Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

moustache · May 30, 2005, 05:32 am

Im sorry I thought that it was obvious what I think is wrong with his statement. Heres the thing:

Chomsky says:

that if the US had the right to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the latter attack, then "Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum.

Moustache says:

The U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking afghanistan correct?
Also the U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking Khartoum.

If Sudan were to attack the U.S they would not have a justifiable reason. They would be in the wrong.

What Chomsky is saying can be related to this scenario:

If a policeman attacked a criminal, then the criminal would by all means have the right to attack that same police officer who attacked him.

Gorgo, would you approve of the criminal attacking the policeman? because Chomsky approves.

May 30, 2005, 05:32 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
moustache Conservative Location: P-Town, OR Posts: 446	Im sorry I thought that it was obvious what I think is wrong with his statement. Heres the thing: Chomsky says: that if the US had the right to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for the latter attack, then "Sudan [would have] every right to carry out massive terror [against America] in retaliation" for the attack in Khartoum. Moustache says: The U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking afghanistan correct? Also the U.S had a justifiable reason for attacking Khartoum. If Sudan were to attack the U.S they would not have a justifiable reason. They would be in the wrong. What Chomsky is saying can be related to this scenario: If a policeman attacked a criminal, then the criminal would by all means have the right to attack that same police officer who attacked him. Gorgo, would you approve of the criminal attacking the policeman? because Chomsky approves. Q: What's a conservative? A: A liberal who made it through adolescence.