Sinners Mistakes Allegory for History-and Horror for Insight
Film Review
Turfseer
Feb 04, 2026
A note to readers: Sinners has racked up a record 16 Academy Award nominations. Take that as you will. In the current climate, sheer volume of nominations has become less a marker of excellence than a reliable signal of ideological safety. The more boxes a film checks, the more guarantees you get—and the surer you can be that genuine risk, moral ambiguity, and artistic danger have been carefully engineered out. In that sense, Sinners isn’t an outlier. It’s the system working exactly as designed.
Ryan Coogler’s Sinners is a film in permanent tension with itself. It wants historical gravity, mythic resonance, genre thrills, and auteur credibility all at once-and the strain shows. While the acting is strong and the dialogue punchy, the movie ultimately collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, trading verisimilitude and moral complexity for derivative horror tropes and adolescent revenge fantasy.
The opening hour signals one film: a slow-burn, community-focused drama set in 1932 Mississippi. Smoke and Stack-twin World War I veterans-return from Chicago with ill-gotten money and the ambition to build a juke joint for an all-Black community. The problem isn’t atmosphere or performance; it’s structure. For nearly an hour, there is no functioning antagonist. Scenes accumulate rather than escalate. We get recruitment, backstory, and mood, but little pressure. The Klan exists as an abstraction; the supernatural threat appears briefly and then recedes. The film withholds an engine and then later overcorrects.
That first hour also carries a faint but persistent anachronistic feel. The confidence with which the brothers negotiate a property purchase from a white landowner in Jim Crow Mississippi, the frictionless coalition-building, and the absence of sustained intimidation flatten the lived danger of the era. Historically plausible elements are presented with modern smoothness. The movie isn’t reconstructing 1932 Mississippi; it’s sampling it.
Crucially, nearly every major Black character is written with a conspicuously polished moral sheen. Smoke, despite being funded by organized crime, is framed as the stoic protector-skeptical of superstition, devoted to family, and ultimately sacrificial. Stack, the more impulsive twin, is softened into a romantic tragic figure whose biggest flaw is loving too deeply. Annie, Smoke’s wife and spiritual conscience, briefly objects to the criminal origins of the money, only for the objection to evaporate without consequence; she remains nurturing, loyal, and morally untarnished. Sammie, the young guitarist, is pure aspiration-talent without vice, curiosity without corruption-warned by a stern pastor father but never truly tempted by anything darker than artistic ambition. Delta Slim, the pianist, is genial wisdom incarnate, dispensing guidance and ultimately martyrdom. Cornbread, the bouncer, is loyal muscle with no moral stain. Pearline exists as romantic longing and artistic promise. Even the Chinese shopkeepers, Grace and Bo Chow, are rendered as warm, integrated allies-stripped of the guardedness and ambivalence that would have defined their real historical position. Across the board, Coogler allows his Black characters to voice doubts, but never to be implicated by them. Moral complexity is acknowledged, then carefully contained.
The inclusion of the Chinese shopkeeping couple is historically defensible-Chinese grocers did operate in Black communities across the Delta-but the film sanitizes the reality. The middle-caste tension, fear of white reprisal, and emotional distance that defined those relationships are erased in favor of symbolic harmony. Likewise, the appearance of Choctaw hunters is not an error of fact so much as a confirmation of mode: these figures function as mythic signals, not situated people. By this point, it’s clear the film prefers allegorical clarity to historical messiness.
That preference hardens into moral design. Black characters are uniformly decent, communal, and spiritually rich; white characters are perfidious, predatory, or disposable. Internal conflict is gestured at, never allowed to metastasize. No Black character is permitted to be selfish, cowardly, cruel, or compromised in ways that would disturb the film’s architecture.
This is where Coogler’s unresolved double bind becomes visible. The movie throws a bone to an angriest base by ensuring all Black suffering flows from white perfidy, while also seeking auteur acceptance through cross-cultural allegory. That tension produces its most dubious choice: making the vampire leader, Remmick, an Irishman. Coogler has framed this as a parallel between Irish and Black historical suffering, but in 1932 Mississippi the idea of an Irish Catholic as a Klan-adjacent organizing intelligence is historically absurd. The Klan was Protestant, nativist, and explicitly anti-Catholic. The move functions as a sleight of hand-acknowledging white violence while outsourcing ultimate agency to a liminal figure. White supremacy is implicated without being indicted.
When the film finally commits to its antagonist, it doesn’t deepen its themes-it abandons them. The story devolves into a cheap, derivative vampire movie, complete with the full kit of familiar tropes: invitation-only entry, garlic, immortality as temptation, hive-mind logic, sunrise annihilation, the charismatic vampire negotiator. This isn’t reinvention; it’s template horror. The genre switch doesn’t illuminate Jim Crow power dynamics-it replaces them with mechanics.
The nadir comes with the Tarantino-esque massacre of the Klansmen. This is not catharsis; it’s evasion. The sequence converts historical terror into target practice and substitutes wish-fulfillment for reckoning. Real Southern racism wasn’t defeated in a blaze of bullets. It was slow, legal, bureaucratic, and protected. By turning the Klan into disposable villains to be mowed down, the film reassures the audience rather than unsettling it. It rewrites history as dopamine and, in doing so, cheapens the suffering it claims to honor.
The film’s final scene only deepens the sense that Sinners has lost interest in its own historical stakes. Decades later, an elderly Sammie is visited in Chicago by an ageless Stack, now dressed in sleek, modern attire, casually crossing time, genre, and tone. What’s meant to be elegiac lands as absurd. The moment collapses history into symbolism so blunt it borders on self-parody: immortality as cool detachment, trauma reduced to a knowing nod, the past rendered aesthetic rather than consequential. Instead of reckoning with what that night cost-or with the long afterlife of Jim Crow violence-the film opts for a winking, supernatural epilogue that feels imported from a different, glossier movie.
Ironically, the film’s best element resists this curation: the music. Blues absolutely belongs in a Delta juke joint in 1932, and the soundtrack grounds the film more honestly than the script does. Where the story sanctifies and protects its characters, the blues accepts contradiction-sin without absolution, survival without speeches. The movie elevates the music into near-liturgical transcendence, but even so, it feels truer than the moral geometry around it.
Sinners is not a bad-looking or badly acted film. It’s worse: it’s a film that wants credit for seriousness without risking specificity. It gestures at history, then escapes into fantasy. It flirts with complexity, then defuses it. By mistaking allegory for history and horror for insight, it absolves its audience at the expense of the past-and leaves behind a movie that sounds better than it thinks.
Come on this is obviously out of Israel’s playbook, murdering children is part of the deal since the little heathens they aren’t the chosen people, then of course their future terrorist and need to be tortured just like their parents. United States has no business being involved in any of this get the hell out of Dodge says 70 F ing %. Take the nukes away from the Jews while you’re there, we have our equipment and it should be easy. The problem will be solved ,of all people on earth that should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons the Proven heinous, genocidal monsters sexually molesting prisoners with dogs and metal pipes. Playing with the children’s toys that they just murdered with a laugh .What kind of sick sons of bees even dream this stuff up. Our leaders need to fess up to their blackmail case and carry on or get out. This whole thing is a planned destination of civil humanity for Israel to dominate the Middle East. The twin towers was nothing for the Mossad and our own CIA. Ask Lutnick they sacrificed 3000 Goy people to keep the War going and get the Patriot act to destroy the constitution. If somehow building seven doesn’t make you believe your own eyes and ears you’re hopeless go ahead and send your kids or close your yap.
Over the last several days I've watched otherwise sensible people begin to support the "America bombed the school" narrative without evidence, without citing named sources, and without thinking through that Iran is just as capable of lying about a war crime as any other combatant particularly as it bombs civilians in war crimes of its own. Whatever happened to supporting the US first before convicting it of committing war crimes? Why so much sympathy for the Iranian government that has treated its citizens so brutally when in the US, citizens have freely exercised their freedom of speech without consequences every time they scream "F..k Trump"?
So the whole thing may be a load of bollocks as I might put it bluntly. Of course even missles can go AWOL and might be interferred with by ECM and come down where they shouldn't.
Dug graves reminds me of the supposed graves for all the COVID victims in New York in 2020. That was load of tosh.
As to the New York Times, it believes in COVID etc. It's as trustworthy as a rattlesnake. And I see that 'New York Times' anagrams to:
- skew enormity
- er my wonkiest
- I worst key men
- monkeys write
If monkeys write enough one day they may get something right. :<)
I agree with you. I think it's more likely than not. However, Turfsee is a skilled sohist.
Forensic Rebuttal of the “Minab School Bombing” Commentary
The commentary circulating about the bombing of a girls’ school in Minab presents itself as a cautious plea: *don’t rush to judgment.* On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Wartime reporting is often incomplete in the early stages, and careful investigation is necessary before drawing firm conclusions.
But a close reading of the piece reveals that it is **not actually a neutral appeal for caution.** Instead, it is a carefully structured argument that uses a series of rhetorical and propaganda techniques designed to steer readers toward a predetermined conclusion: that reporting about the strike—particularly reporting by The New York Times—is dishonest, politically motivated, and fundamentally untrustworthy.
