San Bernardino

Nah.

Asian mail order is the way to go.

 

Grad school classmate of mine (Army vet who was a linguist in the service) married him one of those. He subsequently bombed out on the tenure track and now works the seafood counter at a grocery store in a little town in South Carolina. She's still in Russia. He largely supports her and her grown children (who're also in Russia). It apparently has yet to occur to him that this may not be the best deal he's ever negotiated.

 

Dick, the verbiage is always passive.

"So-and-so was radicalized."

It's like something tragedy befell them. John acquired cancer. Bob was struck by lighting. Jim was hit by a car.

No. They chose radicalization. They often sought it.

And, they weren't tricked. This isn't like Paul Haggis discovering Scientology in the '70's and thinking it was helpful, and only learning about Xenu, years later, after spending a bunch of dough.

The end game in radical Islam isn't some secret. It's not some minor movement that a Muslim American would be unfamiliar with, and might get drawn into accidentally.

So, can we please stop talking about folks who chose radical Islam as if they were victims of some sad fate. They chose to follow a murderous doctrine.

That's why even the discussion of whether the husband radicalized the wife or vice versa is a joke. (And the same goes for the younger Tsarnaev brother.)

I don't think either you or me would be able to "radicalize" our wives to go along on a murderous spree. The reaction to such a proposal is to call the police/FBI, not to join along.

But, instead, we're trying to figure out which of these two was victimized by the other.

 

Oh sure, you think they'll be subservient, but you give 'em an inch of personal freedom, and they'll take a mile.

 

Who told?

 

I feel like I've heard a lot of folks tell us that we're insane to be "afraid" of scary "Mooslims" and that there's no reason why we shouldn't allow greater numbers to immigrate here.

 

There's a Trump negotiation joke in here somewhere.

 

How would you suggest that the media phrases it, instead?

It would be interesting to compare the rhetoric used for radical Islamists - "was radicalized" - with that used about inner-city gang members.

It seems like the "was radicalized" language is used as a nod to the fact that they go to another country and implies that these innocent Americans are being corrupted overseas.

 

Just a note for the next time someone here tells us that, "no one wants to take your guns away."

 

Well, the gang comparison is that "he fell in with the wrong crowd."

I heard someone joke that everyone in prison is there because they "fell in with the wrong crowd" but that they could never identify the original members of the crowd.

And, yes "was radicalized" does imply corruption of the poor, earnest Muslim-American. Somehow they were to naïve to realize that the path they were going down would lead to murder/suicide/Jihad.

I just don't know how anyone in 2015 America can claim such naïveté. We've seen this movie before.

So, however the media phrases it, it shouldn't be passive. Say they "chose a radical path" or something similar, but make it clear it was a decision, not some simple twist of fate.

 

Well, Obama has had seven-plus years to do it and he hasn't even tried. I highly doubt it will happen on his watch, or the next President's.
I don't want to take guns away from stable, law-abiding citizens. I just want some reasonable assurance that the person buying a gun is in fact stable and law-abiding.

 

Oh the irony is thick with this guy. He routinely is railing against the ignorance/dumbassedness of the community in which he lives/works. Ummm, dude ... you have a PhD but couldn't hang at a shit college, so now you're working the seafood counter so you can send $800 a month to a woman in Russia you haven't touched in five years. Might want to tone down the superiority juuuuuuust a tad.