That was particularly delicious.

For those who don't read Zizekian:

1. Badiou earlier postulated that violence against the state was only legitimate when it was expressed "defensively," e.g., when Occupy Wall Street was thrown out of Central Park, the protesters were in some sense justified in using force to prevent being thrown out.
2. Zizek counters that it's too hard to tell whether or not the state is being excessively violent.
3. Indeed, "from the standpoint of the oppressed, the very existence of a state is a violent fact." Compare with Republican outrage in the post-election cycle -- impotent calls for secession and the like.
4. Therefore, in the twisted sense of the parent comment, "all violence against the state is defensive."
5. He then presents his main historical example, the Jacobin legacy. Mostly responsible for perverting the "will of the people" during the French revolution into the violence of the Reign of Terror.
6. Obligatory Hitler/Nazi reference.

The error seems to be the slippery conflation from "the oppressed" in part 3 (for whom violence against the state is legitimate) to "everyone" in part 4.