The problem is not simply that the article raises questions. In a democracy, questioning media narratives is legitimate and healthy. The problem is **how the argument is constructed.** The piece relies on a recognizable information-warfare pattern that analysts often describe as the **4D propaganda model: Dismiss, Distort, Distract, and Discredit.**
When these techniques are examined step by step, the article’s argument largely collapses.
Stage 1: Dismiss — Pre-emptively Delegitimizing the Source
The article begins by attacking journalists from The New York Times with phrases such as “treasonous,” “moronic,” and “propaganda.”
This opening move is not accidental. It serves a psychological function: **if readers can be persuaded that the messenger is corrupt or malicious, they no longer feel obligated to examine the message carefully.**
This tactic is known as **poisoning the well.** Rather than engage the evidence presented in reporting, the article attempts to undermine the credibility of the reporters themselves. Once that emotional framing is established, readers are primed to reject any information coming from those sources.
Serious criticism of journalism would begin with evidence. This commentary begins with character assassination.
Stage 2: Distort — Misrepresenting the Claim Being Debated
After discrediting the source, the article reframes the reporting in exaggerated terms.
It repeatedly suggests that journalists concluded the United States **deliberately bombed a school full of children.**
But even the headline quoted in the article states something different: that the United States may have been **“at fault”** in the strike.
In military and legal contexts, fault does not imply intent. It can include accidents, misidentification of targets, outdated intelligence, or other operational failures.
I believe that it is more likely than not that the United States deliberately bombed the school full of children. However, the reporting does not argue that.
By presenting “fault” as equivalent to “intentional targeting,” the article constructs a **straw man argument**—an exaggerated claim that is easier to attack than the actual reporting.
This distortion allows the author to condemn a position that was never seriously advanced in the first place.
Stage 3: Narrative Seeding — Introducing an Alternative Without Evidence
Having undermined the credibility of the media narrative, the article then introduces an alternative possibility: that the missile might not have been American at all.
However, the evidence offered for this suggestion consists primarily of:
• social-media commentary
• unnamed dissidents
• a “warblogger” speculation
None of these constitute verified forensic evidence.
At this stage the goal is not to prove an alternative explanation. The goal is simply to **introduce doubt.** Once uncertainty has been planted, readers may feel justified dismissing the original reporting—even in the absence of a better explanation.
This technique is common in disinformation campaigns: **if certainty cannot be replaced with truth, it can be replaced with confusion.**
Stage 4: Reframing the Event — The “Adjacent Military Base” Argument
The commentary then pivots to a contextual argument: the school was reportedly located near an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval facility.
The implication is that the presence of a nearby military installation somehow weakens the claim that the strike represents a serious civilian tragedy.
But this argument is legally flawed.
Under the laws of armed conflict, militaries must follow three fundamental principles:
• **Distinction** — differentiating between civilian and military targets
• **Proportionality** — avoiding attacks where civilian harm would be excessive
• **Precautions** — taking steps to minimize civilian casualties
A school does not lose its civilian protection merely because it is located near a military facility. Proximity alone **does not convert a civilian object into a legitimate military target.**
The argument therefore rests on a false legal premise.
Stage 5: Speculative Blame — The “Human Shields” Allegation
The article goes further by suggesting that Iran may have deliberately kept the school open as a way of using the children as **human shields.**
This is an extremely serious accusation under international humanitarian law. If proven, it would itself constitute a war crime.
But such a claim requires strong evidence, such as:
• military orders requiring civilians to remain
• documentation demonstrating intent to deter attacks
• testimony from participants or witnesses
The article provides none of this.
Instead, it leaps from “school near base” to “possible human shields.” This is **speculation presented as inference,** not evidence.
Stage 6: Distract — Shifting the Conversation to Other Allegations
Having reframed the Minab strike, the article then pivots to a long list of alleged Iranian attacks on civilian infrastructure across the region.
This rhetorical maneuver is known as **whataboutism.**
Rather than address the central question—
**What happened at the Minab school?**
—the article encourages readers to focus on unrelated events elsewhere in the conflict.
Even if every allegation about Iranian attacks were accurate, they would not resolve the question of responsibility for the school strike.
International humanitarian law does not function as a moral scoreboard in which violations cancel each other out.
Stage 7: Discredit — Turning the Issue Into a Loyalty Test
In its final stage, the narrative returns to its opening theme: that journalists and critics of U.S. policy are effectively acting as agents of foreign propaganda.
This rhetorical move reframes the issue from an evidentiary investigation into a **political loyalty test.**
Instead of asking:
**What evidence exists about the Minab strike?**
the reader is encouraged to ask:
**Whose side are you on?**
Once the issue is framed in those terms, analytical thinking becomes secondary to tribal allegiance.
Additional Logical Failures
Beyond the narrative structure, the article suffers from several clear logical problems.
Selective Skepticism
Journalistic reporting is treated with extreme suspicion, while anonymous social-media commentary and speculative “warbloggers” are accepted without scrutiny.
Conspiracy Signaling
The article suggests it is suspicious that journalists obtained photos and videos from the strike site. In modern conflicts, however, such documentation is common through civilian phones, satellite imagery, and freelance reporters.
Internal Contradiction
The commentary simultaneously advances several incompatible claims:
• the missile might not have been American
• if it was American it was justified
• Iran bears responsibility for the circumstances
• the controversy itself is fabricated by journalists
These explanations cannot all be true at the same time.
What Responsible Analysis Would Look Like
A serious investigation into the Minab strike would rely on verifiable evidence such as:
• forensic analysis of missile fragments
• radar and launch detection data
• satellite imagery
• military targeting records
• eyewitness testimony
These are the methods investigators use to determine responsibility in wartime incidents.
The commentary largely avoids these questions and instead focuses on rhetorical framing.
Conclusion
Calling for caution before reaching conclusions about wartime incidents is entirely reasonable. But the article in question does not simply urge patience.
It follows a structured narrative pattern:
• **Dismiss** critical reporting
• **Distort ** what journalists actually claimed
• **Seed doubt** through speculation
• **Reframe** the legal context
• **Shift blame** through conjecture
• **Distract** with unrelated allegations
• **Discredit** critics as propagandists
The result is not a careful analysis of what happened in Minab. It is an attempt to reshape the reader’s perception of the information environment itself.
The deaths of children in a school strike deserve
careful, evidence-based scrutiny—not rhetorical maneuvering designed to win an argument.
AwakeNotWoke, the irony here is that nearly every rhetorical tactic you accuse me of using appears in your own post.
Let’s start with what Jeff Childers actually wrote, because that’s the material you claim to be “forensically rebutting.” His central point was extremely simple: early wartime reporting is often wrong, so it is prudent to pause before declaring certainty about what happened.
He explicitly noted several unresolved issues, including:
• analysis suggesting the missile trajectory may not match a U.S. launch profile
• reports that most schools in the area had already been closed
• the unusual fact that the school was reportedly located directly next to a Revolutionary Guard facility
Those are not propaganda techniques. They are factual questions that any responsible investigation would examine.
Yet your response ignores those points almost entirely. Instead, you declare that the United States “more likely than not deliberately bombed the school full of children.”
That conclusion is based primarily on:
• statements from Iranian authorities
• advocacy groups and media reports repeating those claims
• speculative narratives about Epstein and geopolitical motives
In other words, you accuse others of “narrative seeding,” while simultaneously asserting intent—one of the most serious allegations possible—without any forensic evidence.
You also accuse others of “selective skepticism,” yet you apply skepticism almost exclusively to American sources while treating Iranian claims as presumptively credible. Given the long history of information warfare by the Iranian government and its proxies, that selective trust is difficult to justify.
You argue that questioning early reporting represents a propaganda pattern of “Dismiss, Distort, Distract, Discredit.” But the actual pattern here is simpler:
Assume guilt immediately.
Ignore contradictory information.
Frame anyone urging caution as morally suspect.
That is not forensic analysis. It is confirmation bias.
Jeff Childers’ original point remains valid: in wartime, initial narratives are often incomplete or wrong, and responsible observers should wait for verifiable evidence—missile fragments, radar data, satellite imagery, and independent investigation—before declaring conclusions about responsibility or intent.
Calling for evidence before assigning guilt is not propaganda.
Regardless of any flaws in my other posts, the above critique of you and Childers remains valid. Furthet, the Pentagon has reached a preliminary determination that the US bombed the school. It will, of course, like you, attempt to whitewash the U.S. actions if a cover up fails. Terrorist states such as the U.S. that the rest of the world knows has a long history of deliberately targeting civilians (e.g., Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Mai Lai etc etc etc) and of using lies as false pretexts for aggressive actions (e.g., Gulf of Tonken, the forged document implicating Saddam in uranium purchases from West Africa, the photos that COLON powell held up in the UN etc etc etc) use "plausible deniability" when selecting civilian targets. The fact that an AI fabricated image of military equipment in an elementary school was circulating just the day prior to the bombing of the elementary school in Minab is just too convenient to be able to be readily dismissed as a "coincidence." And the Minab elementary school was just the first of multiple attacks in elementary schools, and health care facilities, to have been struck. On the standard of balance of probabilities or more likely than not, I think it's been proven that the attack on the school and the killing of little girls was an intentional terrorist attack by the US, but that's just my opinion. This needs to be investigated independently, such asvby the ICC, as the US cannot be trusted to investigate itself. I expect that such an investigation would find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killing of the girls was an intentional act. There is a prima facie case that the US is guilty of a heinous crime, which is typical and should surprise nobody.
