This thinking is dangerous and wrong. You cannot fight against violence without violence. Violence is most effective when it's implied/threatened, before it is

This thinking is dangerous and wrong. You cannot fight against violence without violence. Violence is most effective when it's implied/threatened, before it is materialized. The goal of protests are: 1) To serve as a show of force (they are literally called demonstrations in some languages because you demonstrate your ability to organize and act - large numbers of people are capable of large amounts of violence). 2) To paint your side as the victim by provoking an overreaction. Westerners often think that 2 is sufficient because they live in democracies where a large part of the government is also unwilling to use violence and become the aggressor. But against a dictator who is willing to use as much violence against the people as is available to him, 2 alone is worthless. Goal 2 only serves to maximize the number of people willing to rise up but the real goal is to break the enemy's will to fight. Either to make the dictator lose his nerve and flee or to kill him because corpses don't have a will. The point is it's a delicate balancing act to paint yourself as victim/weak to get more support and angry/strong to make the dictator back down. Westerners focus on the first part because it works against their governments but against greater oppression, you will not get anywhere without actual will to fight and kill.