Talk:Dana Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher's ISIS remarks

Rohrabacher made remarks implicitly praising ISIS for attacking the Iranian parliament back in 2017. He also stated that the attack was a sign that the US was finally addressing the so-called Iranian threat. Those are indisputable facts; it's all on video. Earlier today I created a section about those remarks, and that section was later removed. In the edit log, the edit removing that section has a note that says:

“

Obama fundeed ISIS.

”

Yes, Obama did support ISIS. The removed section included an explicit reference to that fact. So why is that fact being used as a justification to remove an article section that explicitly says that fact is true? Such a move defies basic logic, and I don't believe for one second that it was the actual reason for the section's removal. I later put the removed section back in. A short time later, it was removed again, and then the article itself was placed under edit protection so I wouldn't put the section in for a third time. I want to know what's going on, and I want the truth.--Geopolitician (talk) 19:20, June 7, 2021 (EDT)

So what's a bigger story, what they did to Mike Flynn to keep the ISIS story secret, or Rohrbacher's support of Obama policy? If you have any more groundbreaking anecdotes, put it in the Obama article. Here it only looks like an attack. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 00:11, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

When it comes to this article specifically, Rohrabacher's support of Obama policy is the bigger story by far. Because this article is about Rohrabacher, not Flynn.

And I stand by the tone of what I wrote, because what Rohrabacher said was outrageous beyond belief. In the space of a few sentences, he defended Obama's pro-ISIS policy, lied about which president implemented Obama's pro-ISIS policy, and then lied again by saying that Obama's pro-ISIS policy is good for the country. And he suffered absolutely no repercussions for those remarks. Not from the Democrats, and not from the Republicans. So please excuse me for being disgusted on a visceral level by this.--Geopolitician (talk) 02:07, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

It's an attack. Obama & John Brennan were all for beheading Christians. Stick to the issue. If ISIS truly is evil, then give credit to where credit is due. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 02:45, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

Bottomline: It's a cheapshot, while ignoring the real issue and issues. You should go to work for the NYT or WaPo with that kinda attitude. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 03:31, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

Okay, if you believe my use of invective language in that edit was inappropriate, that's one thing. But does that really justify removing the edit entirely, instead of toning it down?

Also, here's a thought experiment: let's say an editor stated in a talk page that covertly supporting ISIS is justified because ISIS is anti-Iran. In other words, the exact opinion Rohrabacher explicitly expressed. How would respond to such an opinion? Would you be okay with it?--Geopolitician (talk) 11:58, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

An unfounded cheapshot and leftist attack isn't going to fill up 50% a Congressman with a decades-long career. At most, I would settle for, "Rohrbacher has been criticized for his support of Obama administration foreign policy objectives." And you can add part of your critical race theory hate speech attack in a footnote. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 12:20, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

"Rohrbacher has been criticized for his support of Obama administration foreign policy objectives" is the most you're willing to settle for? So in other words, you want me to stop short of direct condemnation of a comment that is objectively worse than Ilhan Omar's 9/11 comments. Just because the person who made that comment was a Republican. Good to know.

Attitudes like yours are what got Obama elected in 2008. For eight years, people like me had to put up with nonsense like this coming from GOP mouthpieces at all levels of the party hierarchy. Nobody was allowed to call out George W. Bush for first covering up the truth about 9/11 and Saudi Arabia's role in those attacks, and then starting a fraudulent "War on Terror" in the name of perpetuating that cover-up. Anybody who called out Bush for this dishonest, borderline treasonous behavior in any way whatsoever was treated with extreme contempt and disrespect. By 2008, people like me had enough. They refused to vote for John McCain because they wanted to punish the GOP for this behavior. Most of them either stayed home or voted third party, but some even went as far as voting for Obama out of spite. And the GOP only had itself to blame. How's that for a history lesson?--Geopolitician (talk) 14:57, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

Really? What is the government of Saudi Arabia's role in the 9/11 attacks? Didn't a U.S. federal court find Iran directly complicit? Didn't the government of Saudi Arabia try to assassinate bin Laden in Sudan in 1990s, which the current "shadow president" Susan Rice thwarted? I don't see you trying to add any of that to the various articles. But here, you wanna fill 50% of a Congressmen's bio, whose warned about the CCP for 40 years now, with a racist attack motivated by critical race theory. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 15:14, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

