Please don't be obtuse, it makes it hard to have a productive discussion. If I used Osama bin ladin instead of nazi germany how would anything have changed?
Not much, as neither example addresses the main point I was making, namely that the HLP wished to engage in an activity that one could reasonably consider not supportive of terrorism.
As to whether we are personally at war with these people, we are allied with people that are and thus it doesn't really matter.
The Turks view them as terrorists and we have an obligation on pain of them refusing to cooperate with us to treat the kurds as our enemies.
Presumably meaning "to treat the PKK as our enemies".
Regardless, if we accept that they're terrorists then we can't help them. They have to stop.
Can American organizations at least try to convince them to stop and offer them advice on how to press their cause peacefully?
As to their objectives, it is dangerous to take their word for it.
To whose objectives are you referring? The organizations deemed terrorist, or organizations such as the HLP?
Terrorists are very happy to say that a box is full of baby milk one moment and then use that same box full of "baby milk" to blow up a bus later. So you can't believe their position outright because they lie.
As do, of course, states.
It is possible they just wanted to create political problems for their enemies by bringing in international authorities.
What sort of political problems?
As to quixotic political struggles, there will be reprisals from the turks and indians if they perceive you as helping terrorists in their own country.
Then let the Turkish or Indian government take action against the HLP.
I understand what you're saying, the problem is that I don't know if that is actually what they were trying to do. As you must know, the struggle would be quixotic.
"They" the HLP? Presumably "would be" quixotic because the Turkish government won't ever grant the Kurds an independent state, and the Sri Lankan government wouldn't ever have given the Tamils and independent state, except as a result of being defeated in battle?
What happens when that becomes apparent?
People write them off as well-meaning but ineffectual?
And what if they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time in full knowledge that it is all a farce?
Hey, if they waste enough of the organizations' time that they make fewer terrorist attacks, wouldn't that be a Good Thing? :-)
Not that I see any evidence that they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time.