Prompted by “8 ways to defend against terror nonviolently”: http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/8-ways-defend-terror-nonviolently/
On the one hand, I agree and appreciate the content in the prompting piece.
Violence is obviously a harsh measure with distortions causing violent repercussions that may amplify even more violence.
There are many ways to leverage a correction without relying upon violent measures, and those ways must be educated, improved upon, and embraced to the fullest fit.
On the other hand, peace is tricky due to its subjective (so unfair) nature.
If your friend is being beaten up by an irrational thug, then a responsibly tough intervention (e.g. martial arts expertise) to most promptly precisely disable that thug’s attack may reduce overall suffering — as opposed to reasoning efforts (or such) that likely fail against insanity, while that beating mercilessly rewards the thuggish mind.
That beating obviously extends to encompass mass suffering, so a competent militaristic and/or law enforcement response may be the best response to thuggery.
Suffering is the root of violence in this universe demonstrating serious energetic violence well beyond humanity’s reach.
Suffering is an unhealthy buildup that (like any buildup) requires release.
Suffering (negative pressure) is part of energetic modulation, and is a necessary balancing signature to offset the pleasurable (positive) pressure.
Add “balancivity” to negativity and positivity, so then we have a constant modulation of those three resonating extremes that form what any of us within reality call living (and dying).
Each one of us will die at some point, so unhealthy stress (suffering) is inherent within reality.
Survival of the fittest joins peace in its trickiness due to the same subjectivity.
Is survival of humanity best met by continuous internal turmoil in the form of competition for air, water, food, and shelter?
Is mass violence simply a part of internal sparring to naturally weed out the weak in accordance with reality’s rule?
Frustrations amplifying into anger forms all types of distortions (e.g. lashes of violence).
Diffusing that buildup is sanely preferable, but therein lies the trickiest match for the civilized — there’s always a loser (even after solely applying non-violent measures).
Losers who don’t die always have the opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade in the ultimate competition for survival. Within crisis lies opportunity.
Best intentions combined with best competence is the only course for the positive minded, and that subjectivity is best left within your mind to form your inaction/action, because your net-resulting instinct (even the one prompting contemplation) purely experiences that righteous press with the ultimate source that’s reality itself — any outcome.