Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
"On Thursday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) praised the recent Islamic State attack in Tehran as a “good thing” and suggested that maybe the United States should work with the militant organization.
Rohrabacher’s entire line of reasoning for why the United States should work with a militant group accused of human rights violations and war crimes like ethnic cleansing is astonishing. Here it is verbatim:
“We have recently seen an attack on Iran, and the Iranian government, the mullahs, believe that Sunni forces have attacked them. This may signal a ratcheting up of certain commitments by the United States of America. As far as I’m concerned, I just want to make this point and see what you think, isn’t it a good thing for us to have the United States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us? Isn’t that a good thing? And if so, maybe this is a Trump — maybe it’s a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another, considering that you have two terrorist organizations.”" ThinkProgress
https://thinkprogress.org/republican...s-a7e9382dbe1b
Too much weed? End stage 'Mad Cow Disease'? This fucking dimwitted libertarian is my rep in the house.  |
Typical Randite libertarian. Totally convoluted and twisted. Pretzel logic employed to claim rationality and morality for disordered hateful thinking.
As if there is anything good that could come from a Sunni-Shia war, even if we could arrange it. As if there is anything good that could come from some 'alliance' with the blood-soaked Islamic State. Disordered hateful thinking, probably stuck in a weird loop involving the US, Israel, and Hezbollah.
WHAT Hezbollah/Shiite threat to us? The man should be committed.