Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Kev_ps3

Wicknight wrote: »

No, actually they are willing to blow people up from the safety of distance, for it. Bit of a difference. I would be surprised if anyone in the R-IRA was actually prepared to fight for it.

But dont all modern armys use explosives and kill people from a safe distance? Fist fighting isnt a good idea when your enemy has F-16's.

brianthebard

Oh well that makes car bombs ok then does it?

Erin Go Brath

brianthebard wrote: »

What exactly needs to be defined about unification? Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Policing, power structures etc. A poll without people knowing exactly what unification will entail is meaningless.

djpbarry wrote:

What are the pros of a United Ireland?

I don't have time to draw up a list now, but this link has a lot of the good points.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:AW4VYXzvNicJ:www.nireland.humanists.net/docs/article35.doc+advantages+united+ireland&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie

LordSutch

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I can understand the Real IRA\'s position. They want a United Ireland and are willing to fight for it. I respect that.

May I suggest that you read Post #116 again.

FTA69

murphaph wrote: »

they'd love to offload the most subsidised part of the UK onto us!)

So why don't they then? They had no problem bailing out of every other colony and possesion they occupied. Basically what you are saying is that Britain has pumbed billions of pounds into a place in which they have no interest. You are suggesting that they fought a 25 year war during which they armed Loyalists and suffered international embarrasment, in an area which they'd love to leave tomorrow. That is nonsense.

It Wasn't Me,

What non-state armies are there? If I go out shooting with a few mates, even a few thousand mates, on a sunday afternoon, are we an army?

The IRA were always a non-state army. Take the period of the Tan War where you point out the IRA had a mandate, they may well have had one, but they did not have a state if we follow your definitions. The concept of an army is flexible, there can be two armies involved in a civil war, there can be guerilla armies (eg the Viet Cong) and conventional armies. The concept of an army is not inextricably linked to the concept of a state.

Economic targets are non-military, and the IRA never hoped to inflict significant economic damage on a power like Britain; to suggest they did is fallacy.

They are non-military, but neither are they civilian targets. The likes of the Canary Wharf and Bishopsgate bombings caused damage running into the billions, that is a serious blow and was the reason why London City centre had checkpoints, roadblocks and barriers everywhere.

The North is under British control because the will of the majority (see? Democracy) demands it remain so.

It is under British control because Britain itself illegally created a situation where an artificial majority was created against the democratic wishes of the people in this island.

It is not in British interests to control Northern Ireland, it being an enormous drain on economic resources.

They seemed very enthusiastic in their efforts to disengage didn't they? Is that why they fought the dirtiest of wars for a quarter century?

Their reason for existence has long since run out. They are a defunct and obsolete group, who only wish to give some veneer to their illegal rackets and garner some shred of false legitimacy.

I can see where you're coming from, but I can honestly say that the vast majority of those invovled in such groups stems from a genuine belief in their cause, not from criminal possibilities for self gain.

murphaph

FTA69 wrote: »

So why don't they [abandon NI to the republic]? They had no problem bailing out of every other colony and possesion they occupied. Basically what you are saying is that Britain has pumbed billions of pounds into a place in which they have no interest. You are suggesting that they fought a 25 year war during which they armed Loyalists and suffered international embarrasment, in an area which they'd love to leave tomorrow. That is nonsense.

Maybe they have a sense of decency and acknowledge the loyalty of their subjects in the province and so don't want to abandon them, but that doesn't change the fact that they may have no strategic interest in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the UK does have strategic interest in that part of itself but to be honest-it's their business-Northern Ireland is british for the forseeable future and I see no reason for that to change.

One can't view the UK's behaviour over a century as a single modus operandii. The country has had different governments and stategies over time. Undoubtedly the UK had a strategic interest in Northern Ireland at various times and now we are in a position where it would be a poor show internationally for the UK to drop NI like a hot potato.

Read back through our own archives released under the 30 year rule. EVERY irish government during the troubles DREADED the thought of the UK abandoning the province and this is there for all to see today. The RoI from government down has and continues to be happy enough that NI is british and that the expense of running it is borne by Westminster.