AwakeNotWoke, even in this comment you are still doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: moving from allegation to certainty without establishing the evidence in between.
A preliminary Pentagon determination that a U.S. weapon may have been involved in a strike is not the same thing as proof that the United States deliberately targeted a school full of children. Those are very different claims.
Yet your argument immediately leaps to the strongest possible conclusion: that the attack was an intentional terrorist act.
To support that leap you rely on three things:
• historical grievances about past U.S. wars
• speculation about an AI image circulating online
• your own statement that “on the balance of probabilities” you believe it was deliberate
None of those establish intent.
You also dismiss the possibility of independent investigation unless it confirms the conclusion you have already reached. But determining responsibility for incidents like this normally requires exactly the kinds of evidence Jeff Childers referenced earlier: missile fragments, launch detection data, satellite imagery, and verified forensic analysis.
Until that evidence is available, declaring the event an intentional war crime is not analysis. It is speculation.
Calling for caution in the early stages of wartime reporting is not propaganda. It is simply recognizing that the first narratives in conflicts are often incomplete or wrong.
You have failed to deal with any of the challenges presented to you in my reply to Eva which contains a detailed forensic rebuttal and expose of the rhetorical and propaganda techniques used by you and Mr. Childers in the article.
As I asserted in my last response to you, there is a prima facie case. It appears you do not know what that means and I am not going to try to explain it to you.
It needs to be tried independently, i.e., not by the U.S.
It may be that the U.S. can rebut it but I doubt it and the U.S. has no credibility.
AwakeNotWoke, you keep repeating the phrase prima facie case, but simply asserting that does not make it so.
A prima facie case requires credible evidence, not just a chain of assumptions. And that brings us to the point you continue to avoid addressing: the credibility of the sources you rely on.
You say the United States has no credibility. That may be your view. But the Iranian government—and the IRGC in particular—also has a long record of propaganda, information warfare, and manipulation of narratives during conflicts.
Yet in your analysis, American statements are automatically dismissed while Iranian claims are treated as reliable.
That is not a forensic standard. That is selective skepticism.
You also continue to ignore several issues raised earlier:
• analysis questioning whether the missile trajectory matches a U.S. launch profile
• reports that most schools in the area were already closed
• the unusual fact that this school was reportedly located adjacent to an IRGC facility
Those questions are relevant to determining what actually happened. They are not “propaganda techniques.”
Calling for caution until forensic evidence—missile fragments, radar data, satellite imagery, and verified investigation—is available is not an attempt to “whitewash” anything. It is simply recognizing that wartime narratives are often incomplete and sometimes wrong.
Ironically, while accusing others of propaganda, you have already declared the United States guilty of an intentional terrorist attack based largely on statements coming from one side of the conflict.
I have never liked Hitler, who according to Ken Livingstone, a former Mayor of London, and many others, was a Zionist.
However, it's pretty clear that, in some respects, the US is far worse than Nazi Germany, which never wanted war, repeatedly dought peace and, by and large, respected the Geneva Convention.
"The international rules of armed conflict, codified by the Geneva Conventions, which the United States has ratified, state that combatants who offer to surrender shall be taken prisoner. 'No quarter' means they are killed instead."
"Per Wikipedia: Since the Hague Convention of 1899, it is considered a war crime; it is also prohibited in customary international law and by the Rome Statute. Article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907 states that 'it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given' ".
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called for the explosion at the elementary school for girls in Minab in Iran to be investigated as a war crime. HRW is a nonprofit watchdog group headquartered in New York City. The organization was founded in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, whose purpose was to monitor the Soviet Union's compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords. Its separate global divisions merged into Human Rights Watch in 1988.
This is an important development but the US, with its history of lying and covering up atrocities, cannot be entrusted to investigate itself.
If Iran files an Article 12 (3) declaration, and it's accepted by the ICC, then the ICC gets jurisdiction, including retrospectively, whether the US accepts it or not.
The Democrats can then extradite POTUS Trump and SECDEF Hegseth to The Hague when they regain control, and even if they don't extradite them (although I can't see why they wouldn’t), POTUS and Hegseth after they are out of office may be unable to travel to most places in the world without facing the risk of arrest.
Most of the world has ratified the Rome Statute and, although the US has used Mafia tactics with many countries who have ratified it, those countries would be obliged legally to arrest them if they set foot on their soil.
"...Nazi Germany, which never wanted war, repeatedly dought (sic) peace and, by and large, respected the Geneva Convention..."
Hmm, that would be the Nazi Germany which marched into Austria, occupied Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland, France, the Balkans and the USSR I suppose.
I gather many Nazis were taken to the USA after the war so that might explain the USA ever since. Of course the pharma industry is substantially Germanic in origin and much of it in the US now. The Nazis have many ways of shooting people.
Of course, a school that caters to the children of service personnel may be located within the vicinity of a military installation that they work at, and this is not uncommon even in Western countries, but due to their bigotry, and perpective taking and empathy deficits does not appear to have occurred to the propaganda peddling or murder apologist Turfseer or Mr. Childers.
POTUS Trump may go down in history as a war criminal, largely thanks to him having not sacked SECDEF Hegseth long ago when he was first warned that he was a liability.
Hegseth is expected to resign due to new data on a strike on an Iranian school — EADaily, March 12th, 2026 — Politics, Middle East https://share.google/O2D6BNGtPPBVR4Goj
Did Hegseth (and POTUS?) use AI for propaganda to create the narrative that iranian primary schools were military installations full of military personnel and equipment?:
"On February 27 [one day before the triple-tap precision strike by the U.S. on the school in Minab], an AI-generated image appeared on Instagram purporting to show heavy military equipment stationed inside Karimian Elementary School in Isfahan, Iran. The post, shared by accounts including the Free Union of Iranian Workers, an independent labor union operating inside Iran whose leaders have been jailed by the regime, read: “This is not a military zone! It’s Karimian Elementary.” The image carried a visible Google Gemini watermark, indicating that it had been created by the software. The school posted a rebuttal, noting that the equipment could not physically fit on the premises. Iranian-diaspora fact-checkers confirmed that the image was fabricated."
"Congress created a special Pentagon office to prevent the accidental targeting of civilians but it was dramatically scaled back by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth soon after he took office last year."
This gave Hegseth (and POTUS) "plausible deniability" for a strike on the girls' school. If blaming Iran failed, it could still be covered up by calling it a mistake and blaming it on resource limitations.
The Iranians had been making a lot of noise about POTUS' links to Epstein.
“They’ve created an island for corruption. Is that a joke? Moral corruption, corruption in actions, oppression, force, coercion… This island of corruption is only one example.”
'Created An Island For Corruption': Khamenei's X Handle Rekindles 'Epstein Links' To Trump's War in Iran | Republic World
A top Iranian official condemned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s comparison of Iranian leaders to “rats” on Friday.
“Iran’s leadership is in no better shape, desperate and hiding, they’ve gone underground. That’s what rats do,” Hegseth said during a Friday morning press conference.
Ali Larijani, the secretary of the country’s Supreme National Security Council, criticized Hegseth’s comments in a post on the social platform X on Friday
Mr. Hegseth! Our leaders have been, and still are, among the people. But your leaders? On Epstein's island!
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi publicly stated that Iran proposed mechanisms to guarantee "no nuclear weapons," but U.S. negotiators rejected it because the Americans were too low IQ, i.e., they "didn't grasp the technical details."
That is Iranian negotiators offered a way to prove they were not developing nuclear weapons, but it was deemed too "sophisticated" (or too technically complex) for the Americans to understand.
Araghchi posted on X (formerly Twitter): "Factual knowledge matters. Case 1: Iran's proposal to ensure NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS was dismissed because US counterparts didn't grasp the technical details."
This statement appeared in multiple news outlets around March 13-14 2026.
There is a lot of bullshit about Iran, including that it's antisemitic, and bullshit about how Americans are the chosen people or master race.
Multiple independent research studies show that Americans score higher on measures of narcissism than any other people on earth. The US just targeted a school in Iran and killed 168+ Iranian prepubescent girls, mainly the daughters of service personnel at a nearby military installation, and lied about it, claiming that the Iranians killed their own kids.
I dislike the Iranian regime because of the backward and brutal way it treats women, which is even worse than how Americans treat women. However, the Iranian regime is not antisemitic. It's anti-Zionist.
On May 10 1979, a delegation of Iranian Jews (including rabbis and several community leaders) met Ruhollah Khomeini in Qom to discuss the safety of the Jewish community in the new Islamic Republic.
During that meeting, Khomeini explicitly distinguished between Judaism and Zionism. According to accounts of the meeting, he said that Iranian Jews were not the same as “Zionists” and should be protected.
