You accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then go and respond by putting words in my mouth.
I never said you condoned violence and I was making a point that violence has been successful in situations where there is a large mass of people who have been disenfranchised and/or abused in some form. The example of England revolting was meant to illustrate that point and of course it would not happen.
I referred to the other comments in the thread in regards to forms of protest against civil injustice etc.
I responded directly to a poster who implied violence was the ONLY successful means of protesting. Why don't you take a gander through the thread before you start making assumptions about the points people are trying to make.