No one argued (at least not that I saw) that terrorism is anything other than a small subset of political protest, but you seemed to be arguing that it wasn't political protest at all. Would you agree that it is, in some cases, a small subset of political protest?
I don't think of it as a part of political protest, it seems to me a follow-up strategy to protest.
Protest is the assertion of an objection. Terrorism is a political strategy of triggering massive fear. They are quite different things. They may come together in some instances to the extent that terrorism and protest are both asymetrical strategies, coming from a position of weakness and both are intended to overturn the status quo. Both derive from a beef the underdog has wht the powers that be. If you want to focus on where they come together, that small area where they coincide or overlap, I can understand that even though I find it contorted.
If it's a subset, it is the same thing.
Your arm is not your body. Your arm is part of your body. You don't ask the nurse to give you your tetanus shot in your "body" lest you get it in the eye. The difference matters. A being part of B is not the same as A being B.
Bear in mind that your arm is wholly subsumed by your body. A is part of B, period. With protest and terrorism, part of A coincides with part of B, which is a different relationship. Each has other elements. That adds another dimension. You could as easily say that protest is a subset of terrorism depending on your focus because there may be an element of protest to terrorism.
Protest is neither terrorism nor violence although they may coincide or overlap. Protest is primarily "about" taking exception, terrorism is primarily "about" causing fear, and violence is primarily "about" assault. |
