It's long past time we went nuclear on these devils.

The Muslim world has demonstrated its total unfitness to share a planet with decent human beings. If Washington doesn't deliver an ultimatum to Riyadh -- a real ultimatum, that specifies clear and very harsh consequences for even one more American being abducted or harmed -- I will lose all confidence in the federal government's willingness and ability to discharge its principal function: protecting its citizens from violence.

What sort of ultimatum would you like? The terrorists want to get rid of the Saudi government -- should we help them in that regard?

"THIS WAS PAUL JOHNSON, AN AMERICAN, before he was captured by the enemies of our country and our civilization; an enemy that we are still coddling, still endeavoring to "reason with" at home and abroad, an enemy towards whom many among us would like to extend the full range of benefits and rights given to American citizens."

What? Are you kidding? Who's asking to reason with the terrorists? Who's asking to give terrorists the full rights of Americans? Stop with the straw man arguments: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Certainly, Farhad. The Saudi government is in league with the terrorists. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either under-informed or intellectually challenged.

"Oderint dum metuant." If we can't make them fear us enough to behave, and to restrain their villains within their own borders, let's make them dead.

All of them.

1) "Let's make them dead. All of them." Who exactly are you saying we should kill? The Saudi princes? The terrorists? Everyone in Saudi Arabia? What method would you advocate? Should we screen before we kill, or just kill? What means would you use? Would you use Zyklon B?

2) "The Saudi government is in league with the terrorists. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either under-informed or intellectually challenged." It's possible. But there are some hurdles in the way of accepting your position: Why do the terrorists want to overthrow the Saudi government? Do you regard OBL's threats against the House of Saud as some kind of elaborate Kabuki? Also, if the Saudi government's cooperation with terrorists is as plain as you say, why does the Bush Administration, which claims to be tough on those in league with terrorists, coddle the Saudi Government? (Flying the princes out of the country in the hours after 9/11, say?)

Whom should we kill? Let's start with Ann Coulter's prescription -- "everyone who so much as smiled when Barbara Olson died" -- and then substitute for Miss Olson's the name of every other American victim of Islamic savagery, each in turn. It ought to make a very complete list.

As for method, I'd prefer nukes. They do a nice clean job. After that, the passive enablers in Europe can find some other source for their oil, and some other market for their weapons.

I really don't care whom they're in league with, Farhad. I want every last one of them either dead or so terrified of American power that they don't dare sneeze without our express permission. If any Muslim harms even one more American, it will be one too many. The life of the lowest, most worthless junkie in a Manhattan jail is worth infinitely more than that of anyone who would utter a word in defense of any Muslim who would even nod toward the murder of Paul Johnson.

The Islamic world is peopled by monsters and active and passive accessories to monsters. It has proved incapable -- or unwilling -- to police itself. Therefore, it has forfeited its right to exist. If you defend their murderous barbarity, we'll eventually get to you as well.

Let Islam be a "religion" practiced solely in Hell. If it's your "religion," find a new one or face the music. It's time the bastards of the world had a fresh demonstration of what happens to those who offend our sense of right and wrong. Let the world see what happens when you enrage the only power in the world that's serious about justice.

Maybe after we've incinerated the world's centers for bloodthirsty intolerance and hatred of freedom, we'll see a rebirth of good behavior.

Whom should we kill? Let's start with Ann Coulter's prescription -- "everyone who so much as smiled when Barbara Olson died" -- and then substitute for Miss Olson's the name of every other American victim of Islamic savagery, each in turn. It ought to make a very complete list.

As for method, I'd prefer nukes. They do a nice clean job. After that, the passive enablers in Europe can find some other source for their oil, and some other market for their weapons.

I really don't care whom they're in league with, Farhad. I want every last one of them either dead or so terrified of American power that they don't dare sneeze without our express permission. If any Muslim harms even one more American, it will be one too many. The life of the lowest, most worthless junkie in a Manhattan jail is worth infinitely more than that of anyone who would utter a word in defense of any Muslim who would even nod toward the murder of Paul Johnson.

The Islamic world is peopled by monsters and active and passive accessories to monsters. It has proved incapable -- or unwilling -- to police itself. Therefore, it has forfeited its right to exist. If you defend their murderous barbarity, we'll eventually get to you as well.

Let Islam be a "religion" practiced solely in Hell. If it's your "religion," find a new one or face the music. It's time the bastards of the world had a fresh demonstration of what happens to those who offend our sense of right and wrong. Let the world see what happens when you enrage the only power in the world that's serious about justice.

Maybe after we've incinerated the world's centers for bloodthirsty intolerance and hatred of freedom, we'll see a rebirth of good behavior.

