How far should people go when they protest?

I think that the extent of a protest should be consonant with the level of wrong that one desires to be changed.

Fuzzy meaning.

Does it legitimise terrorism?

This is agreeable but this also relies a bit I think, upon a persons will to support or be in a protest and their values and beliefs.

No, this doesnt at all legitimise terrorism as we are not speaking of terrorism at the time, we are speaking of a protest.

I'm sure that Terrorists think their action is a form of protest.

Perhaps if you would clarify exactly what you mean.

i hold on to the belief that any protest can be successful without killing, and oppose that sort of thing. i also wouldn't participate on any level, in any protest that intended bodily injury or destruction of property, like peta has in the past.

that said, "terrorism" is a fuzzy term too. i mean, under the definition the usa government has written, causing profit loss is terrorism- that could include a non-violent boycott of nestle products for the reprehensible things they did in 3rd world countries.

I was in a hurry when I wrote that, and did not have time to expand on my thoughts. I think that in terms of offense, there is no excuse for any form of protest that involves death or injury to another person. There are peaceful ways of getting a message across, without resorting to bloodshed.

I could see, in certain circumstances, that as a defensive measure, a protest could involve killing, but that would be very rare. For instance, if someone were being held illegally by a rogue regime, I could make a case for the prisoner killing the captors.