Problem is, it's not a mischaracterization. There is a group of folks on this thread whose preferred response basically boils down to genocide. If you want "completely rabid," that's a good place to start.
Any sensible person must reject--out-of hand--any writer who implies, however indirectly, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima or the conventional attack on Dresden was unjustified.
You've mischaracterized the author's statement. When his point is understood properly, your argument evaporates.
This isn't an argument against nuking Mecca under ultimate extremity--it's an argument against any violent action or threat of violent action; as such it is on its face preposterous.
The "ultimate extremity" would be a decision that ALL Muslims would be to blame for a nuclear attack on us, and that ALL Muslims are thus fair game for retaliatory nuclear attacks. It is certainly true that those responsible must be hunted down and destroyed. However, if it is not the case that "ALL Muslims" are to blame for a nuclear attack, then there is no justification for an "ultimate extremity" that calls for large scale attacks on "ALL Muslims."
Again, the supposedly reasoned response has nothing to do with the actual facts. The abolition of the caliphate in fact accomplished exactly what Ataturk desired: it established Turkey as a secular state. Ataturk couldn't possibly have cared less what a bunch of nut-cases in Egypt used as a justification for their murderous ideology.
You've once again missed the author's point, which is that Ataturk's actions had unintended consequences, as spelled out (accurately) by the author. Nevertheless, if we instead grant your alternative hypothesis about the rise of Radical Islam, all you've really done is acknowledged the author's underlying point, which is that Radical Islam is in fact a response to some external event.
the logic of his position leads inevitably to helplessness and surrender, and his historical assertions are simply laughable.
No, and no. The author's actual position has little in common with your characterization of it. He is not suggesting helplessness and surrender; very far from it.
Read what Tancredo said. He didn't advocate the "discarding of Western values, willy nilly." As for the positions of others on this site, don't even try to drag me into defending them. This is an argument between Tancredo and one of his critics, who has chosen to set up a straw man to knock down. Problem is, what Tancredo said is in the public record, and it isn't what Spencer implies with this over-the-top description.
You've once again missed the author's point, which is that Ataturk's actions had unintended consequences, as spelled out (accurately) by the author.
Not true. Ataturk understood the consequences of his actions, and the results were not unintended at all. Contrary to Spencer's assertion, the rise of radical Islam had its foundations laid long before Ataturk, and his abolition of the caliphate had little--if anything at all--to do with its subsequent successes. Where Ataturk intended to suppress Islamist influences--in his own country--he succeeded. And in fact, quite well, because he was not nearly so revolutionary as Spencer suggests. In 1924, Turkey had been on its way to becoming a secular state for already nearly a century under the Ottoman Empire. And in 1924 Islamic extremism was already alive and flourishing.
However, if it is not the case that "ALL Muslims" are to blame for a nuclear attack, then there is no justification for an "ultimate extremity" that calls for large scale attacks on "ALL Muslims."
Your arguments are very nearly as silly as Spencer's. It was certainly not the case that ALL [sic] Japanese or even a majority of them favored their aggressive war against the United States in 1941. Japanese interests throughout the world nevertheless became legitimate targets. I doubt seriously that more than a fraction of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had any animus toward the United States, or even contributed significantly to the war effort. Nevertheless, their destruction was morally--and in light of the lives saved--practically, justified. However that may be, it's straw man time again. Tancredo hasn't called for attacks on ALL [shouting in the original] Muslims, and neither have I.
Understand this: we are in a war. Under those circumstances there is only one legitimate reason for destroying (or preserving) a particular target, and that is whether it serves our interests to do so. Neither the destruction of Islamic Holy sites, nor the credible threat to do it, serves our war objectives at this time. Period.
Blather about "hunting down and destroying" a handful of miscreants as the only legitimate response to the loss of trillions of dollars in property and hundreds of thousands or even millions of American lives because we can't afford to provide "recruiting opportunities" to al Qaeda is typical of the kind of flaccidity that got us 3,000 dead Americans. By all means call up your buddies at Foggy Bottom or Langley and wring your hands over the loss of Western Values, "willy nilly." For my part, I see nothing wrong with more serious people discussing more serious reprisals. That's all Tancredo has done.