Of course it is. Peaceful and amicable are two different things; you can utterly despise the people you are revolting against but still act peacefully. You als

Of course it is. Peaceful and amicable are two different things; you can utterly despise the people you are revolting against but still act peacefully. You also seem to singularly equate coercion (which is needed, I agree) with violence. I find that somewhat dubious; there are all manner of non-violent ways to coerce people. but history has shown time and again Ah. Actually not it hasn't - historical analysis does not support such a theory. Or to quote Wikipedia: > "the commonly held belief that most revolutions which have happened in dictatorial regimes were bloody or violent uprisings is not born out of historical analysis." Wouldn't you call the current state of Egyptian protests peaceful? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution