ROBERT B. SILVERS: ... Under what conditions, if any, can violent a action be said to be "legitimate"? ... Lethargically replies Noam Chomsky: My general feeling is that this kind of question can't be answered in a meaningful way when it's abstracted from the context of particular historical concrete circumstances. What was abstract about it you dummy(I say)? And he goes on? Any rational person would agree that violence is not legitimate unless the consequences of such action are to eliminate a still greater evil. (bloody fool of course it was to eliminate a greater evil). Otherwise Americans would now be speaking Japanese. And after that much got the gist of it, and left in disgust at his pronouncements. These pseudo academics are such a pain in the derriere trying to be so intellectual boring us to death (if we let them). And after that he is tripping, tripping on his words lackadaisically trying to either justify it, or cannot be certain. Then says he? One can easily imagine and find circumstances in which violence does eliminate a greater evil. As to the first, it's a kind of irreducible moral judgment that one should not resort to violence even if it would eliminate a greater evil. And these judgments are very hard to argue. I can only say that to me it seems like an immoral judgment. Fine you damn irreducible dingbat,if someone is trying to kill you,what will you do? Just let him cut your throat and kill you with no action by you to try and prevent/defend your self? No wonder the world is in such a mess dealing with the likes of Chomsky & ilk. And we get Finkelstein saying lackadaisically in a deadpan face:That 6 million Jews murdered was an exaggeration No muscle movement just like a ?tailors dummy? body language stiff as board, stiff muscles dead duck as duck. Amazing to witness. Here come people lauding these lot with their ignorant comments they swallowing what they read and take it all seriously.