> Between 1900-2006, campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance were twice as successful as violent campaigns.
You're just saying "No." without providing anything more than an opinion and some anecdotal evidence. You're absolutely right that under many oppressive regimes like China pretty much any kind of protest beside outright civil war is suppressed, but that doesn't defeat the point of the article.
Also, saying things like
> dirty communist pokes his finger ...
really doesn't help you here.
It does, very much. Read what is my point above. What argument they have against that?
Their reasoning is shallow, their data is very meticulously gathered, but is nevertheless massaged, and people behind the report... take a look at their bios and judge yourself.
I have a lot of anger for types of people calling for peaceful sit ins when crowds are already being showered by machine gun fire. Those share the blame for people's deaths as much as regimes doing the killing.
Doing that is an advocacy for moral frailty.
Why is "toppling a regime" your only benchmark for measuring success?
What is your justification for favouring your own anecdata over the article's statistics?
How is "sporadic riots in China" an example of nonviolent resistance, and how does it further your argument?
But truth is that nonviolent civil resistance is not effective. The few "regimes" that were "toppled" by it never stood in ranks of real regimes, or were at their dying breath.
I wish authors of the article ever told that to Ugandans, North Koreans, and after all Chinese.
China sees sporadic riots nearly weekly (which are almost never covered by Western press.) I'd say that as a percentage of population, the amount of people who ever raised a hand on policeman/official person and served term should be around 5-7%.
That was way higher in eighties when forced sterilisation campaign was at its peak (imagine men having to stand still while a communist pokes his dirty finger into their wives'...)