Please explain to me how forcing a poor person not be able to go to work or a family to miss their holiday flight win support for a cause?
Does shutting down the city's transport get the message more noticed?
Is it intended to people angry at the gov't?
Really, I don't understand, what is the logic of the forced inconveniencing (and actually harming) the lives of millions of people, many of whom actually support the cause?
Hong Kong government unlikely to change its mind on inquiry into extradition bill
-People close to Chief Executive Carrie Lams administration exploring possibility of independent inquiry
-But police are strongly opposed to prospect and Beijing is not yet pushing for one
Solidarity in Poland used the threat of a general strike to gain change.
The Suffragettes used extreme tactics (cutting telegraph lines, setting fire to packed theatres, etc).
The tactics used by the IRA were intended to cause maximum social disruption either through bombs or the more common false bomb threats. Also blocking roads, hijacking buses.
Was there no social disruption in South Africa?