The video at the end of this article presents a Muslim perspective on what the US government calls the “War On Terror” but Muslims see as a “war on Islam”. The video focuses on a Muslim in England who hacked a British soldier to death on the streets of London, simply because the soldier had presumably fought against Muslims in the Middle East. The Muslim who killed the English soldier didn’t try to escape. Instead, he justified his act as that of a Muslim soldier fighting in a war without borders whose battlefield not only included the Middle East, but also England.
The video provides an important insight: The US “War on Terror,” the Muslim faith’s impulse to convert the world to Islam, and the Muslim’s claim of “war on Islam” are all global in nature. As a result, none of these “forces” recognize national borders, national armies, national institutions or national laws. Both those who are terrorists and those who fight terrorists are “globalists” without respect for national laws.
The conflicts between the US and “terrorists” are borderless–in part because the “terrorists” are not openly affiliated with any established government. Generally speaking (the US is a huge exception) national armies are primarily intended to protect (or even expand) their nation’s borders. National armies tend to recognize national borders. “Terrorists” (and the US military) do not recognize borders. Insofar as borders are established and recognized by international law, those individuals and entities that do not recognize borders tend to be lawless. That principle is easily seen in relation to “terrorists”–but would also seem to apply to the US military.
The US no longer recognizes, or has, “national borders”. Our government’s increasingly borderless nature can be seen not only in our propensity to invade foreign countries or regions without obvious cause, but also in our government’s refusal to protect our own borders from invasion by illegal aliens, and even by the federal governments apparent scheme to turn States of the Union into a single, national territory. I.e., our government increasingly refuses to recognize the borders (or territory and jurisdiction) of each of the States of the Union.
Instead of national borders, our government claims to have “national interests“. Rather than defend our borders, we defend our “interests“, Rather than defend our nation or or rights, we defend our “interests”
These “interests” can be located anywhere on the globe and can vary from decade-to-decade, year-to-year and perhaps even week-to-week. It may have been in our “interest” to overthrow the Syrian government a year ago, but thanks to the rise of ISIS, that is not our intnerest, today. A year from now, it may be again in our “national interest” to overthrow the Syrian government. .
It’s easy to understand our national borders. They’re established by national and international law.
It’s harder to understand our “national interests”. They’re established by policy that varies with the wind, and the authors of that “policy” are often invisible to us.
Who decides what is or is not in our “national interest”? Are those “national interests” openly declared, specified and listed so we can read them and decide if we agree with them or not? Or, is the term “national interest” a kind of cloak that covers and excuses any criminal act that our government would care to commit?
In essence, is a “national interest” a 007-license to kill? In the national interest, can government justify killing any one, any time, for any reason?
• It might be interesting to research the relationship between “war crimes” and national borders. Can there be a real “war” without reference to a national border? If not, can there be a “war crime” without reference to a national border?
Since WWII, “police actions” seem to have replaced “wars”–at least in relation to the US military. The Korean War was a “police action”. So far as I know, the Viet Nam, Iraqi and Afghanistan “wars” are actually “police actions”.
Do “police actions,” by definition, take place without regard to national borders? Is the reason that Congress no longer declares war on Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan because declaring war requires us to recognize another nation’s borders? Would a declaration of war against Afghanistan not only recognize the legal borders of Afghanistan, but also necessarily recognize the legal borders of The United States of America?
Is it possible that only The United States of America can lawfully declare war? Does it follow that the “United States” can’t declare war (because it has no legally-defined borders?) and can therefore only engage in “police actions”?
• The fundamental question posed by the following video is whether the refusal by US proponents of the (global) “War on Terror” to recognize international borders justifies Muslims (who see this as a (global) “war on Islam”) to also refuse to recognize international borders. Some Muslims are arguing that they are every bit as entitled to kill a British soldier in downtown London, as the British soldiers are entitled to kill Muslims in downtown Baghdad. In a borderless “war” (police action?) based on national interests (rather than national borders), if we can “shoot ’em up” in the Middle East, are the the Muslims equally justified in seizing planes, planting shoe bombs to “shoot ’em up” in London or New York?
