Violence is not the answer. It is the question, and the answer is YES

Anyone who believes that violence doesn't solve anything has clearly never paid attention.

It’s a double edged sword, because people who you don’t agree with will resort to violence as well. Like the Taliban.

It really isn't though. It's always two steps forward three steps back. Anything good that arises out of the destruction, always comes at an immense cost, and usually corrupts the revolutionary leaders who made it happen.

Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?

I think violence is often necessary. But I wouldn't say it's ever the right answer.

Further reading: How Nonviolence Protects the State

I haven't read it yet but I read another book by that author

Violence leads to counter-violence.

The only thing that will improve something is to put meaning into the world.

If brute force doesn't work, you're not doing it enough

"Violence is bad" statements are in the same vein as "stove is hot". Both are told to children because they cannot properly gauge the consequeces of using it, but are naive and condescending when told to adults.

We overthrown Pinochet with music and in the polls and since then most of our problems have been resolved in the polls too.

Democracy is the answer.

I thought we were supposed to learn from history and NOT repeat it.

There's a lot of evidence that says that non-violent resistance is more often effective, and when it is effective it's more effective, than violent-based resistance.

Can't grab the source info link at the moment, but this video talks about it.

https://youtu.be/5Dk3hUNOMVk

Edit:

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/about/civil-resistance/