1) OK. Let's see -- you want to kill every person who rejoiced at the killing of "every other American victim of Islamic savagery, each in turn." You say: "It ought to make a very complete list." I'm assuming this is a joke; you're not calling for the compilation of an actual list, yes? I mean, you're not calling for anyone to actually investigate who rejoiced at the killing of Americans, and then for the prosecution of those people? No, I'm guessing you mean -- as you say later -- that basically everyone in Saudi Arabia should be killed. (Right? Or do you mean more people should be killed -- everyone in Pakistan? Iran? Iraq? What about Iraq?) This is, of course, genocide: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." But you're OK with that. As is, let us hasten to point out, Osama bin Laden. OBL wants to kill all Americans; you want to kill all Muslims. At least you can say your logic has some good company.

2) OK, so let's concede you want to kill people indiscriminately -- that this is your goal, indiscriminate killing. You want to kill all Muslims indiscriminately because some Muslims have killed people indiscriminately. But that doesn't make any sense: your position is illogical. Are you against indiscriminate killing, or are you for it? This I think is where your argument falls a little bit flat ... I mean, other than the genocide thing. But you're OK with genocide.

3) "I really don't care whom they're in league with, Farhad." OK, so now you're backtracking on what you said earlier -- that's fine, you're wobbling, we all wobble sometimes, no shame in it. But let's at least note it: You made a rather insupportable statement (that the Saudi govt is in league with terrorists) and then when presented with some of that position's weaknesses, you backtracked, saying, "I really don't care who they're in league with." Fine. You don't care now. Though you did just a few posts ago.

4) "It's time the bastards of the world had a fresh demonstration of what happens to those who offend our sense of right and wrong. Let the world see what happens when you enrage the only power in the world that's serious about justice." This is odd: You're calling for genocide, yet you're talking grandly about your sense of "right and wrong." You're saying people should be killed for no reason other than that they live within some political borders -- because others within those borders "offended" YOUR sense of right and wrong. I'm not sure how to tell you this, and I hope it doesn't come as a shock to you, but I'm rather sure most people wouldn't run over to support this sense of right and wrong in which genocide is in the camp of "right." I don't mean that most Europeans, or most Pakistanis, or most Saudis would disagree with you. I mean most Americans would disagree with you. You have it all wrong about America, Francis: We have historically been on the OTHER side of the genocide question. You know how OBL is all for genocide? That's one of the things we Americans DON'T appreciate about him. Our sense of right and wrong looks down on genocide. That's what America's about.

I have behind my desk a picture of an old document that includes these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." See that first thing there, the right to life? That's a strident proclamation that something like genocide -- not American.

I really wish you'd start loving America, Francis. If you give it a chance, it can really be a great place.

Muslim mosques are man-made. They were built by men and they can be rebuilt or replaced. Our soldiers's life are NOT man-made AND they cannot be replaced. I believe that we should destroy ALL the mosques that are being used for non-worshipping purposes.

First of all, I am NOT justifying the murder of this man in any way, for all I expect Mr. Vanderleun to claim I am.

But "Murdered because he was an American" is just more of this strident, shrieking, hysterical camo queen jingoism that is coming daily from Mr. Vanderleun, a man who was once considered to have a fairly analytical and cogent mind.

Paul Johnson spent the last 10 years in Saudi Arabia working on Apache attack helicopters for Lockheed Martin, the same devices of death used in various random and specific ways against anyone suspected of being a bad guy by either the USA or Israel. Is it possible that people inclined to murder might pick a man who takes the King's shilling to sharpen the warriors' swords?

Again, that doesn't justify it in any way at all, but it might help to explain the reasoning. And understanding the reasoning could be a good thing to do, assuming anyone wants to do more than shriek and point fingers, but actually figure out what happened and why (that being an important step in figuring out how to actually deal with the problem). Because if they don't the best guesses say that Al Quaeda will control Saudi Arabia within 10 years, and how much fun will OPEC be then?

There are estimates that Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda sympathizers comprise as much as 30% of the Saudi National Guard. Maybe Mr. Bush and his buddies might turn around on their Saudi financiers and friends and ask them to please stop their own buddies from attacking Americans. After all, they found the man who allegedly did the dirty deed within an hour afterwards. Wow. Kind of like having Lee Harvey Oswald's dossier printed up and ready to go on that dreadful day in Dallas.

The simple fact is that one of the major contributory factors to this sort of thing happening and continuing to happen is that this country -- our country -- is afrtaid to stand up to the Saudi ruling class. And it doesn't help for Mr. Vanderleun to attack anyone who is critical of the way Bush & Company set up this endless war game for their own benefit.

Saintperle

You can always tell when someone is going to lie when they begin with something like “First of all, I am NOT justifying the murder of this man in any way, for all I expect Mr. Vanderleun to claim I am."

Actually, Mr. Vanderleun doesn’t have to because you spend the next few paragraphs justifying Paul Johnson’s death. And which is it, are Apache helicopter used in general ways or in specific ways against the bad guys? And that qualification: “suspected.” Thanks to apologists for the Jack the Ripper wanna bees populating the Arab world I am convinced that the military has perfected an aiming system that kills no one but women, children, old men, marriage guests and the innocent.

While I am currently of the opinion that nuclear annihilation of the Arab world is not yet necessary, we must always remember that the “nuclear option” has always been an option following the development of these weapons. And it may be useful for those who cheer when another American dies that the US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in war and has the capability of doing so again.

