Non-violent resistance can work in some situations, but it's a sad reality that violence is needed some times to get things done.
Violence gets shit done which is why I'm okay with it, non violent resistance is hard to achieve but its been proven to work in certain cases(as stated before).
It depends on the Situation. A Violent Resistance can sometimes be a better option (i.e. Revolutions and Resistance movements), but sometimes, A Violent Resistance is not necessary, and is not needed at the moment (i.e. SOPA, PIPA, and other, non-life threatening laws)
Non-Violent Resistance is noble but worthless when the opposition will gladly bash your skull open with a rock.
non-violence resistance does work given the circumstances. but in the case of like syria or a middle eastern nation, or north korea or someplace like that, then violence is the only option.Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable - JFK
If you look at Fabius Maximus' strategy during the Second Punic War, which was mostly a non-violent affair, then sure non-violent resistance can work... given the right circumstances ofcourse.
Wasn't he removed of command twice because the Romans hated his strategy despite it working very well?