What Does Radicalized Mean, Exactly?

Here, in this editorial, it means to fear all extremists, especially right-wingers, even though I lived in an exurb of Atlanta, GA and met these Atlantan liberals, who aren't actually Republican, yet who match the same types of assorted people from D.C. People are so moved to commit atrocities when they get desperate for their various poly-addictions, that it's inherent to every political category.

Yes, the nation of Qatar is not Atlanta, but isn't it smarter to fear living as an American, female, liberal, ex-patriate, in Qatar, more so than in Atlanta?

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/obama-violent-extremism-radical-islam/385700/

If Daniel O'Shea is right, than these radical Salafists are "upstanding/socially well-connected" Islamic, powerful males, who definitely aren't Coptic Christian. The problem is that they become stronger in the U.S. detention centers/prison systems, before getting released. We're a country of corrupt court systems, because they (the radical Islamic terrorists) are so well-connected here in the U.S.

It's because both sides: neoconservatives and liberals have continually harbored them together. In the fight for federal funding, nobody can admit our country (on both sides of the political spectrum) has participated in illegally detaining, torturing, then letting out these convicted terrorists, who aren't American, nor "Atlantan liberal," nor a "veteran liberal," nor anyone like Paust, but are indeed foreign nationals who leave our prisons, to re-contact Al-Qaeda.

Of this group of ex-convicted, radical Islamic terrorists, most are not in support of any U.S. military or U.S. military veterans. More than likely, they are ultra-liberals pretending to be ultra-conservatives, to rape both sides of any credibility. Or vice versa, depending upon which side has more crack and child rape slaves to offer them. At the end of the day, do we feel safer with the Gitmo detainees, or with the Gitmo interrogators?

The latter are safer, yet probably neoconservatives. It's always safer to be a marginalized, liberal, minority feminist among predominantly Caucasian, neoconservative, U.S. military than to trust any AQAP convicts/associates. The Caucasian neoconservatives of the American military (however terrifying they can appear) are definitely more liberal compared to those Gitmo ex-detainees, who do indeed have/had appalling prison mates and conditions.

Most neoconservatives will definitely not de-limb nor behead any females for attending elementary school in the Middle East, or learning how to read. Among these Caucasian, male veterans, I wouldn't blindly trust Jordan J. Paust or Daniel O'Shea's definitions of these "radicalized evildoers." I still lean more towards trusting Reverend Jesse Jackson, or First Lady Michelle Obama to make a better decision in our foreign policy.

Among the poor, this feels safest. As a Virginian, I wasn't raised to trust either side though. The Obama Administration is in the same disgraced, Oval Office as "Slick Willy's" where I truly believe that Monica Lewinsky was sexually abused. How former President Clinton was beloved in China and the U.S. isn't a mystery.

Democrats do tend to be impoverished and more illiterate. Therefore, they're more naive, and easily preyed upon by powerful, male, serial rapists. The First Lady's office seems more proper for representing gentle, humanitarian, American values. The male side is often the more violent side in every category.

Usually, those serial pedophiles, flashers and perverts in D.C. have been male, from my perspective. If they're the opposite of our First Lady, they're the ones I'd consider a terrorist. Heterosexual, extroverted, well-educated, and male, seem to be common traits among most terrorists.