I totally agree since I just don't think terrorism emerges from a vacuum without an impetus causing the reaction
The impetus can be internal to the terrorist.
To the extent that it is external, that he is reacting to something in the world today (and some event, or regime, or change, rather than just hating someone for being part of a particular group), it could be seen as a reaction against this external event, or change, or regime, but I'm not sure that would really make it a protest.
Terrorism being "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons
I don't think I would call the mere threat of use, without any violence ever being used, "terrorism". Also I would add something like "against innocent civilians" to the definition.
often for ideological or political reasons
Often doesn't mean always.
And if the ideological or political reason is something like the drive for power than I wouldn't call it a protest. The man made famines in the USSR in the first half of the 20th century would fit the definition of terrorism. (Use of force - Well force was used to maintain it, and even without that fact deliberately causing people to starve could be considered force, not "allowing them to starve, but causing them to starve. Illegal? - Certainly by international norms. If that isn't enough I think it also was illegal according to the laws on the books in the USSR. Of course the real law was the communist party, you really didn't have rule by law then. Against innocent civilians - Certainly. "With the intention of intimidating or coercing societies"? - Yes. For ideological or political reasons? Yes again.) But I don't think Lenin and Stalin, and the communist party were participating in a protest.
To the extent there is an element of protest in most terrorism it is often not primary. The motive is less to make a symbolic statement against something, than to cause fear in order to create change. Now some non-terrorist protest might also want to instill fear, but that just shows that protests can also have elements beyond that of protesting (" the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval", or making "A formal declaration of disapproval or objection issued by a concerned person, group, or organization" or " To object to, especially in a formal statement. "
dictionary.reference.com
I suppose it is possible to twist any action motivated by objection or dislike, or even desire (if I desire power, I dislike the state of not having it, and my violence to get it is a "protest" against the state of not having it, if you desire money, your robbing the bank is a protest against your lack of funds...) in to "a protest", but the element of protest really isn't there or is such a small part of the whole as to be meaningless in many cases, including some acts of terrorism.
Tim |
