2015 Word of the Year: “radicalized”
Passive-aggressive politically-correct portrayal of murderous Jihadis as victims of circumstance.
FBI director James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday and the big take away seems to be that the San Bernardino terrorists were “radicalized” two years ago.
Rebecca Kaplan reports at CBS News:
FBI director: San Bernardino suspects radicalized at least 2 years ago
FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that the husband and wife team suspected of shooting 14 people in the San Bernardino, California last week were radicalized at least two years before the attack.
Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik began talking about jihad and martyrdom as early as the end of 2013, before they became engaged, married and began living together in the U.S.
Comey also said that FBI believes “they were inspired by foreign terrorist organizations,” and that it is working to understand their association with foreign terror groups and the source of their inspiration. The agency is also investigating whether anyone else assisted, supported or equipped them for the attack and whether they had other plans.
Last week, a federal law enforcement source told CBS News that Malik had pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) online. Another source said the two looked at ISIS propaganda online.
Here’s a clip of Comey’s testimony from C-Span:
If you think the term “radicalized” sounds a little strange, you’re not alone.
CNN reporting Farook was radicalized.. NOW can we stop this nonsense "not ruling out" terror.. IT'S TERROR.
— Eric Bolling (@ericbolling) December 3, 2015
"Was radicalized." By what? Climate change? Republican rhetoric? The NRA? Weird how the article never says… https://t.co/3qNnYxkxzL
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 3, 2015
I hate the word "radicalized" because it takes agency away from the person who deliberately, willingly, chose to become a murderer.
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) December 4, 2015
"radicalized" is my nominee for Orwellian passive verb of the year
https://t.co/VIv3lxlKmk
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) December 9, 2015
There they were, minding their own business, when *ZAP* they were hit by the mysterious radicalizer beam
https://t.co/xk0X1QjXsE
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) December 9, 2015
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“it is working to understand their association with foreign terror groups and the source of their inspiration.”
Ok, I can help with this one, I will say (type) it slowly for the good “Director”.
I..S..L..A..M
Islam is both the association and the source.
Hey Gremlin1974, you probably can’t say it slow enough.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lindsey-graham-asks-head-of-fbi-how-to-buy-a-gun-on-the-internet
In this particularly awkward exchange, South Carolina Sen. and delusional presidential candidate Lindsey Graham asked FBI Director James Comey where, exactly, a hypothetical gun ordered from the internet would be delivered.
“If I buy a gun on the internet, is it delivered to my home?,” Graham asked (he’s not pictured on the video, but that’s his voice).
“If you buy a gun on the internet?,” Comey responded, seemingly perplexed at the line of questioning.
“If I try to buy a gun on the internet, where do I pick it up?” Graham continued.
Comey paused for a second—perhaps because he didn’t want to embarrass Graham—perhaps because he truly didn’t know the answer, then responded: “I assume it’s shipped to you, but I don’t know for sure, actually.”
Ain’t it just grand that these morons have no idea how the law actually works.
For those that may be mislead by this, if you do purchase a gun over the internet from a licensed gun seller, it MUST be shipped to either a Gun Store near you or a FFL holder who then REQUIRED to preform a background check before releasing the weapon to you. Most places charge a small amount for handling cost, usually $50 to $75.
“Gun Show Loophole” is a myth. You are no allowed to preform personal transactions at gunshows unless you are selling a firearm to one of the FFL who have their wares on display.
What they are talking about is requiring a background check if say, I decide to sell my .308 battle rifle in the paper and find a buyer, I as an individual would be required to somehow preform a background check on whomever I sold the rifle, even though there is no real mechanism in place for individuals to do background checks. It is unenforceable and frankly none of the governments business what I do with my personal property.
It’s good they were shot dead, now we don’t have to wait three years and spend millions before having a trial and listening to Comey, Lynch, and the rest of Obama’s crew whine before finding them guilty of mass murder, then another umpteen years of incarceration. (See Malik Nidal Hasan, who should have been hanged four years ago.) Now, if we could just get the FBI to concentrate on rooting these folks out before…or stop them at the…oh never mind.
We also won’t see them traded for a deserter.
Radicalized = progressive = monotonic change. As opposed to organic = evolution = chaotic change.
Make abortion, not life.
Ya gotta love the passive-voice construction in “became radicalized.” As though this happens with no human agency involved on either side.
Perhaps it’s a disorder that might be included in a future DSM?
Not if it’s a stable orientation, consequences not considered.
Precisely; the utter passivity and lack of volition that is implied on the part of the “radicalized” subject is disturbing. As though some imam just came along, used a Jedi mind trick, and quickly turned an otherwise law-abiding, tolerant Mohammedan into a bloodthirsty jihadist. The transparently supremacist and violent tenor of the ideology’s core scripture and teachings have nothing to do with churning out jihadists, of course.
Well, if an insane nutcase shooting up black folks in S.C. results in the banning of the Confederate battle flag, the removal of Confederate statues and erasing Southern history, shouldn’t the SB terrorist shooting result in the banning of the hajib, the quran, all Muslim symbols and all mosques from American soil?
Speaking as a previously radicalized Baptist, I’m not sure how it happened. It could have been the music of Ray Price or the taste of a cold Bud, but probably it was dancing to belly rubbing music with pretty ladies.
How much longer do we need to see these terrorists’ pictures in the media? Is anybody else as sick of seeing their pathetic faces over and over again?
Again and again and again. We saw the 9/11 images once, and the LSM decided we were to fragile, aka they did not want any anti-Muslim backlash. I want to see these faces so we are reminded everyday that the killers in our midst are Muslim, that our people would stop mouthing silly fantasies about good Muslims and only a few Muslims.
That is either a man or one ugly woman, maybe figured she was so ugly even bullets would avoid her.
Inherent to the recurring use of the word “radicalized” to describe jihadist Mohammedans post-terrorist act are three equally revolting premises: A) The absolving/deflection of any sense of personal responsibility for wilfully taken acts of terrorism on the part of the jihadist; B) Another obsessions of the Left, to wit, blaming jihadist violence on a host of alleged external factors, e.g., Jews, Israel, western foreign policy, “disrespect,” global warming, poverty, etc. etc. any one of which or combination of which can be blamed for “radicalizing” the jihadist away from the alleged peaceful teachings of “Submission”; and, C) A refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that any ideology whose founding scripture repeatedly vilifies non-Mohammedans in the most hateful terms and which unabashedly and explicitly exhorts its followers to inflict harm upon them, as a religious duty, could fairly be described as “radical.”
Every time I look at thse pictures, I see hatred and intent to kill in both their eyes.