The Saudi government indirectly funds both al-Qaeda and ISIS by funding so-called charities like the Muslim World League, which in turn uses those funds to prop up madrasas (religious schools) which happen to be hotbeds for Salafi/Wahhabi radicalization and terrorist recruitment. And whenever a new terrorist group pops up as a result of this scheme, the Saudi government intentionally does nothing to stop further radicalization/recruitment, and occasionally has lower-ranking members funnel money to that terrorist group directly in hopes that it will achieve Saudi Arabia's foreign policy goals. And if any foreign government tries to interfere in this scheme, the Saudi government uses mafia-like tactics to intimidate those foreign governments into backing down. In many ways, the Saudi government is like the CCP. And in some ways, it's even worse. At least the CCP doesn't threaten to manipulate our currency when it doesn't get its way, just its own currency.

As for the federal court decision you cited, I'm 100% convinced that it was compromised by forces loyal to the Saudi government, because the truth is just so obvious.

And as for Saudi Arabia trying to kill bin Laden, that was nothing but a game of good cop-bad cop. The good cop is willing to kill the bad cop, but it still sees the bad cop's antics as useful for his own agenda.

Meanwhile, since you're placing emphasis on Rohrabacher's longtime steadfast opposition to the CCP... and by the way, I agree with you that he deserves at least some credit for that... I'd like to point out that the CCP and the Salafi/Wahhabi movement Rohrabacher essentially praised happen to be natural allies. The key to this natural alliance is Pakistan. Both of the CCP and the Salafi/Wahhabi movement have an extremely strong personal stake in Pakistan. The CCP sees Pakistan as its closest ally; not even North Korea is a closer ally to the CCP. This is because Pakistan is the arch-enemy of one of China's biggest enemies, India. Meanwhile, the Salafi/Wahhabi movement sees Pakistan as its most important ally outside of Saudi Arabia itself, because Pakistan played a vital role in getting the Salafi/Wahhabi movement off the ground during the Soviet-Afghan war. Without Pakistan's assistance (along with Saudi Arabia's assistance) to the Mujahedeen, it's possible to argue that neither al-Qaeda nor ISIS would have ever come into existence.

So when push comes to shove in this new Sino-American cold war, countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are going to end up allying with China. Meanwhile, Iran will have no choice but to ally with the US, regardless of how stubborn the Mullahs may be.--Geopolitician (talk) 15:50, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

You can blow up this page with as much rhetoric as you want. Bottomline: it's a racist attack on an old white dude because he's an old white man and Republican. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 18:31, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

Ah, the race card. A typical tactic used by the establishment to discredit those whose opposition the Saudi-neocon cartel is total and unwavering. I'll give you credit, though. I never expected myself to be accused of being anti-white. Anti-Arab and anti-Semitic, yes (although of course I am neither of those things). But anti-white? That's actually original of you.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:16, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

Oh, that's right. You're in bed with the Aryan Ayatollah. Excuse me. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 22:58, June 8, 2021 (EDT)

Like it or not, we're going to have to ally with Iran one day. Iran already is an enemy of the Salafi/Wahhabi movement in the present, and it will become an enemy of the CCP in the future (as the Salafi/Wahhabi movement becomes an ally of the CCP over their common interest in Pakistan).

The writing is all over the wall, but most Americans don't see it because the Washington establishment and its media hacks keep covering it up with picture frames holding mediocre works of art. For they have another agenda, one that has nothing to do with our national interests.--Geopolitician (talk) 00:51, June 9, 2021 (EDT)

When is this suppose to happen, before or after the Imam returns? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 04:07, June 9, 2021 (EDT)

I can't give an exact date, nobody can. But my guess is it will be will be sometime within the next decade.

It'll be a situation similar to what we faced during WWII. We had to ally with Stalin during that war, and now we're gonna have to ally with Iran. Few imagined a Soviet-American alliance prior to 1941, just as few imagine an Iranian-American alliance today.--Geopolitician (talk) 11:36, June 9, 2021 (EDT)

I edited the article to once again include a reference to his remarks, but it is now toned down. If you believe it needs further toning down, please don't delete my edit. Just fix it however you like.--Geopolitician (talk) 20:28, June 15, 2021 (EDT)