(urth) This week in Google alerts

[Lee Berman]

>James Wynn: There was a non-sequitur transition from "terrorist" to "rebel" here. I 
>imagine that if northern New Jersey were inclined toward the ambitions of Al Qaeda, 
>NYC would prefer endless decades of occupation of that region to democratic government.

For me it seems "sequitur" or as a logical connection. We have heard the terms "terrorist", 
"rebel", "insurgent" and "freedom fighter" all used to describe the same group. Or they 
may be used to describe different groups exhibiting the same behavior. The choice of label 
seems to depend more on the loyalty or sympathy of the speaker than differences in action.
 
Al Qaeda is a good example actually. They've had no inclination or aspiration to take
leadership of a particular nation. Doing so would be the end of their terrorism. If a
terrorist group out of Bergen county, New Jersey were put in a government position, they'd
soon be forced out of the terrorist game by affairs of governance. Who has time to make and
deliver bombs when there are millions of local people demanding services? And what would be the 
point of those bombs,once you have power?
 
Wasn't George Washington "First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen"
for so admirably and effectively making that transition?
 
(apologies to others for this brief political digression. It won't last long)