What does "radicalized" mean?

[MarAzul]

I just watched a new clip on the theme of this article.

http://pamelageller.com/2014/09/jih...increases-wake-cyber-security-crackdown.html/

It appears the Muslims are recruiting people from the US to go fight for a Jihad or a Caliphate as IS seems to prefer calling the cause.

Why is this recruiting process referred to as "radicalizing"?
The word seems to be used by politician rather than the general public. I can't quite grasp the reason for using this word unless it is some level of denial. Fighting for a Jihad is a rather normal activity for a young Muslims. A great many Muslims would like to have a Caliphate again.
What the heck is Radical about this?

 

[MARIS61]

In politics it's used to describe Republicans who join the Tea Party, or Democrats that join the Green Party.
In religion it's used to describe anyone else's religion, since all religions are radical.

 

[Denny Crane]

It was used in the 1800s to describe republicans who wanted to free the slaves and make the freed slaves equal.

 

[Minstrel]

It was used in the 1800s to describe republicans who wanted to free the slaves and make the freed slaves equal.

A Southern GOP Can’t Be the Party of Lincoln

 

[Denny Crane]

A Southern GOP Can’t Be the Party of Lincoln

Oh yes they can.

 

[Minstrel]

Oh yes they can.

Yes, the Republicans once represented the progressive North. As my link above showed, now the Democrats do. As long as the Republicans continue to be the voice of the religious South, they can't return to their roots.

Really, read the article.

 

[magnifier661]

It's a surfing term for a bitching wave!

 

[julius]

Yes, the Republicans once represented the progressive North. As my link above showed, now the Democrats do. As long as the Republicans continue to be the voice of the religious South, they can't return to their roots.

Really, read the article.

Didn't the parties basically swap roles, so claiming the R's as being the ones who freed the slaves, etc, is kind of being intellectually and ethically disingenuous?

 

[MARIS61]

Nobody freed the slaves. They just added the rest of the American workforce and changed the term slave to employee. And yes, it was the Republicans that did it.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

It's meant to describe my house parties. If you were here last night, you'd understand.

 

[Minstrel]

Didn't the parties basically swap roles, so claiming the R's as being the ones who freed the slaves, etc, is kind of being intellectually and ethically disingenuous?

Basically. The Democrats used to be the party of the South, which ends up leading to another popular talking point: that more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. While that's true, the reason for that is because of the "Dixiecrats"...deeply conservative and racially intolerant Southerners who were still Democrats for traditional reasons even though they opposed the majority of their party after the Democrats in the 1940s added a civil rights plank to their platform. That Civil Rights vote in which nearly all the non-Dixiecrat Democrats voted for it, in fact, is what created the final split, with almost all the Dixiecrats leaving for the Republican party (with a very few exceptions like Robert Byrd).

Which pretty much created the parties we have now and led to the infamous "Southern Strategy" by Nixon (and propagated by Republican Presidential nominees after him) in which Nixon determined that if he could win the South, with policies aimed at their religious and racial preferences, he could win the overall election. The Republican party and the South have been joined at the hip since.

So yes, the Republican party was the party of Lincoln, but ideologies have swapped since then between the Republicans and Democrats.

 

[Denny Crane]

Didn't the parties basically swap roles, so claiming the R's as being the ones who freed the slaves, etc, is kind of being intellectually and ethically disingenuous?

No, the parties did not switch roles.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

No, the parties did not switch roles.

Oh yes they did!

(This is fun. Giving reasons just clutters up an argument.)

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh yes they did!

(This is fun. Giving reasons just clutters up an argument.)

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton aren't republican presidents, eh?

There's your reasons.

Democrats voted for George Wallace in 1968, then went back to the party in 1972.

This is what Republicans had in 1984:

 

[Denny Crane]

here's your democratic party leader:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=harry+reid+racist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

[lawai'a]

Oh yes they did!

(This is fun. Giving reasons just clutters up an argument.)

thanks for this, after reading the typical bullet points in this mornings political section this thought flashed ever so brightly.
major reppage.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton aren't republican presidents, eh?

There's your reasons.

Democrats voted for George Wallace in 1968, then went back to the party in 1972.

This is what Republicans had in 1984:

I liked it better when you didn't give reasons. You made more sense.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

here's your democratic party leader:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=harry+reid+racist&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Are you attempting to point out the accuracy in Harry Reid's comments about Obama's disparity from the urban African-American stereotype?

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you attempting to point out the accuracy in Harry Reid's comments about Obama's disparity from the urban African-American stereotype?

Leader of the party. There is no accuracy to his racist statement.