One reported statement attributed to him in that context was roughly that “our Jews… have nothing to do with those Zionists,” emphasizing that the Jewish community in Iran was separate from the political movement of Zionism.
Following this, Khomeini issued guidance that Jews in Iran were to be protected as a recognized religious minority.
Iran still has one of the largest Jewish communities in the Middle East outside Israel. Estimates commonly range from about 8,000 to 20,000 Jews, though numbers vary depending on the source. The Jewish community has one reserved seat in the Iranian parliament (Majlis).Jewish communities exist mainly in Tehran, Shiraz, and Isfahan. There are multiple synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher facilities, and community organizations operating openly.
In Iran, under the Law on the Protection of Children and Juveniles (enacted originally in 2002 and updated in later years), acts of sexual abuse or exploitation of persons under 18 are criminalized and carry imprisonment terms if they do not fall under harsher religious “hudud” punishments.
In contrast, in the U.S., today, under Article 120b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 920b), sex with 12 year olds is lawful for Americans who join the US military and marry or are married to the young boy or girl. If you don’t believe me look it up. There’s even a Wikipedia entry about it. Child marriage is legal in 2/3 of US states.
Unlike the U.S. constitution, the Iranian consitution does not include a "right to sodomy" (SCOTUS: Lawrence v. Texas, 2004), so Americans look down on the Iranian constitution. However, Judaism is officially recognized in Iran’s constitution as a protected minority religion. This is not the case in the U.S. constitution.
It’s clear we don’t see eye to eye on this issue. Your comment relies heavily on ad hominem accusations, unrelated references—Epstein? really?—and a long list of tangential claims meant to cast a wide net against Israel in the hope that something will stick. I don’t find this productive, and much of it is off-topic. Rather than chasing every tangent in a back-and-forth that goes nowhere, I’ll leave it there and let readers decide for themselves.
I refer in the first sentence to bigotry, perpective taking and empathy deficits and to propaganda peddling and being a murder apologist. That’s a content to process shift. I was talking about what you were doing, in a single sentence. That hardly "relies heavily" on ad hominem accusations. It's more a brief use of observation statements. "Epstein? really?" Yes, really. It's not for nothing that "Operation Epic Fury" has been parodied worldwide as "Epstein Fury." What from your perspective are "tangential claims" are there mostly to show that the claims that much of the justification for this aggressive war was fabricated, just like the AI footage that points toward the killings, which occurred the day after the footage was circulated, being premeditated. The strike on the school was an intentional war crime, not merely a negligent war crime. The evidence that Iran was on the verge of developing, or trying to develop, a nuclear weapon is specious. It's Israel that has illegally acquired, and illegally possesses, a nuclear arsenal. However, there was very little mention of Israel. I simply made the point that the Iranian regime is not antisemitic.
AwakeNotWoke, the problem is not that you raised criticism. The problem is that your argument rests on selective information and assumptions that you treat as settled facts.
For example, you dismiss or ignore several points that were raised earlier:
• An Iranian dissident analyst pointed out that the reported angle of the missile strike does not match an American launch profile.
• Reports indicated that most schools in the area had already been closed, yet this one was reportedly operating next to a military installation.
• You rely heavily on claims coming from Iranian sources or organizations aligned with them while assuming their account must be accurate.
At the same time, you treat highly speculative claims as established conclusions. The “Epstein Fury” narrative, for instance, presumes guilt based on files that have not produced any clear evidence tying Trump to the events you’re describing.
You also assert that the Iranian regime is not antisemitic because it distinguishes between Zionists and Jews. But that distinction becomes less meaningful when Iranian proxies and allied groups have repeatedly launched missiles into Israeli civilian areas. Those rockets do not discriminate between political ideologies—they land in neighborhoods.
So the issue here is not “empathy deficits” or “propaganda.” The issue is whether we apply the same skepticism to all sides.
Right now you appear willing to question American claims—which is fair—but unwilling to question claims coming from the Iranian government or its allies. That is not analysis; it is simply choosing which narrative to trust.
Until the facts about the Minab strike are independently established, declaring it an intentional war crime is speculation, not evidence.
Glad yer sharin' this Turf... Childer's piece is velly good but he avoids mentionin' Israel...b/c everybuddy sez da jooze dunnit but da jooze didn't dooze it...
I'm not sure if his avoidin' that elephant iz so he don't bleed subscribers (as once ya daresay the facts don't support that it wuz ve "bloodthirsty" jooze, folks git disappointed 'er even testy--cuz of course it's GOTTA be chews, otherwise ain't news..) Or perhaps it's cuz he feels he duzn't need it ta make his pernt... But WE know whose bein' blamed... in spite of the facts!
Irony is we're not even SURE if any girls died--how sus that there are graves but no bodies... not even AI... kinda like ALL the starvin' kids in Gaza that were either plagued with congenital illness or AI... Whut if no girls were killed at all? Or if they were killed by an Iranian missile Miss Fired?....
You may be right that Childers avoided mentioning Israel deliberately—but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a weakness in his piece. In a way, bringing Israel into the discussion might actually reinforce the very narrative you’re describing. Once the topic shifts there, the whole conversation tends to collapse into the familiar trench warfare of accusations and counter-accusations, and the original issue gets lost.
My sense is that Childers was aiming his critique at something narrower: the way the New York Times and other major outlets construct a narrative before the facts are fully known. That media dynamic—how quickly a storyline forms and how reluctant outlets are to revisit it later—was really the core of what he was examining.
In that sense, focusing on the press rather than on Israel may have been intentional. The media mechanism he’s pointing to operates the same way regardless of who ends up being responsible. Once the narrative machine starts moving, it tends to produce the same moral framing every time.
So while the “elephant in the room” you mention is certainly part of the broader political debate, Childers may have chosen to keep the lens narrower in order to highlight the role of the press itself.
Great article. Anyone who doesn't know that the NYT is a rag must have their head under a rock. However the US invaded and attacked Iran so that is really the cause of it all directly and indirectly. I'm not a lover of Iran however America has been taunting Iran for decades on the behest of their butt buddy, Israel.
Well... At least there's two of us that agree. This "war" as well as all other middle-eastern conflict of the last 100 years, are the direct result of trade and financial *interests* via Rothschild Bank Group, International Monetary Fund(s) and the Bank(s) for International Settlement located in Basel, Switzerland. How many middle-eastern civilians have been displaced and/or murdered since January 20, 1930?
But let's not talk about that. Let's point fingers at corporate owned media and avoid mentioning the actual protagonists... Pfffttt!
Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years and has killed over 850 Americans directly. Iran has consistently called for the death of America, and Israel, and has spent it's fortune to develop nuclear weapons for just that purpose. Thru Iran's proxies they've killed many more Americans and countless other people, and supported the Oct 7 attack on Israel. And you think we've "taunted" them? And why shouldn't we be allies with Israel, the ONLY Democracy in the middle east?
Oh yes I think very strongly that we taunted them. Since Israel blew into the Middle East. As if Israel hasn't talked about killing every Muslim child, hated Palestinians, invaded their homes, destroyed their homeland then latched on to the US to pay for Israel's warfare. Israel shouldn't even BE in the Middle East. They came from Europe not the Middle East. Iran is constantly being threatened by Israel's warmongering and hatred. Don't forget Iran has been there for thousands of years and now this new kid on the block with a bully attitude thinks they can say what other nations do. You didn't add the count of all the people Israel (and the US) has killed. The US even uses its soldiers to experiment on with medical technologies. They're spraying poisons onto their own people and you defend them. They love that.
Israel freely gave all of Gaza to the Palestinians, gives them food, water, electricity, jobs. Doesn't sound to me like the description you gave. Jews have been in the middle east and all of Israel for 3500 years, there wasn't even the creation of any Muslim until 600CE. You don't have any grasp of history do you? The only "warmongering" Israel has done is when they're attacked, over and over again by Muslims. That's called "defense" Israel has made many incredible offers of a Palestinian state and they're always refused. The middle east had no Muslims at all, until the Muslim conquests of hundreds of years that killed millions. Israel is only 1.5% of all the middle east, 98.5% is Islamic, the so called "bullies" are the 98.5%
Israel has broken every ceasefire. Yes Jews lived in the middle east for centuries but for Israel to exist they had to kick out Palestinians. Zionists are not Jews really, they just hide amongst the Jews and would sacrifice Jews in a heartbeat. Netanyahu is satan's poster boy. I'm sure he has to have his horns filed off regularly. You could call it defense but Palestine never had an army so really Israel is quite fine with using weapons on unarmed people. To most that is the lowest of the law. I'm not for Muslims or any religion. I detest religions and see them as keeping us superstitious and retarded. How many people has Israel killed in its relatively minuscule history? How about Israel be relocated to America, or Alcatraz Island or someplace where their warmongering won't affect anyone else.
