I get what you're saying. My thoughts are that If a certain people are being unjustly oppressed, and they protest that oppression by way of violence, then what you have is a war. Fighting fire with fire serves only to create a bigger fire. And if you vanquish your oppressor, you can celebrate the fact that your fire consumed the other's fire. The thing that is usually never considered in these fiery clashes is that smiting the shit out of your enemy inevitably creates a resistance. Resistance rarely dies. And in the end, the truth is always there staring everyone in the face; that being: the means by which you acquire or attain something is also the means by which you agree to have it taken from you. However, if peace is attained through revelation and spiritual growth, the fire will be out, and there is no need for resistance; it will no longer serve any purpose. So how does all of that figure into the use of non-violence to attain peace? Good question. The way I see it, when one party oppresses another, and the oppressed breaks out the rocks, guns, and booby traps, it is perceived by all as a tit for tat exchange. If the oppressed party protests in a non-violent way and are beaten down over and over, eventually the rest of the world looks on and is given the choice between opening their eyes and seeing the barbarity for what it is, or closing their eyes and minds to the truth of the matter as if they are somehow separate from the barbarity and play no role in it. If a government is the source of the unjustified oppression and violence against their own, or another, people, that's when the dysfunctional parent-child relationship between that government and the people that that government represents becomes painfully obvious.