I disagree. One of the primary aspects of many threats is defining the specific criteria that would lead to violence. The point of a threat is usually not to

I disagree. One of the primary aspects of many threats is defining the specific criteria that would lead to violence. The point of a threat is usually not to actually inflict the violence but instead to use that possibility of violence as a motivation for changing behavior. It is roughly equivalent to preemptive terrorism. I therefore don't see how putting qualifications on the threat of violence should be enough to circumvent the rules. I would still expect to get in trouble for saying "I will kill you if you ever state that political opinion again" even though the threatened party could easily avoid any fear of violence by simply refraining from stating that opinion.