4 ms·
This is true more generally. When I lived in London and the IRA campaign was going on I never understood why they didn't just set fire to a few stolen vans on E
by bigfudge 6y ago
This is true more generally. When I lived in London and the IRA campaign was going on I never understood why they didn't just set fire to a few stolen vans on Euston road/City road/Waterloo bridge every morning rather than actually killing people. Would have been more effective.
- randompwd 6y agoSuch an ignorant comment.
- bigfudge 6y agoHow so? I lived in the city and this is what I thought at the time. I might have been mistaken (which is part why I posted it here... to hear alternative arguments).
- simmerup 6y agoWhat freedom fighter would throw away their life to cause a traffic jam? And what government would cave to whats essentially a minor inconvenience
- bigfudge 6y agoAt the time, London transport was pretty much at gridlock anyway and made the city pretty hard to live in IMO. It wouldn't have taken much to threaten the major income-generating source of the country (look up the economics of the city of London). I don't even think it requires you to throw your life away. It could just be classified as civil disobedience. To be clear, I had no sympathy at all with the IRAs violent campaign. I'm just pointing out that committed civil disobedience could be pretty effective if you have people committed enough that they will already kill people and go to prison quite often (or blow themselves up for that matter).