What about the cease fire Hamas broke Oct 7? What about the weapons of Hamas, rockets, machine guns, rifles, that isn't "Unarmed" You're not even considering how Islam conquered the entire middle east. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BGf8yVNCV/ After WW2 where would you have the Jews go? Many European countries wouldn't allow them, even Roosevelt wouldn't let Jewish refugee's in. The United Nations made a resolution for a Jewish homeland, gave land for the Palestinians too, and in 1948 6 Arab countries attacked Israel. Many Palestinians were told to leave to avoid the battle, and never came back. Keep in mind, none of the middle east was Islamic until the Muslims invaded and killed, raped, destroyed their way into taking over 98.5%. Do you have any idea why Muslims think all of Israel is theirs? Because in the Qur'an, Mohammed rode a magic donkey through the air and landed in Jerusalem, and they believe this divine act gives them Israel. And Muslims brutally conquered Jerusalem, Muslims believe that any place on earth they invaded and took, now belongs to them forever. Even though Jews were there first, and it was theirs, and Muslims were the aggressors and thieves.
Like I said, there is no comparison with Israel's firepower and Palestinians, besides who funded Hamas? And ISIS and Alqueda. Why have Jews been banished from over 100 countries? Can you answer that? I sure can, because some factions are a menace to society. They think they are superior than anyone else. I don't know why I really don't. Perhaps you can enlighten us on that. With all the wars that men have wrought it's hard to keep pace with a scorecard. We're living in today's times and Israel is by far the most murderous nation right now. How many Jews have not been sexually abused as children? It seems to be a cultural thing. You're talking about times long ago which we can't know all the factors of. Not saying other nations are saints but Jews have been consistently banished which makes one wonder. Where have Muslims invaded of late? As far as I know that hasn't been done by Iran for over 250 years. And who runs the media who lie and distort like drunken sailors and banks who skin people alive. It all comes down to this in my observation - Jews are hellbent of eradicating Islam because Islam considers interest immoral, which it is. Why are you defending them? They would liquidate you or anyone else if you get in their way. And all this anti-Semitism baloney, like they can kill, maim and fleece everyone blind but if you should hate them - you're the problem. I'm glad this is all coming out now and a lot of people are waking up to the diabolic customs of satanic Jews.
Sinners Mistakes Allegory for History-and Horror for Insight
Film Review
Turfseer
Feb 04, 2026
A note to readers: Sinners has racked up a record 16 Academy Award nominations. Take that as you will. In the current climate, sheer volume of nominations has become less a marker of excellence than a reliable signal of ideological safety. The more boxes a film checks, the more guarantees you get—and the surer you can be that genuine risk, moral ambiguity, and artistic danger have been carefully engineered out. In that sense, Sinners isn’t an outlier. It’s the system working exactly as designed.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sinners
3/10
Spoilers
Ryan Coogler’s Sinners is a film in permanent tension with itself. It wants historical gravity, mythic resonance, genre thrills, and auteur credibility all at once-and the strain shows. While the acting is strong and the dialogue punchy, the movie ultimately collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, trading verisimilitude and moral complexity for derivative horror tropes and adolescent revenge fantasy.
The opening hour signals one film: a slow-burn, community-focused drama set in 1932 Mississippi. Smoke and Stack-twin World War I veterans-return from Chicago with ill-gotten money and the ambition to build a juke joint for an all-Black community. The problem isn’t atmosphere or performance; it’s structure. For nearly an hour, there is no functioning antagonist. Scenes accumulate rather than escalate. We get recruitment, backstory, and mood, but little pressure. The Klan exists as an abstraction; the supernatural threat appears briefly and then recedes. The film withholds an engine and then later overcorrects.
That first hour also carries a faint but persistent anachronistic feel. The confidence with which the brothers negotiate a property purchase from a white landowner in Jim Crow Mississippi, the frictionless coalition-building, and the absence of sustained intimidation flatten the lived danger of the era. Historically plausible elements are presented with modern smoothness. The movie isn’t reconstructing 1932 Mississippi; it’s sampling it.
Crucially, nearly every major Black character is written with a conspicuously polished moral sheen. Smoke, despite being funded by organized crime, is framed as the stoic protector-skeptical of superstition, devoted to family, and ultimately sacrificial. Stack, the more impulsive twin, is softened into a romantic tragic figure whose biggest flaw is loving too deeply. Annie, Smoke’s wife and spiritual conscience, briefly objects to the criminal origins of the money, only for the objection to evaporate without consequence; she remains nurturing, loyal, and morally untarnished. Sammie, the young guitarist, is pure aspiration-talent without vice, curiosity without corruption-warned by a stern pastor father but never truly tempted by anything darker than artistic ambition. Delta Slim, the pianist, is genial wisdom incarnate, dispensing guidance and ultimately martyrdom. Cornbread, the bouncer, is loyal muscle with no moral stain. Pearline exists as romantic longing and artistic promise. Even the Chinese shopkeepers, Grace and Bo Chow, are rendered as warm, integrated allies-stripped of the guardedness and ambivalence that would have defined their real historical position. Across the board, Coogler allows his Black characters to voice doubts, but never to be implicated by them. Moral complexity is acknowledged, then carefully contained.
The inclusion of the Chinese shopkeeping couple is historically defensible-Chinese grocers did operate in Black communities across the Delta-but the film sanitizes the reality. The middle-caste tension, fear of white reprisal, and emotional distance that defined those relationships are erased in favor of symbolic harmony. Likewise, the appearance of Choctaw hunters is not an error of fact so much as a confirmation of mode: these figures function as mythic signals, not situated people. By this point, it’s clear the film prefers allegorical clarity to historical messiness.
That preference hardens into moral design. Black characters are uniformly decent, communal, and spiritually rich; white characters are perfidious, predatory, or disposable. Internal conflict is gestured at, never allowed to metastasize. No Black character is permitted to be selfish, cowardly, cruel, or compromised in ways that would disturb the film’s architecture.
This is where Coogler’s unresolved double bind becomes visible. The movie throws a bone to an angriest base by ensuring all Black suffering flows from white perfidy, while also seeking auteur acceptance through cross-cultural allegory. That tension produces its most dubious choice: making the vampire leader, Remmick, an Irishman. Coogler has framed this as a parallel between Irish and Black historical suffering, but in 1932 Mississippi the idea of an Irish Catholic as a Klan-adjacent organizing intelligence is historically absurd. The Klan was Protestant, nativist, and explicitly anti-Catholic. The move functions as a sleight of hand-acknowledging white violence while outsourcing ultimate agency to a liminal figure. White supremacy is implicated without being indicted.
When the film finally commits to its antagonist, it doesn’t deepen its themes-it abandons them. The story devolves into a cheap, derivative vampire movie, complete with the full kit of familiar tropes: invitation-only entry, garlic, immortality as temptation, hive-mind logic, sunrise annihilation, the charismatic vampire negotiator. This isn’t reinvention; it’s template horror. The genre switch doesn’t illuminate Jim Crow power dynamics-it replaces them with mechanics.
The nadir comes with the Tarantino-esque massacre of the Klansmen. This is not catharsis; it’s evasion. The sequence converts historical terror into target practice and substitutes wish-fulfillment for reckoning. Real Southern racism wasn’t defeated in a blaze of bullets. It was slow, legal, bureaucratic, and protected. By turning the Klan into disposable villains to be mowed down, the film reassures the audience rather than unsettling it. It rewrites history as dopamine and, in doing so, cheapens the suffering it claims to honor.
The film’s final scene only deepens the sense that Sinners has lost interest in its own historical stakes. Decades later, an elderly Sammie is visited in Chicago by an ageless Stack, now dressed in sleek, modern attire, casually crossing time, genre, and tone. What’s meant to be elegiac lands as absurd. The moment collapses history into symbolism so blunt it borders on self-parody: immortality as cool detachment, trauma reduced to a knowing nod, the past rendered aesthetic rather than consequential. Instead of reckoning with what that night cost-or with the long afterlife of Jim Crow violence-the film opts for a winking, supernatural epilogue that feels imported from a different, glossier movie.
Ironically, the film’s best element resists this curation: the music. Blues absolutely belongs in a Delta juke joint in 1932, and the soundtrack grounds the film more honestly than the script does. Where the story sanctifies and protects its characters, the blues accepts contradiction-sin without absolution, survival without speeches. The movie elevates the music into near-liturgical transcendence, but even so, it feels truer than the moral geometry around it.
Sinners is not a bad-looking or badly acted film. It’s worse: it’s a film that wants credit for seriousness without risking specificity. It gestures at history, then escapes into fantasy. It flirts with complexity, then defuses it. By mistaking allegory for history and horror for insight, it absolves its audience at the expense of the past-and leaves behind a movie that sounds better than it thinks.
Come on this is obviously out of Israel’s playbook, murdering children is part of the deal since the little heathens they aren’t the chosen people, then of course their future terrorist and need to be tortured just like their parents. United States has no business being involved in any of this get the hell out of Dodge says 70 F ing %. Take the nukes away from the Jews while you’re there, we have our equipment and it should be easy. The problem will be solved ,of all people on earth that should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons the Proven heinous, genocidal monsters sexually molesting prisoners with dogs and metal pipes. Playing with the children’s toys that they just murdered with a laugh .What kind of sick sons of bees even dream this stuff up. Our leaders need to fess up to their blackmail case and carry on or get out. This whole thing is a planned destination of civil humanity for Israel to dominate the Middle East. The twin towers was nothing for the Mossad and our own CIA. Ask Lutnick they sacrificed 3000 Goy people to keep the War going and get the Patriot act to destroy the constitution. If somehow building seven doesn’t make you believe your own eyes and ears you’re hopeless go ahead and send your kids or close your yap.
