Further quoth Schneider:

"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.'"

Actually, no, it doesn't depend on the values -- Osama is entitled to hold any values he wants. His values are not at issue. His actions are. He's entitled to possess all the sharia law he wants until he inflicts it on unwilling others. Then it may be necessary to act. It does not follow from the fact that it may be necessary to act that all conceivable actions are actually necessary, or that any of the actions are "good" in the sense that they are themselves desirable.

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

No, actually precisely the opposite. I oppose the diminution of my country to the same moral plane as Osama. This requires recognizing the difference between "something good we can do" and "something evil that we are forced to do," and acting accordingly. The failure to recognize the latter condition results in any number of errors and evil being misportrayed as "good."

Tom Knapp