When is political violence justified?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's a simple difference: military action is predicated on violence. Civil discourse is not, typically. Unless you want to emulate Sudan or Syria.

 peaceable dialogue and military violence are two points on a continuum of kinetic interactions.   Where on the continuum a party find it suitable to be usually depends on what lower points has been shown to be ineffective for the pursuit of its goals, or have otherwise been close off to it.    Very often the parties to the same interaction perceive themselves to be on different points of the continuum.      Sometimes one party insist the  other party meet it at the point the first party’s choosing knowing that point puts the other party at a disadvantage and thus maximize’s own side’s leverage and chances for success.     So there really is often not any meaningful simple difference.

Again, politics need not, and usually does not, involve violence. Equivocating the two is either a misunderstanding or deliberate obtuseness.

Be it known that I'm not arguing that all political violence is wrong. I'm arguing that there's a little more nuance to it than "war is an extension of politics" in this context.