Over the last several days I've watched otherwise sensible people begin to support the "America bombed the school" narrative without evidence, without citing named sources, and without thinking through that Iran is just as capable of lying about a war crime as any other combatant particularly as it bombs civilians in war crimes of its own. Whatever happened to supporting the US first before convicting it of committing war crimes? Why so much sympathy for the Iranian government that has treated its citizens so brutally when in the US, citizens have freely exercised their freedom of speech without consequences every time they scream "F..k Trump"?
Exactly!
So the whole thing may be a load of bollocks as I might put it bluntly. Of course even missles can go AWOL and might be interferred with by ECM and come down where they shouldn't.
Dug graves reminds me of the supposed graves for all the COVID victims in New York in 2020. That was load of tosh.
As to the New York Times, it believes in COVID etc. It's as trustworthy as a rattlesnake. And I see that 'New York Times' anagrams to:
- skew enormity
- er my wonkiest
- I worst key men
- monkeys write
If monkeys write enough one day they may get something right. :<)
An Infinite Number of Monkeys
Bob Newhart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngmf8G5xKas
America did bomb the girls' school.
I agree with you. I think it's more likely than not. However, Turfsee is a skilled sohist.
Forensic Rebuttal of the “Minab School Bombing” Commentary
The commentary circulating about the bombing of a girls’ school in Minab presents itself as a cautious plea: *don’t rush to judgment.* On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Wartime reporting is often incomplete in the early stages, and careful investigation is necessary before drawing firm conclusions.
But a close reading of the piece reveals that it is **not actually a neutral appeal for caution.** Instead, it is a carefully structured argument that uses a series of rhetorical and propaganda techniques designed to steer readers toward a predetermined conclusion: that reporting about the strike—particularly reporting by The New York Times—is dishonest, politically motivated, and fundamentally untrustworthy.
The problem is not simply that the article raises questions. In a democracy, questioning media narratives is legitimate and healthy. The problem is **how the argument is constructed.** The piece relies on a recognizable information-warfare pattern that analysts often describe as the **4D propaganda model: Dismiss, Distort, Distract, and Discredit.**
When these techniques are examined step by step, the article’s argument largely collapses.
Stage 1: Dismiss — Pre-emptively Delegitimizing the Source
The article begins by attacking journalists from The New York Times with phrases such as “treasonous,” “moronic,” and “propaganda.”
This opening move is not accidental. It serves a psychological function: **if readers can be persuaded that the messenger is corrupt or malicious, they no longer feel obligated to examine the message carefully.**
This tactic is known as **poisoning the well.** Rather than engage the evidence presented in reporting, the article attempts to undermine the credibility of the reporters themselves. Once that emotional framing is established, readers are primed to reject any information coming from those sources.
Serious criticism of journalism would begin with evidence. This commentary begins with character assassination.
Stage 2: Distort — Misrepresenting the Claim Being Debated
After discrediting the source, the article reframes the reporting in exaggerated terms.
It repeatedly suggests that journalists concluded the United States **deliberately bombed a school full of children.**
But even the headline quoted in the article states something different: that the United States may have been **“at fault”** in the strike.
In military and legal contexts, fault does not imply intent. It can include accidents, misidentification of targets, outdated intelligence, or other operational failures.
I believe that it is more likely than not that the United States deliberately bombed the school full of children. However, the reporting does not argue that.
By presenting “fault” as equivalent to “intentional targeting,” the article constructs a **straw man argument**—an exaggerated claim that is easier to attack than the actual reporting.
This distortion allows the author to condemn a position that was never seriously advanced in the first place.
Stage 3: Narrative Seeding — Introducing an Alternative Without Evidence
Having undermined the credibility of the media narrative, the article then introduces an alternative possibility: that the missile might not have been American at all.
However, the evidence offered for this suggestion consists primarily of:
• social-media commentary
• unnamed dissidents
• a “warblogger” speculation
None of these constitute verified forensic evidence.
At this stage the goal is not to prove an alternative explanation. The goal is simply to **introduce doubt.** Once uncertainty has been planted, readers may feel justified dismissing the original reporting—even in the absence of a better explanation.
This technique is common in disinformation campaigns: **if certainty cannot be replaced with truth, it can be replaced with confusion.**
Stage 4: Reframing the Event — The “Adjacent Military Base” Argument
The commentary then pivots to a contextual argument: the school was reportedly located near an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval facility.
The implication is that the presence of a nearby military installation somehow weakens the claim that the strike represents a serious civilian tragedy.
But this argument is legally flawed.
Under the laws of armed conflict, militaries must follow three fundamental principles:
• **Distinction** — differentiating between civilian and military targets
• **Proportionality** — avoiding attacks where civilian harm would be excessive
• **Precautions** — taking steps to minimize civilian casualties
A school does not lose its civilian protection merely because it is located near a military facility. Proximity alone **does not convert a civilian object into a legitimate military target.**
The argument therefore rests on a false legal premise.
Stage 5: Speculative Blame — The “Human Shields” Allegation
The article goes further by suggesting that Iran may have deliberately kept the school open as a way of using the children as **human shields.**
This is an extremely serious accusation under international humanitarian law. If proven, it would itself constitute a war crime.
But such a claim requires strong evidence, such as:
• military orders requiring civilians to remain
• documentation demonstrating intent to deter attacks
• testimony from participants or witnesses
The article provides none of this.
Instead, it leaps from “school near base” to “possible human shields.” This is **speculation presented as inference,** not evidence.
Stage 6: Distract — Shifting the Conversation to Other Allegations
Having reframed the Minab strike, the article then pivots to a long list of alleged Iranian attacks on civilian infrastructure across the region.
This rhetorical maneuver is known as **whataboutism.**
Rather than address the central question—
**What happened at the Minab school?**
—the article encourages readers to focus on unrelated events elsewhere in the conflict.
Even if every allegation about Iranian attacks were accurate, they would not resolve the question of responsibility for the school strike.
International humanitarian law does not function as a moral scoreboard in which violations cancel each other out.
Stage 7: Discredit — Turning the Issue Into a Loyalty Test
In its final stage, the narrative returns to its opening theme: that journalists and critics of U.S. policy are effectively acting as agents of foreign propaganda.
This rhetorical move reframes the issue from an evidentiary investigation into a **political loyalty test.**
Instead of asking:
**What evidence exists about the Minab strike?**
the reader is encouraged to ask:
**Whose side are you on?**
Once the issue is framed in those terms, analytical thinking becomes secondary to tribal allegiance.
Additional Logical Failures
Beyond the narrative structure, the article suffers from several clear logical problems.
Selective Skepticism
Journalistic reporting is treated with extreme suspicion, while anonymous social-media commentary and speculative “warbloggers” are accepted without scrutiny.
Conspiracy Signaling
The article suggests it is suspicious that journalists obtained photos and videos from the strike site. In modern conflicts, however, such documentation is common through civilian phones, satellite imagery, and freelance reporters.
Internal Contradiction
The commentary simultaneously advances several incompatible claims:
• the missile might not have been American
• if it was American it was justified
• Iran bears responsibility for the circumstances
• the controversy itself is fabricated by journalists
These explanations cannot all be true at the same time.
What Responsible Analysis Would Look Like
A serious investigation into the Minab strike would rely on verifiable evidence such as:
• forensic analysis of missile fragments
• radar and launch detection data
• satellite imagery
• military targeting records
• eyewitness testimony
These are the methods investigators use to determine responsibility in wartime incidents.
The commentary largely avoids these questions and instead focuses on rhetorical framing.
Conclusion
Calling for caution before reaching conclusions about wartime incidents is entirely reasonable. But the article in question does not simply urge patience.
It follows a structured narrative pattern:
• **Dismiss** critical reporting
• **Distort ** what journalists actually claimed
• **Seed doubt** through speculation
• **Reframe** the legal context
• **Shift blame** through conjecture
• **Distract** with unrelated allegations
• **Discredit** critics as propagandists
The result is not a careful analysis of what happened in Minab. It is an attempt to reshape the reader’s perception of the information environment itself.
The deaths of children in a school strike deserve
careful, evidence-based scrutiny—not rhetorical maneuvering designed to win an argument.
AwakeNotWoke, the irony here is that nearly every rhetorical tactic you accuse me of using appears in your own post.
Let’s start with what Jeff Childers actually wrote, because that’s the material you claim to be “forensically rebutting.” His central point was extremely simple: early wartime reporting is often wrong, so it is prudent to pause before declaring certainty about what happened.
He explicitly noted several unresolved issues, including:
• analysis suggesting the missile trajectory may not match a U.S. launch profile
• reports that most schools in the area had already been closed
• the unusual fact that the school was reportedly located directly next to a Revolutionary Guard facility
Those are not propaganda techniques. They are factual questions that any responsible investigation would examine.
