Atheist Adam

Explains a few things

Hitler was a German fascist.
Putin is a Russian fascist.
Netanyahu is an Israeli fascist.
Trump is an American fascist.

Two truths can simultaneously exist.

You can oppose a brutal, murderous regime AND also be against an illegal, unauthorised war at the same time.

Learn something from the values of NZ’s Labor Party leader.

San Diego, California

Fuck the Israel lobby.
Fuck the military-industrial complex.
Fuck the western intelligence cartel.
Fuck the western empire.

Fuck the US.
Fuck Israel.
Fuck Trump.
Fuck Netanyahu.
Fuck Zionism.
Fuck Trump supporters.
Fuck the Republican Party.
Fuck the Democratic Party.
Fuck war.
Fuck everyone who helped make this war possible.
Fuck the western press.
Fuck warmongering think tanks.

The Iranian case carries far more immediate military consequences.

So buckle up.

Key difference:

– Killing the Pope = religious shock, diplomatic crisis

– Killing Iran’s Supreme Leader = religious shock + state retaliation + potential regional war

The backlash would be enormous.

There is a difference though:

The Pope is a purely religious leader. Catholics would react with global grief and outrage if he were killed, but the Vatican does not command missile forces or proxy militias.

Iran does.

His assassination would almost certainly trigger:

• Massive domestic unrest
• Immediate retaliation by Iranian state actors
• Mobilisation of Shiite militias regionally
• Risk of wider war

Iran’s Supreme Leader (currently Ali Khamenei) is both a political head of state and the highest religious authority in Iran’s Shiite system. For many Twelver Shiites, he is a marja-level cleric and the embodiment of the Islamic Republic.

What many people fail to appreciate is that killing Iran’s supreme leader would provoke outrage across the country and within the broader Shiite Muslim community — comparable to how Catholics worldwide would react if the Pope were assassinated.

Wow. Same.

Nice to meet you.

Those questions are about transparency and accountability. If nothing improper occurred, clarity would resolve it.

If something did, the public deserves to know.

Given what is now known about allegations surrounding those events, it is reasonable to ask:

Who were the girls brought to those parties?

How were they invited or recruited?

What happened to them afterward?

Did anybody end up in hospital?

Why isn't the media asking these questions?

There is publicly circulated footage of Sean Combs asking both Russell Brand and Justin Timberlake, on separate occasions, about bringing girls to after-parties, and both appear to respond that they could. There is also footage of Combs making extreme comments about what makes a party “successful.”

Trump is OWNED!

Trump is OWNED!

Bottom line: US presidents from both parties have drawn the same line for 20+ years.

The "too" part checks out — stopping a nuclear-armed Iran has always been worth the potential cost of force when everything else failed.

Speculation, sure, but her words and actions make it the safe bet.

Probably not — she bet heavier on the 2015 deal and multilateral sanctions, and Trump pulled out of it.

But if talks failed the same way, Iran enriched to near-weapons grade, and proxies/missiles kept escalating, the military option was always in her toolkit.

She's not a pacifist (see Libya 2011)

Bipartisan foreign-policy consensus on this issue runs deep — preventing a nuclear Iran isn't a partisan fever dream; it's been explicit US policy for decades.

Would the timing, scale, or rhetoric (e.g., regime-change language) have been identical?

This lines up with what MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said after Trump's June 2025 bunker-buster strikes on Iran's fortified nuke sites:

"I find it hard to believe that... Hillary Clinton... any president wouldn’t have felt compelled to take that strike."

(ABC, Reuters, etc. — the full context was hypothetical nuclear first strike by Iran, but it shows the red line was firm.)

- She backed Obama's "all options on the table" stance and was seen as more hawkish than him on enforcement, including against Iran's proxies.

- In 2008, running for president: If Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, "we would be able to totally obliterate them."

She said she'd make sure Iranian leaders knew "if I'm the president, we will attack Iran" — explicitly as deterrence.

(2015 Brookings speech, where she defended the deal but stressed "distrust and verify" and readiness to hit back hard on violations or breakout attempts.)

But she was crystal clear:

"The United States will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon" and "I will take whatever actions are necessary, including military force."

Clinton's positions weren't dovish on this:

- As Secretary of State (2009–2013), she drove the "pressure track" of sanctions that helped bring Iran to the table for the JCPOA.