Increasing numbers of ordinary people are happy with the status quo.

murphaph

Wicknight wrote: »

Britain is the island of Britain, it is split in 3 with Scotland, Wales and England making up the 3 countries on that island.

Scotland has never been split in half, but then neither has Northern Ireland. Britain on the other hand has been, in fact it is split in 3.

So again, saying that people in the South have claim over Northern Ireland is the same as saying people in England have claim over Scotland, because they are on the same island and there are more Britons in England than Scotland.

Ah, go easy wicknight-republicans HATE when people suggest a united Britain-but it is the logical extension of their shoddy arguments for a united Ireland!

Riddle101

So anyone in America who is descended from Africans, Asians or Europeans should leave?

Unfortunately Americans are a genetic mutation who somehow have this idea that they are actually a race so i doubt they see themselves as colonists but if it means that the people who owned the land before them get back what was rightfully theirs then yes maybe they should leave America.

However you just made me realise something. You are of course aware that the European colonists slaughtered the native Americans to take their land. So can i ask anybody. Do you agree with what these colonists did to them, because it's seems like some of you are so quick to judge the IRA for there actions but when a nation dose it, it's ok. Are you guys trying to tell me that these nations are justified in killing the Native Americans who were innocent, yet when the IRA do it you call them Terrorists. It just goes to show you that people have different beliefs and no one really is right in this arugment because we all believe we are justified in what we say and do.

turgon

Its clear from scanning through the posts here that many people don't have a clue what there talking about, and there is A LOT of historical ignorance going on.

On the topic, what the real IRA have to realize is that they will achieve absolutely nothing. And they never will. If the whole lot of the provos didn't get anywhere 1970 - 2006, how do they expect to fare any better? It is clear from studying the history of the North that peace up there is when the only progress happens. The Real IRA are not a political organization. They're just murderers.

The situation up there is bad. Britian dosent really want the North (one sec. of state saying "this bloody awful place") Its a pain economically: they pay out a load in subsidies. But they cant leave cause of the unionists. So the Real Ira should stop pretending their murder will achieve anything

duggie-89

Wicknight wrote: »

You seem to be confusing your terminology. Ireland as you are talking about it is the island of Ireland. It is split in half, between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Britain is the island of Britain, it is split in 3 with Scotland, Wales and England making up the 3 countries on that island.

Scotland has never been split in half, but then neither has Northern Ireland. Britain on the other hand has been, in fact it is split in 3.

So again, saying that people in the South have claim over Northern Ireland is the same as saying people in England have claim over Scotland, because they are on the same island and there are more Britons in England than Scotland.

No they didn't. In fact that Plantations were devised because Ireland was troublesome, it was a plan to out breed the native Irish, a plan that worked in Northern Ireland. But anyway ....

There is living in the past, and then there is being silly.

There is not a county in Northern Ireland where the majority of the population are Nationalist.

So unless you want to start allowing towns to join with the South on a town by town basis ....

lol lol

ok you keep making the same stupid point that britain in our opinion can claim scotland and wales and wat not. your twisting words and thoughts.

also you mention that briatin is made up of 3 countries. and i am not saying that the peole of the south have a claim over the north it is the irish people who have a claim and with the republic claiming to be the government of the irish people then they should have that cliam. and under no circumstances will that claim be ablosihed because the unionist are british subjects living on ireland and so many are calling themselves northern irish and with refernce to the last word there IRISH.

yea and i think your right their is looking into the past (which you dont seem to have a notion about) and being silly which i think your only on here to have fun.

yes the plantions did work it created a loyal population which has lead to this conflict so who is to blame britain not the unionist britain is to blame.

lol my i ask what region do you come from because it def. aint ulster because u will find that there is alot of areas and counties with a nationalist majority.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/awt.htm

duggie-89

murphaph wrote: »

Ah, go easy wicknight-republicans HATE when people suggest a united Britain-but it is the logical extension of their shoddy arguments for a united Ireland!

not really because the last time i checked there wasn't a sizeable minority of people in the south who would want a united britan. so it may be logically extension to the fool hearty but not to the sensible.

duggie-89

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:AW4VYXzvNicJ:www.nireland.humanists.net/docs/article35.doc+advantages+united+ireland&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie

a great link Erin Go Brath

Liam Byrne

duggie-89 wrote: »

....under no circumstances will that claim be ablosihed because the unionist are british subjects living on ireland and so many are calling themselves northern irish and with refernce to the last word there IRISH.