Yet your response ignores those points almost entirely. Instead, you declare that the United States “more likely than not deliberately bombed the school full of children.”
That conclusion is based primarily on:
• statements from Iranian authorities
• advocacy groups and media reports repeating those claims
• speculative narratives about Epstein and geopolitical motives
In other words, you accuse others of “narrative seeding,” while simultaneously asserting intent—one of the most serious allegations possible—without any forensic evidence.
You also accuse others of “selective skepticism,” yet you apply skepticism almost exclusively to American sources while treating Iranian claims as presumptively credible. Given the long history of information warfare by the Iranian government and its proxies, that selective trust is difficult to justify.
You argue that questioning early reporting represents a propaganda pattern of “Dismiss, Distort, Distract, Discredit.” But the actual pattern here is simpler:
Assume guilt immediately.
Ignore contradictory information.
Frame anyone urging caution as morally suspect.
That is not forensic analysis. It is confirmation bias.
Jeff Childers’ original point remains valid: in wartime, initial narratives are often incomplete or wrong, and responsible observers should wait for verifiable evidence—missile fragments, radar data, satellite imagery, and independent investigation—before declaring conclusions about responsibility or intent.
Calling for evidence before assigning guilt is not propaganda.
It is exactly what responsible analysis requires.
Regardless of any flaws in my other posts, the above critique of you and Childers remains valid. Furthet, the Pentagon has reached a preliminary determination that the US bombed the school. It will, of course, like you, attempt to whitewash the U.S. actions if a cover up fails. Terrorist states such as the U.S. that the rest of the world knows has a long history of deliberately targeting civilians (e.g., Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Mai Lai etc etc etc) and of using lies as false pretexts for aggressive actions (e.g., Gulf of Tonken, the forged document implicating Saddam in uranium purchases from West Africa, the photos that COLON powell held up in the UN etc etc etc) use "plausible deniability" when selecting civilian targets. The fact that an AI fabricated image of military equipment in an elementary school was circulating just the day prior to the bombing of the elementary school in Minab is just too convenient to be able to be readily dismissed as a "coincidence." And the Minab elementary school was just the first of multiple attacks in elementary schools, and health care facilities, to have been struck. On the standard of balance of probabilities or more likely than not, I think it's been proven that the attack on the school and the killing of little girls was an intentional terrorist attack by the US, but that's just my opinion. This needs to be investigated independently, such asvby the ICC, as the US cannot be trusted to investigate itself. I expect that such an investigation would find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killing of the girls was an intentional act. There is a prima facie case that the US is guilty of a heinous crime, which is typical and should surprise nobody.
AwakeNotWoke, even in this comment you are still doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: moving from allegation to certainty without establishing the evidence in between.
A preliminary Pentagon determination that a U.S. weapon may have been involved in a strike is not the same thing as proof that the United States deliberately targeted a school full of children. Those are very different claims.
Yet your argument immediately leaps to the strongest possible conclusion: that the attack was an intentional terrorist act.
To support that leap you rely on three things:
• historical grievances about past U.S. wars
• speculation about an AI image circulating online
• your own statement that “on the balance of probabilities” you believe it was deliberate
None of those establish intent.
You also dismiss the possibility of independent investigation unless it confirms the conclusion you have already reached. But determining responsibility for incidents like this normally requires exactly the kinds of evidence Jeff Childers referenced earlier: missile fragments, launch detection data, satellite imagery, and verified forensic analysis.
Until that evidence is available, declaring the event an intentional war crime is not analysis. It is speculation.
Calling for caution in the early stages of wartime reporting is not propaganda. It is simply recognizing that the first narratives in conflicts are often incomplete or wrong.
You have failed to deal with any of the challenges presented to you in my reply to Eva which contains a detailed forensic rebuttal and expose of the rhetorical and propaganda techniques used by you and Mr. Childers in the article.
As I asserted in my last response to you, there is a prima facie case. It appears you do not know what that means and I am not going to try to explain it to you.
It needs to be tried independently, i.e., not by the U.S.
It may be that the U.S. can rebut it but I doubt it and the U.S. has no credibility.
AwakeNotWoke, you keep repeating the phrase prima facie case, but simply asserting that does not make it so.
A prima facie case requires credible evidence, not just a chain of assumptions. And that brings us to the point you continue to avoid addressing: the credibility of the sources you rely on.
You say the United States has no credibility. That may be your view. But the Iranian government—and the IRGC in particular—also has a long record of propaganda, information warfare, and manipulation of narratives during conflicts.
Yet in your analysis, American statements are automatically dismissed while Iranian claims are treated as reliable.
That is not a forensic standard. That is selective skepticism.
You also continue to ignore several issues raised earlier:
• analysis questioning whether the missile trajectory matches a U.S. launch profile
• reports that most schools in the area were already closed
• the unusual fact that this school was reportedly located adjacent to an IRGC facility
Those questions are relevant to determining what actually happened. They are not “propaganda techniques.”
Calling for caution until forensic evidence—missile fragments, radar data, satellite imagery, and verified investigation—is available is not an attempt to “whitewash” anything. It is simply recognizing that wartime narratives are often incomplete and sometimes wrong.
Ironically, while accusing others of propaganda, you have already declared the United States guilty of an intentional terrorist attack based largely on statements coming from one side of the conflict.
That is not an independent standard of proof.
Based on whose report?
The Pentagon's.
I have never liked Hitler, who according to Ken Livingstone, a former Mayor of London, and many others, was a Zionist.
However, it's pretty clear that, in some respects, the US is far worse than Nazi Germany, which never wanted war, repeatedly dought peace and, by and large, respected the Geneva Convention.
Secretary Of Defense Hegseth Promises Iranians ‘No Quarter’ – A War Crime | HuffPost https://share.google/jU69oW4pRD0HLyrzR
"The international rules of armed conflict, codified by the Geneva Conventions, which the United States has ratified, state that combatants who offer to surrender shall be taken prisoner. 'No quarter' means they are killed instead."
"Per Wikipedia: Since the Hague Convention of 1899, it is considered a war crime; it is also prohibited in customary international law and by the Rome Statute. Article 23 of the Hague Convention of 1907 states that 'it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given' ".
Trump's "No Quarter" against International Law https://share.google/fGV1yLvuiq5IjOCo1
WHOA! Epstein PREDICTED Trump's WAR ON IRAN
https://youtu.be/PLiverQ1s44?si=33-16vNgz9ph546T
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called for the explosion at the elementary school for girls in Minab in Iran to be investigated as a war crime. HRW is a nonprofit watchdog group headquartered in New York City. The organization was founded in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, whose purpose was to monitor the Soviet Union's compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords. Its separate global divisions merged into Human Rights Watch in 1988.
US/Israel: Investigate Iran School Attack as a War Crime | Human Rights Watch https://share.google/oUI2gbHhwJp7uvsE4
This is an important development but the US, with its history of lying and covering up atrocities, cannot be entrusted to investigate itself.
If Iran files an Article 12 (3) declaration, and it's accepted by the ICC, then the ICC gets jurisdiction, including retrospectively, whether the US accepts it or not.
The Democrats can then extradite POTUS Trump and SECDEF Hegseth to The Hague when they regain control, and even if they don't extradite them (although I can't see why they wouldn’t), POTUS and Hegseth after they are out of office may be unable to travel to most places in the world without facing the risk of arrest.
Most of the world has ratified the Rome Statute and, although the US has used Mafia tactics with many countries who have ratified it, those countries would be obliged legally to arrest them if they set foot on their soil.
"...Nazi Germany, which never wanted war, repeatedly dought (sic) peace and, by and large, respected the Geneva Convention..."
Hmm, that would be the Nazi Germany which marched into Austria, occupied Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland, France, the Balkans and the USSR I suppose.
I gather many Nazis were taken to the USA after the war so that might explain the USA ever since. Of course the pharma industry is substantially Germanic in origin and much of it in the US now. The Nazis have many ways of shooting people.
Of course, a school that caters to the children of service personnel may be located within the vicinity of a military installation that they work at, and this is not uncommon even in Western countries, but due to their bigotry, and perpective taking and empathy deficits does not appear to have occurred to the propaganda peddling or murder apologist Turfseer or Mr. Childers.
POTUS Trump may go down in history as a war criminal, largely thanks to him having not sacked SECDEF Hegseth long ago when he was first warned that he was a liability.
Hegseth is expected to resign due to new data on a strike on an Iranian school — EADaily, March 12th, 2026 — Politics, Middle East https://share.google/O2D6BNGtPPBVR4Goj
'
He should resign': Senator calls for Pete Hegseth to step down over Iran school bombing - Raw Story https://share.google/4fFDadjXrzkzxCKfy
Hegseth ignored military officials when he slashed offices that limit risk to civilians - POLITICO https://share.google/apjowBnMirzbrKAmv
Did Hegseth (and POTUS?) use AI for propaganda to create the narrative that iranian primary schools were military installations full of military personnel and equipment?:
"On February 27 [one day before the triple-tap precision strike by the U.S. on the school in Minab], an AI-generated image appeared on Instagram purporting to show heavy military equipment stationed inside Karimian Elementary School in Isfahan, Iran. The post, shared by accounts including the Free Union of Iranian Workers, an independent labor union operating inside Iran whose leaders have been jailed by the regime, read: “This is not a military zone! It’s Karimian Elementary.” The image carried a visible Google Gemini watermark, indicating that it had been created by the software. The school posted a rebuttal, noting that the equipment could not physically fit on the premises. Iranian-diaspora fact-checkers confirmed that the image was fabricated."
