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.
OK, so here's the deal, Fred.
Let's say that the hypothetical nukes were set off by a "handful of miscreants." Is it a proper response -- either strategically or morally -- to incinerate a few million Muslims who were not involved with the bombings in the first place? And isn't it important to understand that the people who did set off the bomb probably won't be killed by our response, because they won't be in Mecca?
I guess I'm old fashioned in that I think the moral aspects of our response are important. It's what separates us from the terrorists. Unfortunately, your response and those of others on this thread, does not indicate that there is any significant moral difference between you and the terrorists you want to kill.