???? That claim WAS abolished when the majority of people voted as such in the referendum.

And therein lies the problem with people who support the IRA, etc; I can kindof understand them being stubborn and not running with the wishes of the British, but how could we let them join this country when they choose to ignore the wishes of the majority here ?

I mean, would they start bombing us if we were the ones "in control" and they didn't agree with us ?

And re the "great link"....that - by it's own admission - is "an argument FOR a United Ireland"; the problem with arguments is that they're usually biased.......if we had an equivalent argument AGAINST and then objectively judged the pros and cons, we'd be better off.

P.S. For the record, I'd (theoretically) LOVE the whole island to be a single country, but then it's not my call. And that's why I ABSOLUTELY DETEST the scum that bomb innocent people in Omagh and murder Gardai in Adare, etc - because of the danger of being associated with those scum, I can't voice that opinion too often, because they've hijacked that opinion. The only reason I'm mentioning it here is so that the extremists can hopefully acknowledge that (a) I'm not a "West Brit" - I actually hate when TV3 show UK shows and when companies operating in Ireland use .co.uk websites and disrespect our country, and (b) realise that their actions are completely counter-productive and disgust those who might otherwise support at least their views.....

duggie-89

Liam Byrne wrote: »

???? That claim WAS abolished when the majority of people voted as such in the referendum.

And therein lies the problem with people who support the IRA, etc; I can kindof understand them being stubborn and not running with the wishes of the British, but how could we let them join this country when they choose to ignore the wishes of the majority here ?

I mean, would they start bombing us if we were the ones "in control" and they didn't agree with us ?

well i cant speak for the ira. but the fact is did people vote for the GFA because it abloished irelands right or did they vote because it had other key points to it.

i wonder if a vote was called tomorrow on weather on not the irish people (people in the south) would re-establish their claim over the north would people vote for yes or no. i am pretty sure they would vote in favour of it.

and thats why i support the idea of encouraging the unionist to understand and accept that a united ireland is in their best interest.

PS my points still stand even after ur edit lol

Liam Byrne

duggie-89 wrote: »

i wonder if a vote was called tomorrow on weather on not the irish people (people in the south) would re-establish their claim over the north would people vote for yes or no. i am pretty sure they would vote in favour of it.

That's some assumption to make! I was "pretty sure" that the Irish people wouldn't vote FF in the last election after their monumental cock-ups and mismanagement and wasteful spending, but they did.....

duggie-89 wrote: »

and thats why i support the idea of encouraging the unionist to understand and accept that a united ireland is in their best interest.

How is it "in their best interest" since by definition their main interest is being part of the UK ???? How would you feel if they thought the reverse ?

BTW, I could be OK with that approach as long the type of "encouragement" you're proposing doesn't involve bombing, killing innocent people and kneecapping (which is what the thread is about)

duggie-89 wrote: »

PS my points still stand even after ur edit lol

Your points (and I don't want to be glib here) are that "you think" that a new referendum would produce a different result; that's not fact, though - it's opinion. In a discussion forum, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that in the most recent referendum on the topic, the people had their say. Whether that was related to other issues (as you alluded to in your post) - maybe even simply to stop the slaughter of innocent people and to make a point that murder and crime wasn't acceptable, or whether it was because they actually believed that the population of Northern Ireland have a right to decide for themselves which they want to be part of, is largely irrelevant.....remember that in the same GFA the UK passed the right to self-determination over to the North too....meaning that they "relinquished" any "claim" on it too........so what we or they (the UK) think is now irrelevant; it's up to the people there to decide now - BY PEACEFUL AND DEMOCRATIC MEANS.

Zombrex

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

But dont all modern armys use explosives and kill people from a safe distance?

Some of them certainly do. But then I don't remember saying all modern armies are willing to fight for what they believe.

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Fist fighting isnt a good idea when your enemy has F-16's.

