Between non-violent resistance and armed struggle where do we go? What is effective and the right thing to do?

Answer 1

Non-violence is, of course, always to be preferred. Non-violence means convincing and reasoning with your opponents. It also means being open to changing your own views. The result will be a consensus, a compromise or an agreement, depending on the cases.
However, violence is the way of the brute. Those who believe in humanity must choose the way of non-violence. Winning through violence confers no moral superiority to the victor and in-dignifies him as much as his opponent.
However, there is an old Buddhist text (unfortunately I forgot the author), known as the Sword that Heals. It states violence is to be used is certain exceptional cases. Strict conditions apply. 1) The Sword should be drawn only when all other resorts have been exhausted, to rid the land of an evil that will not listen to reason. 2) The Sword should be sheathed as quickly as possible, as soon as that task is finished and dialog returned to immediately.

Answer 2

It is not at all clear of how to measure effectiveness when all lives could not be considered equivalent or even have the same polarity.

Please note that violent was never the right moral thing to do.
It was only used because it was justified and necessary at times when irrational is set into the system.

No matter how we cut it, a shame is a shame is a shame.

Answer 3

I would go for non-violence. Violence can only be resorted to when there is no other course left, and that too in self-defense only.