Violence is the only means of achieving goals views against
Answers

SUBSCRIBE TODAY
THE CHRONICLE REVIEW
Why Violence Works
Franco Pagetti, VII
Syrian rebels launch a rocket-propelled grenade against an army position in Aleppo.
By Benjamin Ginsberg AUGUST 12, 2013
Humans, and perhaps their prehuman ancestors, have engaged in murder and mayhem, as individuals and in groups, for hundreds of thousands of years. And, at least since the advent of recorded history, violence and politics have been intimately related. Nation-states use violence against internal and external foes. Dissidents engage in violence against states. Competing political forces inflict violence on one another. Writing in 1924, Winston Churchill declared—with good reason—that "the story of the human race is war."
Some writers see violence as an instrument of politics. Thomas Hobbes regarded violence as a rational means to achieve such political goals as territory, safety, and glory. Carl von Clausewitz famously referred to war as the continuation of politics by other means. A second group of writers view violence as a result of political failure and miscalculation. The title of an influential paper on the origins of the American Civil War by the historian James Randall, "The Blundering Generation," expresses that idea. A third group, most recently exemplified by the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, regards violence as a pathological behavior that is diminishing in frequency with the onward march of civilization. Some proponents of that perspective have even declared that violence is essentially a public-health problem. Whatever their differences, each of these perspectives assigns violence a subordinate role in political life.
The West's global dominance for most of the past millennium is in large part a function of its capacity for violence.
But there is an alternative view, one that assigns violence a primary role in politics. This outlook is implied by Mao Zedong's well-known aphorism that political power "grows out of the barrel of a gun." Violence, in other words, is the driving force of politics, while peaceful forms of political engagement fill in the details or, perhaps, merely offer post-hoc justifications for the outcomes of violent struggles. Mao corrected Clausewitz by characterizing politics as a sequel to or even an epiphenomenon of violence—a continuation of violence by other means.
Explanation:
According to google violence means behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something but for many it is an excuse of an cut done in influence of rage. But do you thing that the excuse is good enough for killing dozen of people or destroying someone's life? I don't think so too, Therefore we can say that violence is not a means of achieving goals but a way of preventing their action in form of an excuse.
International activities may it be tererriost activities or recent ongoing wars keep reminding us how violence is brutal and cruel but knowing this we don't stop for a moment to understand or analysis the situation even though violence have been the part of the world not from now but from the very existence of human being.
Smallest of disputes and difference of ideas, culture, religions lead to violence that harms both the side. As it is being reminded to us again and again there is no winner in a war and the only war won is the war that didn't happen. So, we should remember that violence is not an excuse or any act of strength but a brutal and cruel way of destruction not only to the people responsible but the people close to them like the family of the soldier who lost his life in the battlefield or the common people living peacefully in the area of the violence.
To read more compositions refer below,
https://brainly.in/question/19480721
https://brainly.in/question/10192887
Thank you.