The BBC's Peter Taylor has been reporting on terrorist groups for the last four decades. He doesn't seem to hesitate in describing al Qaeda as far more dangerous than anything that preceded it. But ultimately Taylor and other journalists, describing how terrorists they've interviewed managed to transcend or rebut "governmental stereotypes," simply underline the limited utility of understanding the people who are trying to kill us. To the extent understanding terrorism will help us defeat the enemy or transform the Middle East, there is surely value in it. More often than not, however, I find journalistic work like Taylor's exhibits what Paul Berman properly dubbed the "rationalist naiveté." And moral equivalence is never far behind. Taylor admits, "When I talked to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and the fedayeen--or militants--on the Israeli-occupied West Bank, I could understand why they felt the way they did and why they were prepared to hit back against Israel." How long before Taylor or some other journalist will say the same about al Qaeda?