Luke Weiger:
To revisit a line I've given voice to in the past: surely the Japanese had no right to militarily resist the allied occupation after WWII--what relevant differences would one invoke to argue that (self-described) Baathists and Islamists have such a right?
^^^^^
CB: An obvious difference is that Japan attacked the U.S. , and Iraq did not attack the U.S.
The U.S. war and occupation on Iraq are criminal under international law. It is legal ( there is a right) to resist an illegal invasion and occupation.
What law are you relying on to define rights ?