I’m beginning to see that the word “terrorist” might be defined as one who refuses to recognize national borders and therefore believes that he’s free to “wage war” (or is it a “police action”?) wherever and whenever the spirit moves him. If we defined “terrorists” as those who refuse to recognize national borders, all of our undeclared “wars” (police actions) might be defined as acts of terrorism.
Our “brave, new borderless world” is being spawned by the New World Order and forces behind “global free trade”. It’s likely that, as these globalist forces grow more powerful, our national borders will be replaced by “national interests” that will themselves give way to “global interests”. One day, the forces behind borderless globalism may decide to attack Washington DC just as we’ve attacked Baghdad.
Insofar as the United Nations, New World Order and global free trade tend to be borderless, can we also infer that they are conducive to terrorism and/or are, at base, terrorists, themselves? I.e., insofar as those globalist entities refuse to recognize national borders, they refuse to recognize national law and are inherently lawless.
• If we believe the US government, our “War on Terror” is a reaction to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The despicable terrorists refused to recognize and respect our national borders and bombed the Twin Towers. That bombing justified the US government’s refusal to recognize the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq–which we invaded without a declaration of war.
Think about that.
We invaded the nation of Afghanistan–we refused to recognize Afghan borders and national sovereignty–because a handful of people (who were mostly from Saudi Arabia and not even natives of Afghanistan) who were accused of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks, had spent time in a terrorist training camp in the wilds of Afghanistan. So far as I know, the nation and government Afghanistan had nothing to do with the operation of that training camp. Nevertheless, our government invaded the nation of Afghanistan (ignored Afghan borders) because a handful of Saudi’s had allegedly once trained there. Given that the alleged perpetrators were primarily Saudi’s, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia?
Our government’s reason for invading Afghanistan makes about as much sense as Russia invading Seattle because some people from Chicago mugged a Russian tourist who was visiting Seattle.
Whatever our government’s real reason for invading Afghanistan, it had little or nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 provided a pretext to ignore international borders and invade Afghanistan, but it did not provide a reason.
A similar argument can be advanced concerning our invasion of Iraq. We invaded to destroy “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) but there were none. We had no more reason to invade Iraq than Hitler had to invade Poland. At minimum, once we discovered there were no WMDs, we should’ve called off the “invasion” and left Iraq alone. Despite the absence of WMDs, but we continued our invasion for nearly nine years. Then we left for a year or two, and now we’re back. The WMDs were a pretext to ignore the national borders of Iraq–they were not a reason to do so.
Also, what is a declaration of war except a kind of international “warrant” to invade someone’s property? American police argue that “exigent circumstances” allow them to enter people’s homes without warrant. The American government argues that “national interests” allow it to invade foreign countries without a declaration of war.
Both kinds of “invasions” are lawless and based on the principle that “might makes right”. The cops can bust into your home without warrant (right) because they have the power (but not the right) to do so. The US military can bust into Afghanistan without a declaration of war because they have the power (but not the right) to do so. Insofar as any government tends to act based on power rather than right, that government will not recognize any claim of “rights” by even its own people. That government is lawless.
• It’s unclear whether Muslim terrorists first ignored borders by launching the 9/11 attacks or if the US first ignored borders by invading Afghanistan. Both sides blame the other. Neither side is innocent. Both sides have abandoned any claim to the moral high ground or respect for rights by ignoring international borders, waging “war” (police actions) without declarations of war, and thereby becoming lawless.
What is the definition by law of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist”? Is it possible to legally wage an undeclared “war” (police action) without being a de facto terrorist? Is it possible to ignore national borders established by law without being a de facto terrorist?
We can’t ignore other nations’ borders and expect anyone to honor our own. We can’t allow our government to ignore the national borders and national rights of other nations and also expect our government to respect our own national borders and national rights. Insofar as we cheer for our government gangsters, we shouldn’t be surprised if we wind up getting mugged.
Here’s a Muslim perspective on some of these questions: