I suggest we drop the naturalness of land ownership topic as unrelated to the thread.
Knock yourself out. Just don't do it on my dime.
If you accept that premise, then you should admit that I can also commission my goverment to do the retaliating for me.
No I shouldn't. That would necessarily enlist the resources of people who weren't harmed by the action and who might be put in harms way due to the un-necessary and unlibertarian retaliation by a government on behalf of a "special citizen."
Rights of self defense have nothing to do with national jurisdiction, -- unless you think that the right of self defense is also government-given.
Strawman. The corporation has all the right in the world to defend itself. It simply doesn't get to use my money to do so. That's an anathema to libertarianism. The government is not in place to defend the rights of individuals around the world. It's place is to protect the rights of citzens within its jurisdiction. Arabia is not within its jurisdiction. If a private citizen is harmed in another country, then he can address his grievance with that country and even attempt to obtain the voluntary assistence of his fellow citizens. He may not coerce their support by demanding the government retaliate on his behalf because he is the only person receiving the benefit of such retaliation.
The proper response in this case are letters of Marque. Not military aggression.
I don't know why in the world you think such would be either constitutional or libertarian. It violates many tenets of libertarianism. The military is for the defense of our borders. Period.