Well that is the point. The R-IRA are willing to kill for what they believe, but it is a different matter all together over whether they are willing to die for it. They are willing to fight, but not if it actually involves a situation where they could suffer themselves. And lets be honest, it doesn't involve a whole lot of sacrifice to kill for a cause.

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

ok you keep making the same stupid point that britain in our opinion can claim scotland and wales and wat not. your twisting words and thoughts.

Well it is the logical extension of the idea that Ireland is a unified country simply because it is a single island, and therefore people in the Republic can over rule the wishes of the majority in N.I because there are more "Irish" (ie people who live on the island of Ireland) in the Republic

duggie-89 wrote: »

also you mention that briatin is made up of 3 countries.

Well Ireland, the island, is made up of 2 countries. Except you say its not, it is in fact only one country, and therefore the wishes of the majority of the whole island should take precedence over the wishes of the minority in N.I.

This of course assumes that the majority of the whole island would actually force the population of N.I to unify with that Republic, which isn't actually true, the vast majority of all people on this island voted to recognize N.I has a body with the right to determine its own future without interference from the Republic. The will not be forced to unify with the Republic unless they want to.

But I'm sure little details like that don't get in the way of the grand vision. :rolleyes:

duggie-89 wrote: »

and i am not saying that the peole of the south have a claim over the north it is the irish people who have a claim and with the republic claiming to be the government of the irish people then they should have that cliam.

Yes that is actually exactly what you are saying, because under your definition of the "Irish people" (ie everyone who lives in Ireland), the majority live in the Republic, and you think because of that their wishes over rule the minority of "Irish people" in N.I

Which again is like saying the wishes of English people over rule Scottish people because there are more of them, and they are, after all, all Britons (because Briton is of course one unified country because it a single island).

Strangely enough though you are actually ignoring the wishes of this majority, who voted to treat N.I as a separate state unless they themselves wish to join the Republic.

duggie-89 wrote: »

and under no circumstances will that claim be ablosihed because the unionist are british subjects living on ireland and so many are calling themselves northern irish and with refernce to the last word there IRISH.

Oh right. So Unionists, descended from people who have lived in Ireland for hundreds are years, they aren't even "Irish people" ... they aren't even the minority, they don't even count at all. Well perhaps we should strip them of the right to vote completely. Maybe they can toil in our salt mines :rolleyes:

duggie-89 wrote: »

yea and i think your right their is looking into the past (which you dont seem to have a notion about) and being silly which i think your only on here to have fun.

Yes, I find the idea of s**ting on democracy and human right hilarious

duggie-89 wrote: »

yes the plantions did work it created a loyal population which has lead to this conflict so who is to blame britain not the unionist britain is to blame.

No, actually the people who are to blame are all dead

And they have been dead for quite some time. I know this must cause you trouble since you seem to really want to blame someone. Perhaps when I finish my time machine we can go back to Queen Elizabeth and throw cabbage at her, that might make you feel better.

duggie-89 wrote: »

lol my i ask what region do you come from because it def. aint ulster because u will find that there is alot of areas and counties with a nationalist majority.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/awt.htm

Umm, yes. You may notice that West Tyrone isn't a county :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_Ireland

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

well i cant speak for the ira. but the fact is did people vote for the GFA because it abloished irelands right or did they vote because it had other key points to it.

Yes, the Irish people are pretty stupid, they are always voting for things they don't really understand. I think its best if the only people who should be allowed vote are you and people who agree with you. You guys clearly get it

duggie-89 wrote: »

i wonder if a vote was called tomorrow on weather on not the irish people (people in the south) would re-establish their claim over the north would people vote for yes or no. i am pretty sure they would vote in favour of it.

Oh, well why bother even having the vote. You seem pretty confident. That is good enough for me.

And a vote would only risk a repeat of the Irish public just not getting it and voting the "wrong" way again. And we can't have that.

BTW what is that on the bottom of your shoe?

