottoman Empire plus Southern Asia.

smoothy · Oct 16, 2014, 06:11 PM

ISIL apparently is the JV team Obama talks about... ISIS is the major league problem the rest of the world talks about.

tomder55 · Oct 17, 2014, 07:44 AM

I just call them the Islamic State or Jihadistan.

paraclete · Oct 17, 2014, 07:02 PM

It doesn't matter what you call them, they are the same threat the world has been fighting since before 2001, they have morphed into a more dangerious group than they were then and they have far more wide ranging capability. AlQaeda could be seriously degraded by air strikes, ISIS can't they have learned and they possess planes and tanks which give them advantage over small arms

tomder55 · Oct 18, 2014, 12:48 AM

They could be crushed like the cockroaches they are if there was any will to do so . They are the useful tools of more sinister forces.

talaniman · Oct 18, 2014, 05:22 AM

How about letting the Arabs reinforce the Kurds for a change.

tomder55 · Oct 18, 2014, 10:22 AM

1994 flashback .... 'How about letting the Africans reinforce the Hutu for a change. ' But speaking about Kurdish genocide ...are you familiar with the al-Anfal Campaign ? That was one of the examples of how Saddam kept stability in the region.

talaniman · Oct 18, 2014, 10:42 AM

That wasn't just about the Kurds.

tomder55 · Oct 18, 2014, 10:59 AM

and the Islamic State doesn't only attack Kurds.

paraclete · Oct 18, 2014, 02:56 PM

The Kurds are the only ones offering serious fight on the ground while the arabs stand back and laugh, when the arabs are called on to fight they run away. You think these terrorists could be defeated with an army. Assard told us three years ago he was fighting terrorists and we laughed but these terrorists have defeated the Syrian army who are now defensive, they have defeated the Iraqi army and they have grown strong so they can fight on at least two fronts. To defeat these terrorists you are going to have to put an invasion force on the ground, at least two divisions with support units. You are going to have to fight them at Baghdad and Mosul and all the way to Damascus. You can see why Turkey doesn't want to do it alone, to put themselves on the front line with a restive kurdish population

tomder55 · Oct 19, 2014, 01:40 AM

Turkey doesn't want to do it because for now the Islamic State is serving their interest. Jihadists are being funneled into the ISIS ranks through Turkey . Erdogan is untrustworthy and duplicitous .Turkey should be expelled from NATO as long as they follow his leadership. He has his own caliphate ambitions ....the restoration of the Ottoman Empire.

paraclete · Oct 19, 2014, 02:13 PM

Ok Conspiracy theory number two; Turkey is complicit with ISIS, they will merge their ambitions for restoration of the caliphate once ISIS have conquered Syria and Iraq which can be anticipated given the reluctance of anyoneelse to actually get involved. Iran will then have to commit to defense of the Shia and the west will sit back and watch from their safe haven

smoothy · Oct 19, 2014, 05:41 PM

Since Athos seems to think what I said in post 3 was Bovine excrement... how many here in the USA heard MOST if not all of the media calling ISIS from the very beginning... and only Obama calling ISIL like I have.

All the left wing media here outlets in the Washington , DC metro area (radio, TV and newspapers) have always called it ISIS from the beginning until very recently since only Obama was calling it ISIL all along and it was getting pointed out they weren't on the dear leaders talking points closely enough.

Wondergirl · Oct 19, 2014, 05:48 PM

Chuck Todd explains why, smoothy --

Why Does Obama Say ISIL and not ISIS? Chuck Todd Explains | Mediaite

smoothy · Oct 19, 2014, 05:51 PM

Obama talks out of his rectal orrifice 95% of the time... and the other 5% he really just doesn't have a clue.

Wondergirl · Oct 19, 2014, 05:53 PM

Actually, his reasoning makes sense.

smoothy · Oct 19, 2014, 05:55 PM

Originally in the beginning (yes I remember these things.)... They were talking about Islamic State in Libya, and Islamic State in Syria. (only losesly related entities at the time) Most of these other arguments have come up after the fact by his handlers to not make Obama look like the dufus he is by twisting everything to fit the situation they want.

paraclete · Oct 19, 2014, 09:34 PM

Instead of just the Islamic State of Euphoria we have today. You have been bombing the crap out of one Islamic state or another for years, I just don't understand why there is an issue in Syria, I expect it is because you don't have any boots on the ground

paraclete · Oct 19, 2014, 09:44 PM

I hear the strains of the Colonel Boggie March, you know the one, it goes B/S, B/S they played it night and day, B/S, B/S it's all the band could play, repeating endlessly