Who knows whether this article is true, factual, slanted, etc., but for the sake of argument we can take it at face value.
A gubmint that turns the communities of their poorest citizens into a war zone so that they can can eventually host bigger sports events, probably at the behest of its wealthiest citizens, may need to stop and consider what effect that created violence will have on those citizens. Might not those citizens take sufficient offense to this gubmint action, due to collateral damage that the recipients find less acceptable than the gubment apparently did, that they decide to to take steps to inflict punishment on those responsible? Furthermore, due to the asymmetrical force projection capabilities of the two parties, might not whatever form that punishment takes end up being directed at the weak part of the offending edifice instead of the strong part of it, i.e. at the wealthy citizens instead of the gubmint itself?
As a Security Dude, it isn't that rare to hear statements like "It all started when he hit me back.", but thinking that way usually results in getting to have the opportunity to learn the lesson at least one more time.