It appears to the the principles of a democractic society, and on the other the Constitution of the Irish Republic. And you seem to be stamping up and down on them over and over.

djpbarry

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I don't have time to draw up a list now, but this link has a lot of the good points.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:AW4VYXzvNicJ:www.nireland.humanists.net/docs/article35.doc+advantages+united+ireland&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ie

This thing is full of holes and ridiculously biased. Just to take a few points:

If the island of Ireland was a single market, then firms could benefit from production for 6 million people (instead of 1.7m) in the same way that the free market of the European Union has benefited member countries.

So, a UI would benefit business in the North, because they would have an extra 4.3 million people to sell their products to, who are all already within the free market that is the EU, who they can already sell their products to?

...unity would attract more investment to the North...

Why? Businesses put profit before everything else; they don't give a toss whether the North is Irish or British.

Integration with Northern Ireland would create job opportunities for Ulster people throughout the island. Already, many are going south to work.

So, a UI would allow people in the North to work in the Republic, if they so wished, even thought they can already do that already, as the author has pointed out, thus negating his own point.

Irish unity would also facilitate the integration of the island’s infrastructure. Indeed, instead of having two policies on health, education, energy, transport, and other infrastructure matters, there could be one co-ordinated policy for the whole island and this would greatly improve efficiency and the quality of life.

Is he ****ing serious? Does he actually think that the Irish government is better at providing all these services than the British government? You think people in the North would give up free healthcare in favour of our shambles of a health system? I think not.

The Republic would have to fill the gap left by the UK to the tune of about € 6bn…However, the economic advantages in terms of economies of scale and so on would soon override this cost.

What economic advantages? He hasn't provided any.

Ultimately, nationalists will become the majority anyway

:rolleyes:

The really important issues such as health, education, the infrastructure and water charges invariably take a back seat to the ‘constitutional question’...

I see. So people in the North are so caught up in the future of the North that they really don’t have time to be worrying about things like schools, hospitals and roads? :rolleyes:

FTA69 wrote: »

They are non-military, but neither are they civilian targets.

So what are they then?

Riddle101 wrote: »

...if it means that the people who owned the land before them get back what was rightfully theirs then yes maybe they should leave America.

I see. So, just ignoring for a second the fact that the vast majority of present-day Americans have never so much as slapped a Native American, where should all the "genetic mutants" (I've no idea what that means, by the way) go?

Riddle101 wrote: »

Are you guys trying to tell me that these nations are justified in killing the Native Americans who were innocent, yet when the IRA do it you call them Terrorists.

So, the IRA can't be considered terrorists because other bad things have happened in the world? :rolleyes:

duggie-89 wrote: »

and thats why i support the idea of encouraging the unionist to understand and accept that a united ireland is in their best interest.

How exactly is it in their best interests?

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW what is that on the bottom of your shoe?

It appears to the the principles of a democractic society, and on the other the Constitution of the Irish Republic. And you seem to be stamping up and down on them over and over.

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

Are you guys trying to tell me that these nations are justified in killing the Native Americans who were innocent, yet when the IRA do it you call them Terrorists.

I'm certainly not. Though I wouldn't consider the US Army who systematically pushed Native Americans off their lands as terrorists, since they didn't use terrorist tactics, probably because they didn't need to (terrorism doesn't simply mean "bad things", as so many people seem to think it does, it is an actual military tactic, one that large armies rarely use)

But you are slightly missing the point. The point is that can you blame and demand the current generation of people leave a land because of what their distant ancestors did.

If that is the case then how can you or I even call ourselves "Irish" since we most likely have ancestors who came to this land at some point in history.

murphaph

If the republicans on here think that the unionists in NI are out of order in keeping Ireland divided, then they must also believe that the scots nationalists are out of order in trying to divide Britain. Of course this won't be the case. SF support scottish independence despite this resulting in a division of Britain. They want it both ways and are essentially anti-english but won't admit it.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

If the republicans on here think that the unionists in NI are out of order in keeping Ireland divided, then they must also believe that the scots nationalists are out of order in trying to divide Britain. Of course this won't be the case. SF support scottish independence despite this resulting in a division of Britain. They want it both ways and are essentially anti-english but won't admit it.

strange how despite the fact most unionists came from Scotland, the IRA never carried out any attrocities there.

Unionist support is stronger in Glasgow than anywhere else on the "Mainland" yet it has never seen an attack.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote: »

strange how despite the fact most unionists came from Scotland, the IRA never carried out any attrocities there.

