That's essentially the "kill them all with a semi-decent excuse" option.
Let's put it this way:
What do you believe the proper response to armed protesters shooting at law enforcement officials when they try to disperse them is?
Because sending in law enforcement officials to say 'you're on federal grounds and threatening government officials, we're gonna have to ask you to leave' seems like the single most appropriate first response that could be taken. "We warned you" is not an excuse for firing on federal officers.
And yes, Loud Whisper. I'm sorry, are you trying to say Turkey should be allowed full stop to keep the Kurds from trying to form their own country by any means necessary? Or that this is just as legitimate of a cause? You wanna call it mob rule? Fine. Call it mob rule. But don't just make
The Worst Argument In The World and leave it at that. This is how democracy works. Yeah, we try to represent minorities too so it ain't tyranny of the majority. But a couple dozen guys trying to make a point via threats of violence is not acceptable. This isn't people trying to escape from an oppressive government. Or, fine, let's say it is. Taxes are a form of oppression, after all, so is arresting people for burning down forest so they can poach. But there's a reason that's considered acceptable while, say, genocide, isn't. Armenian genocide, for example, since we were talking about Turkey.
Another question. You seem to be implying that having to abide by rules put in place by elected officials is authoritarian mob rule. Do you actually believe this? Because as far as I know, mob rule is associated with, say, whimsical decisions and disproportionate response, someone's popularity being the sole factor of their innocence or guilt. That has...basically nothing to do with what I was saying. I was actually talking about causes, rather than individuals put on trial, for example. Ongoing discontent due to oppression and wanting to escape it by creating a separate state is
sorta similar between Turkey and this situation. It's just that the reasons for the oppression, the extent of the oppression, the number of people being oppressed, the methods used whilst attempting to create said state, and the relative character of the governments that are different.
When you say 'that's might makes right' about political movements and legitimacy, you have a point. A small one, but a point. Which is why I was, you know, also bringing up how relevant the particular situation was to the people supporting or opposing, and how reasonable the cause was beforehand.
In other words, Loud Whisper, if you're going to address my points, please actually do so. Don't just put out single lines mocking it and expect that to suffice as a legitimate argument. Please don't just say 'lol you support mob rule' with the implication that I'm an idiot. Because right now that is almost exactly what you're doing. Maybe that's not what you intended to do. But it's the way that it's coming across, and I
really do not appreciate it.
Intereting sidenote: Political leaning is in large part dependent on whether you live in a city or the country. Don't know if that's what you meant by geography but I find it interesting.