I'm sure you're just employing ironic humor, but humor me a moment, Joe. What is the distinction to be made between an anarchist and a bomb-thrower, given the practical history of anarchism?
An anarchist believes that humans are best able to regulate their political affairs directly, without the medium of a government imposed upon them. A bomb thrower believes that the best way to get certain aims accomplished is by throwing bombs.
Although, if we were to make a Venn diagram of this, we could see where the two sets would overlap, it would be equally clear that there are areas where they do not intersect at all. Prince Kropotkin, for instance, was an anarchist but not a bomb thrower. Timothy McVeigh, on the other hand, was a bomb thrower but not an anarchist. And Alexander Berkman was an anarchist and
a bomb thrower. If we don't know that a bomb thrower is an anarchist, therefore, it's unfair to call him/her an anarchist just because he/she is throwing a bomb.
Let me make that a little more clear. Given the idea of the propaganda of the deed, i can't think that true anarchists would be offended that bomb throwers were characterized as anarchists. I just don't see the point of an objection to calling violent protesters anarchists. Anarchists aren't likely to mind.
Well, that's rather like saying that because Sam Adams liked to dump tea into Boston Harbor, it's fair to label all "patriots" as "vandals." You make the mistake of thinking that one bomb-throwing anarchist is a fair representation of all anarchists. Just because some
anarchists like to throw bombs doesn't mean that all