Unionist support is stronger in Glasgow than anywhere else on the "Mainland" yet it has never seen an attack.

That is a good point. Nationalists often claim that the Unionists should f**k off back to England, which is rather ironic since most of them came from Scotland.

dublinscot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

strange how despite the fact most unionists came from Scotland, the IRA never carried out any attrocities there.

Unionist support is stronger in Glasgow than anywhere else on the "Mainland" yet it has never seen an attack.

Probably because Glasgow also had the highest level of republican support?

I'm sure Glasgow could have been turned into a mini-Belfast, but i doubt it was in either sides interest.

Riddle101

I'm certainly not. Though I wouldn't consider the US Army who systematically pushed Native Americans off their lands as terrorists, since they didn't use terrorist tactics, probably because they didn't need to (terrorism doesn't simply mean "bad things", as so many people seem to think it does, it is an actual military tactic, one that large armies rarely use)

What do you mean Large Armies rarely use this so called tactic?they use terrorism frequently, just not the way the IRA do. they prefer to use Planes, tanks and other types of equipment to impose terrorism. All i'm saying is, the IRA are no different to any other army because they all have the same strategy just do it differently. If we're to judge the IRA then we should also be judging all armies of the world.

If that is the case then how can you or I even call ourselves "Irish" since we most likely have ancestors who came to this land at some point in history.

TBH how can any nation call themselves whatever nationality they are. If i'm not mistaken Britain was also invaded by the Normans therefore how can a Brit call himself British. Hell maybe French people are decended from the Romans or Gauls. What i'm trying to say is we all have a choice in life and a belief. I believe i'm Irish just like Americans believe they are American

murphaph

dublinscot wrote: »

Probably because Glasgow also had the highest level of republican support?

Not really-the highest level of republican support was found in Northern Ireland and that's where the worst violence was meted out, killing more catholics than any other armed group put together!

In fact, SFIRA had a policy not to attack so-called fellow "celtic countries" and only attacked England-killing irish civilians in the procees, quite ironically!

It is just another eample of SFIRA's hypocrisy which runs deep in them. Perhaps they believed that scottish loyalists/unionists (who far outnumber republicans there) might just take up arms for their Ulster bretheren if they'd been subject to violence themselves. It may have been purely tactical.

We may never know and to be quite honest-I couldn't care less what went on in the minds of those bloody murderers.

murphaph

Riddle101 wrote: »

What do you mean Large Armies rarely use this so called tactic?they use terrorism frequently, just not the way the IRA do. they prefer to use Planes, tanks and other types of equipment to impose terrorism. All i'm saying is, the IRA are no different to any other army because they all have the same strategy just do it differently. If we're to judge the IRA then we should also be judging all armies of the world.

I and most decent people would take offence at that. Oglaigh na hEireann are and have been for many decades a professional army, only sent into military action by the will of Dail Eireann, and in our particular case (along with other nations), only in support of UN resolutions.

So you think it's ok to compare our professional (albeit small) defence forces who went into the Congo and Lebanon etc. to maintain peace between waring factions and primarily to prevent civilian loss of life to the filthy scum of the PIRA?

It wasn't me!

Just a point. Being afraid of planes and tanks and guns and bombs doesn't mean the armies using these things are using terrorist tactics (I know, madness, isn't it?). What would you have armies use to more efficiently achieve the pacification of a region? The thing is, armies use violence to quell uprest, where the IRA use it to provoke uprest. If you can show me how the IRA have contributed to peace, at any point in their long history, I'll be incredibly impressed. I might even boggle.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

If the republicans on here think that the unionists in NI are out of order in keeping Ireland divided, then they must also believe that the scots nationalists are out of order in trying to divide Britain. Of course this won't be the case. SF support scottish independence despite this resulting in a division of Britain. They want it both ways and are essentially anti-english but won't admit it.

I think you need to learn a bit more about Scottish attitudes to being British before going off on one

A Dub in Glasgo

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The thing is, armies use violence to quell uprest,

The uprest in that sense will probably be against a dictator or non-democratic regime