The fact that they beheaded him speaks volumes about the depraved nature of their twisted religion. As civilized Christians, at least we have the decency to beat or torture them to death during interrogation.

"The simple fact is WE are over THERE, in THEIR country and a lot of people over there are not liking that."

In Johnson's case, that was at the Saudi Government's invitation. He was a civilian doing contract work that the Saudis either can't or won't perform.

He wasn't simply killed, he was made an example of. He was killed, in a large part, because he was an American, or at least a Westerner. Daniel Pearl was beheaded on tape because he was an American Jew. Nick Berg was beheaded on tap because he was an American with a Jewish-sounding last name.

If they were simply offended by these guys' presence, they could have just put a bullet in the backs of their heads. No, these guys were made into propaganda, and you can bet the fact that they were white Americans played a big part in their very public final moments.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the arrogance on display here!!

Francis (Poretto) hits the nail on the head and shows every patriotic" American's true colours when he dismisses everyone as "bastards" simply on the basis that they offend "our sense" of right and wrong.

A country that refuses to follow the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of international courts has no right to call any other organisation "barbaric" and certainly cannot say it is the "only country serious about justice".

You don't know the meaning of the word, and your claim would be hilarious if it were not so tragic!

you should show the pictures of paul johnson who was beheaded in iraq

The line of reasoning I read here seems to be thus; that an American abroad has, or should have, all the rights, privledges and protections as though they were in America. That no nation has the right of self determination or in the determination of U.S. citizens in their country. That U.S. law has global coverage and by extension of that law, pre-empts the law of all nations.

This of course is not true. Paul Johnson was killed in Saudi Arabia because he was an American and specifically targeted because of his employment. True. But he knew the risks and also knew that he wasn't in Kansas any more. He spun his wheel of fortune for the money and accepted the risk. Unfortunately it didn't turn out well for him.

I am reminded of Billy Hayes who languished for years in the hell of a Turkish prision over a small amount of hash. That was Turkish law and when in Turkey that's what can happen. Americans do not navigate the globe having been afforded special protections even though many tourist I have seen, seem to operate under this misguided assumption.

The fact is that America ends and the world begins at the border. That America and Americans are attacked within the borders is something to get well indignant about but one should realize that these are considered counter attacks for American aggression against the autonomy of people, their governments, laws and religions abroad.

One of the fundamental problems in understanding is Americans standing in judgement of the world based on American values which of course only applies in America. The U.S. Government sets upon global manipulation with the assumed support of the American people who lack basic understanding of the foreign cultures America is effecting. It is not surprising given this condition that the advances of America are found unwelcome.

That America is such a super power upon the global landscape, it is well considered that the will of which can, as it often is, be shoved down the throat by force, via economic coercion, the sanctioned support in overthrow of unfriendly government or directly at the point of a gun. No country in the world feels safe when America casts their eye of interest upon them and rightly so.

Who America casts their eye upon is largely a matter of importance. If a country has products or resources deemed necessary or desireable in support of American interests then the impetus becomes that which is required to enhance compatibility with those interests. America, due to its economic and military might not only dictates their terms as a consumer, including their rights to consume, but to also dictate the type of government, laws, policies, economics, traditions, living conditions and lifestyles as required to suitably bolster and insure the continued supply of materials, goods and services in the name of free trade, at least in part.

America used to be the envy of the world. Though often spoken in hushed tones by friend and ally, the world view is now more of the bully. America's enemy is those in attempt to preserve their autonomy, heritage, tradition, culture and powers of self determination as concluded in respect to the actions of America abroad. The more radical of these elements resist with all they have to fight with. Shock, terror and the trading of lives including their own, for they do not have the capabilities to wage conventional war and win.

For that matter it is unclear that they can wage an unconventional war and win. It simply becomes a matter of whether or not they get tired of dying before America gets tired of killing them. Those people who fight in the cause for their freedom of religion and culture versus the United States fighting for the liberation of those same people from their religion and culture. There is a bitter irony in that. Death bringing both liberation and freedom.

The root cause of the problem is not something often discussed in America. That could result in the conclusion that these terrorist savages have something of a point and their not being just blood thirsty killers by the design of their ethnicity, culture or religion. That five decades of ham fisted American foreign policy, the contrivance of a combination of self centered arrogance and ignorance, served long on muscle and short on brains, might carry negative ramifications and that America has simply started to reap what it has sown.

"They hate our freedom" is a statement in simplistic stupidety of preposterous proportions standing in testimony to the point blank sum total of American understanding of their relationship in the world. Some of the qualification in support of the war mongering in self righteous indignation that I have read here today only supports that conclusion. Simply being American is not a planetary license to walk the earth with impunity. Least wise not until the United States actually implements a scorched earth policy rather than bush beating the prospect.

Rest is peace Paul. Your blood like that of the others cries up to the throne of heaven. Justice will have to wait only a little while longer.