What a scoop Bob Dutko had today. It turns out he was interviewing Robert Spencer. Well, Robert Spencer is in the news. The Norwegian.....terrorist...apparently regards Spencer and other right wing Muslim bashing pundits, as intellectual mentors.
So I turn on Dutko and he says "Robert Spencer joins me know." Wow, what great timing. So they start talking about this book that supposedly shows Obama is some sort of Muslim lover, and the interview is going on long enough that I'm wondering if he's replaying an old interview. Nothing about the terrorist incident in Norway.
But finally Spencer raises it. "See they're trying to tie me to this incident, which is about as silly as blaming the Beatles for Charles Manson when he heard instructions to murder in their song "Helter Skelter."
Well at least somebody raised the issue. So Bob finally starts talking about it and of course it's all ridiculous. Further he's not even really sure this is terrorism, because a terrorist is motivated by his ideology. But Spencer corrects Bob. "That's just it. That's what's so insidious about the media spin. He does have an ideology that he shares with me, and so they can paint me as some sort of villain."
Well at least Spencer understands what's happening. Spencer then had to leave, but Bob took calls regarding his belief that 1-in fact this wasn't terrorism and 2-Breivic isn't really a Christian.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to record the audio, but I did call in and speak with Bob about this. I said his double standard is becoming crystal clear. He had said earlier "Let me remind you of these various terrorist incidents" and he listed various things that killed typical a handful of people. One that he described was the Ft. Hood attack. I asked Bob to think about the Ft. Hood attack. This guy attacked members of a military that presently is illegally occupying Muslim lands. Bob had defined terrorism for me in the past. He had said it involves attacks on civilians. So when a non-Muslim attacks civilians that's not terrorism, but when a Muslim attacks military targets that's terrorism?
I was barely able to get that out, or maybe I got it out in a few bits, because Bob was interrupting me immediately to dispute every side claim. "I don't agree that we are occupying Muslim lands." "Ok, our military is present in Muslim lands attacking Muslims." "I don't agree to that. We were invited." "Libya invited us?" "I'm not talking about Libya." "WTF." I'm going from memory here, but it was something like this.
The guy at Ft. Hood said "Allah Akbar". He had an ideology, Bob said. I replied that Robert Spencer knows that Breivic did as well. But Bob says he doesn't agree with Spencer. If the Ft. Hood guy attacked our military IN AFGHANISTAN, then it wouldn't be terrorism, but these military people aren't actively involved in combat. Breivic didn't shout Allah Akbar.
This is just plain convoluted in my mind. What is the criteria for terrorism? "So you have to say Allah Akbar to be a terrorist." No, if a Christian shouted Jesus is Lord he'd be a terrorist. Why would you say that I wouldn't think someone is a terrorist if they shouted Jesus is Lord, Bob asks.
I said I just don't understand what constitutes terrorism so I'm trying to ask the question. They have an ideology, Bob says. 20% of Muslims think the use of terrorism is a legitimate response to Americans. That is a very high percentage, Bob says. Sure, it's not a majority. But that's still a lot of people.
But, I said, you support terrorism. When Israel engages in terrorism by attacking Palestinian civilians you support that. "Now you're changing subjects. You want to call me on Open Line Friday about that we can talk about that, but that's not what this is about."
Anyway, that's sort of my best recollection. Might not be perfect. Not written great. I just wanted to try and capture it for my own benefit. Bob was more irritable than he's ever been with me, constantly interrupting, even pontificating on how I was losing the debate. I think he's just on very shaky ground here and that discomfort made him irritable.
Here's the bottom line. In the real world Bob wants Muslims to be the only terrorists. He wants to allow non-Muslims theoretically, but contrive a definition that generally excludes non-Muslims. It used to be about attacks on civilians. Not any more. That's no longer working. Now it's attacking members of a military that aren't presently engaged in combat, but maybe if they are located in their home country, and you have to sort of shout in a way that informs us that you have some sort of ideology that's motivating this violence. And "ideology" needs to be defined in such as way as to exclude this blonde haired Norwegian. Make sense? It does to Bob Dutko.