isn't the implication "he's not a bad guy" rather than "he's not either of these two groups, one of which would reasonably explain his behaviour anyway"? i thi

isn't the implication "he's not a bad guy" rather than "he's not either of these two groups, one of which would reasonably explain his behaviour anyway"? i think that's what worries people (and me). that his own lawyer, apparently defending him (not just explaining, but holding him up in positive contrast), seems to be saying, "look, he's not one of these problem groups". and in that sense, as a "problem group", activist and terrorist are presented as similar.