English

Should all protests be non-violent, or should we be prepared to fight more forcefully?

Today in our world there are more and more protests. The majority is non-violent but some situations need violence.
On the one hand, sometimes we can't avoid violence. For example during the second world war, europeans and americans had been obliged to used violence to stop Hitler. In fact, the mouvement nazism was very violent, horrible because they wanted exterminate all the Jews. So in this situation the violence was obliged to save democratie and the world balance of power. Moreover, actually the world should be reactive against the islamist movement. These terrorists make us tremble with there attacks everywhere. We have the example of the attemps in 2001 in New-York. So here also we need violence to fight the violence.
On the other hand, the non-violence should be more effective than violence. It is the case with Gandhi. He has helped the lower-caste Indians fight for their rights in India and he obtained the independence of India. All that since violence but only with pacifsm. We can speak also about Nelson Mandela who fight for the end of apartheid ( the racial segragation of the white minority on the black population ). This man is arrived to his objective since violence but with negociations.
We can see that we need violence against some cases. In fact the violence is the only solution against a extremly violence. But the non-violence stay a solution very effective and more