Knapp: "If you value something, and someone is forcibly trying to take it from you or prevent you from gaining it, is it acceptable for you to take the values of uninvolved others, or forcibly prevent them from gaining those values in pursuit of your own interests?"

It depends on the *values*; Osama, after all, has "values".

Beyoud the sheer irrelevency of it all (given the non-involvement), what's your point? -- A moral-equivalence fallacy?