moreover, from what i have looked at in my cases, in cases where people are using violence or armed strug bell, they almost never used concerted civil resistance for a significant period before they turned to violence. in other words, many people seemed to be in these armed groups turning to violence before they have exhausted all other methods of civil resistance. civil resistance campaign takes almost three years to run its course. almost every armed insure again occurred from 1900 to 2006 started within maybe six months to nine months of the onset of a real dissident movement. in other words it seemed like they were jumping the gun, literally and figuratively. in terms of, using non-violence to promote one's own aims. this is the current moral quandary, the way maria and i argue it, civil resistance is method of conflict. it is in very blunt terms, a weapon. so the question is, you know under what conditions morally is this weapon being abused? now a lot of people ask me this now because they're watching what is going on in thailand and they're saying okay, people are waging civil resistanc