If we're being (constructively) provocative, let's not pretend that the implication is all that intangible. Is it an endorsement? No. Is it an explicit statement that violence is the only way forward? No. But simply pointing it out, without expanding on it with, as you say, constructive alternative viewpoints, is very clearly implying that it's the only solution. If it's not, I ask GP: What is their point in what they said?

As for my position being dangerous... I don't see how that's the case. Again, as I've clarified, I do not find it dangerous to acknowledge history (of course that would be dangerous itself) just using history to imply dangerous things.