(urth) This week in Google alerts

[James Wynn]

On 11/8/2011 1:04 PM, Lee Berman wrote:
> 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.

Haven't they been rather open in their ambitions to establish an Islamic 
caliphate? They were the standing army of the Taliban when they ruled 
Afghanistan.

> 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?

What makes you assume a government is required to worry about demands 
for services. The Taliban didn't worry about a drop in tourism and 
banned the sale of birds in the market because their singing was 
unIslamic.  An alternate option is to just mobilize the population for 
war instead of worrying about improving people's lives.  You seem to be 
assuming that terrorist groups do what they do just because they like 
making bombs and blowing things up. I'm pretty sure that's not true. If 
a ruling party with it's capital in Bergen had a central tenet that NYC 
was an illegitimate contrivances of evil whatevers, there's no reason to 
think they wouldn't act on that just because Meals On Wheels is lobbying 
for extra funding.