1) Liberal shouldn't be a term of abuse. Those who choose to think about this issue are not 'weak-kneed tree huggers' or 'weak-spirited' any more than those who support the campaign are necessarily unthinking knee-jerk neanderthal red-necks.
2) Whatever UBL is or isn't, we mustn't stoop to his level, and the fight against him must remain legal and proportionate.
Taking proportionate military action is hardly bloody appeasement, is it?
3) That action must be effective, and it will be more effective if the reservoir of support for him is dissipated. He is after all a reaction to real and perceived injustices. Gaining support for action is a key part of how democracies are supposed to work. Ignoring domestic and international concerns about such action is both arrogant and foolish.
4) The Taliban may be 'foreign' but they're not Arabs. Al Q may be, the T aren't.
5) POI. The Taliban asked for proof of UBL's involvement before they would agree to extradition. Otherwise they offered to try him themselves, asked him to leave, and were clearly willing to talk about trials in neutral countries. In my view we did right in ignoring the dubious legalities and bombing them anyway, but acknowledge that it was dubious.
6) Like it or not, this long and poorly targeted campaign is hitting the people of Afghanistan at least as much as the Taliban and UBL. Continuing and causing mass starvation and continuing into Ramadan will only exacerbate opposition and is thus counter-productive and practically wrong, as well as being morally dubious.
7) The polls are inconclusive, but seem to show a growing mood in favour of a bombing halt. I wouldn't claim that either side of this argument is "the view of most of us over here". It's too close to call, but if those who oppose are in a minority, it's a significant one.