There are a couple serious problems with the statement “peacefulness is stronger than bullets”.
First of all, it automatically narrows the available options, falsely implying that there are only two possible forms of struggle; either with or without bullets. Obviously that is wrong, and to even suggest it stifles the creative thinking necessary to develop real effective strategies.
Secondly, it is an intellectual mistake to suppose that any strategy is universally effective; that any approach is better, is stronger, is superior, under all and any circumstances. It cannot be, and should not be taken as a given that non-violence is inherently stronger than violence; there is almost no evidence of that at all in history; and there is extremely little support for that notion in our Deen..
No, evaluating the strength of any strategy is determined by the actual reality on the ground, the dynamics of power, and the best use of available resources. If using violence could achieve the liberation of Egypt from Imperialist slavery, it would be immoral to advocate non-violence.
However, if violence refers to civil war or street clashes with the security services, or random attacks on government facilities, anyone with even basic geopolitical understanding and knowledge of military strategy will realize that this approach would be a disaster for Egypt, and a victory for our enemies.
That realization is not the same as advocating non-violence or subscribing to the maxim that peacefulness is stronger than bullets. It simply means that neither of those two specific options are suitable, and another strategy of confrontation must be developed.