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?
Written by: ALFRED ADASK – continue reading & watch the video at ADASK’S LAW