The Fake Images of a Real Strike on a School - The Atlantic https://share.google/SDnk3MFADTIfZxjDL
"Congress created a special Pentagon office to prevent the accidental targeting of civilians but it was dramatically scaled back by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth soon after he took office last year."
This gave Hegseth (and POTUS) "plausible deniability" for a strike on the girls' school. If blaming Iran failed, it could still be covered up by calling it a mistake and blaming it on resource limitations.
The Iranians had been making a lot of noise about POTUS' links to Epstein.
“They’ve created an island for corruption. Is that a joke? Moral corruption, corruption in actions, oppression, force, coercion… This island of corruption is only one example.”
'Created An Island For Corruption': Khamenei's X Handle Rekindles 'Epstein Links' To Trump's War in Iran | Republic World
https://share.google/vtOsHrFsBDzEioVk3
A top Iranian official condemned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s comparison of Iranian leaders to “rats” on Friday.
“Iran’s leadership is in no better shape, desperate and hiding, they’ve gone underground. That’s what rats do,” Hegseth said during a Friday morning press conference.
Ali Larijani, the secretary of the country’s Supreme National Security Council, criticized Hegseth’s comments in a post on the social platform X on Friday
Mr. Hegseth! Our leaders have been, and still are, among the people. But your leaders? On Epstein's island!
https://x.com/alilarijani_ir/status/2032488143568425368?s=
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi publicly stated that Iran proposed mechanisms to guarantee "no nuclear weapons," but U.S. negotiators rejected it because the Americans were too low IQ, i.e., they "didn't grasp the technical details."
That is Iranian negotiators offered a way to prove they were not developing nuclear weapons, but it was deemed too "sophisticated" (or too technically complex) for the Americans to understand.
Araghchi posted on X (formerly Twitter): "Factual knowledge matters. Case 1: Iran's proposal to ensure NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS was dismissed because US counterparts didn't grasp the technical details."
This statement appeared in multiple news outlets around March 13-14 2026.
There is a lot of bullshit about Iran, including that it's antisemitic, and bullshit about how Americans are the chosen people or master race.
Multiple independent research studies show that Americans score higher on measures of narcissism than any other people on earth. The US just targeted a school in Iran and killed 168+ Iranian prepubescent girls, mainly the daughters of service personnel at a nearby military installation, and lied about it, claiming that the Iranians killed their own kids.
I dislike the Iranian regime because of the backward and brutal way it treats women, which is even worse than how Americans treat women. However, the Iranian regime is not antisemitic. It's anti-Zionist.
On May 10 1979, a delegation of Iranian Jews (including rabbis and several community leaders) met Ruhollah Khomeini in Qom to discuss the safety of the Jewish community in the new Islamic Republic.
During that meeting, Khomeini explicitly distinguished between Judaism and Zionism. According to accounts of the meeting, he said that Iranian Jews were not the same as “Zionists” and should be protected.
One reported statement attributed to him in that context was roughly that “our Jews… have nothing to do with those Zionists,” emphasizing that the Jewish community in Iran was separate from the political movement of Zionism.
Following this, Khomeini issued guidance that Jews in Iran were to be protected as a recognized religious minority.
Iran still has one of the largest Jewish communities in the Middle East outside Israel. Estimates commonly range from about 8,000 to 20,000 Jews, though numbers vary depending on the source. The Jewish community has one reserved seat in the Iranian parliament (Majlis).Jewish communities exist mainly in Tehran, Shiraz, and Isfahan. There are multiple synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher facilities, and community organizations operating openly.
In Iran, under the Law on the Protection of Children and Juveniles (enacted originally in 2002 and updated in later years), acts of sexual abuse or exploitation of persons under 18 are criminalized and carry imprisonment terms if they do not fall under harsher religious “hudud” punishments.
In contrast, in the U.S., today, under Article 120b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 920b), sex with 12 year olds is lawful for Americans who join the US military and marry or are married to the young boy or girl. If you don’t believe me look it up. There’s even a Wikipedia entry about it. Child marriage is legal in 2/3 of US states.
Unlike the U.S. constitution, the Iranian consitution does not include a "right to sodomy" (SCOTUS: Lawrence v. Texas, 2004), so Americans look down on the Iranian constitution. However, Judaism is officially recognized in Iran’s constitution as a protected minority religion. This is not the case in the U.S. constitution.
It’s clear we don’t see eye to eye on this issue. Your comment relies heavily on ad hominem accusations, unrelated references—Epstein? really?—and a long list of tangential claims meant to cast a wide net against Israel in the hope that something will stick. I don’t find this productive, and much of it is off-topic. Rather than chasing every tangent in a back-and-forth that goes nowhere, I’ll leave it there and let readers decide for themselves.
I refer in the first sentence to bigotry, perpective taking and empathy deficits and to propaganda peddling and being a murder apologist. That’s a content to process shift. I was talking about what you were doing, in a single sentence. That hardly "relies heavily" on ad hominem accusations. It's more a brief use of observation statements. "Epstein? really?" Yes, really. It's not for nothing that "Operation Epic Fury" has been parodied worldwide as "Epstein Fury." What from your perspective are "tangential claims" are there mostly to show that the claims that much of the justification for this aggressive war was fabricated, just like the AI footage that points toward the killings, which occurred the day after the footage was circulated, being premeditated. The strike on the school was an intentional war crime, not merely a negligent war crime. The evidence that Iran was on the verge of developing, or trying to develop, a nuclear weapon is specious. It's Israel that has illegally acquired, and illegally possesses, a nuclear arsenal. However, there was very little mention of Israel. I simply made the point that the Iranian regime is not antisemitic.
AwakeNotWoke, the problem is not that you raised criticism. The problem is that your argument rests on selective information and assumptions that you treat as settled facts.
For example, you dismiss or ignore several points that were raised earlier:
• An Iranian dissident analyst pointed out that the reported angle of the missile strike does not match an American launch profile.
• Reports indicated that most schools in the area had already been closed, yet this one was reportedly operating next to a military installation.
• You rely heavily on claims coming from Iranian sources or organizations aligned with them while assuming their account must be accurate.
At the same time, you treat highly speculative claims as established conclusions. The “Epstein Fury” narrative, for instance, presumes guilt based on files that have not produced any clear evidence tying Trump to the events you’re describing.
You also assert that the Iranian regime is not antisemitic because it distinguishes between Zionists and Jews. But that distinction becomes less meaningful when Iranian proxies and allied groups have repeatedly launched missiles into Israeli civilian areas. Those rockets do not discriminate between political ideologies—they land in neighborhoods.
So the issue here is not “empathy deficits” or “propaganda.” The issue is whether we apply the same skepticism to all sides.
Right now you appear willing to question American claims—which is fair—but unwilling to question claims coming from the Iranian government or its allies. That is not analysis; it is simply choosing which narrative to trust.
Until the facts about the Minab strike are independently established, declaring it an intentional war crime is speculation, not evidence.
Glad yer sharin' this Turf... Childer's piece is velly good but he avoids mentionin' Israel...b/c everybuddy sez da jooze dunnit but da jooze didn't dooze it...
I'm not sure if his avoidin' that elephant iz so he don't bleed subscribers (as once ya daresay the facts don't support that it wuz ve "bloodthirsty" jooze, folks git disappointed 'er even testy--cuz of course it's GOTTA be chews, otherwise ain't news..) Or perhaps it's cuz he feels he duzn't need it ta make his pernt... But WE know whose bein' blamed... in spite of the facts!
Irony is we're not even SURE if any girls died--how sus that there are graves but no bodies... not even AI... kinda like ALL the starvin' kids in Gaza that were either plagued with congenital illness or AI... Whut if no girls were killed at all? Or if they were killed by an Iranian missile Miss Fired?....
THIS from Serge Milshtein is fab:
sergemil.substack.com/p/girls-school-bloody-theater-of-mass?
THIS one here has more supportin' info:
iransofaraway.substack.com/p/the-minab-school-strike-tehrans-in…?
BOTH've 'em back up yer Covid & Coffee's post nizely!
You may be right that Childers avoided mentioning Israel deliberately—but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a weakness in his piece. In a way, bringing Israel into the discussion might actually reinforce the very narrative you’re describing. Once the topic shifts there, the whole conversation tends to collapse into the familiar trench warfare of accusations and counter-accusations, and the original issue gets lost.
My sense is that Childers was aiming his critique at something narrower: the way the New York Times and other major outlets construct a narrative before the facts are fully known. That media dynamic—how quickly a storyline forms and how reluctant outlets are to revisit it later—was really the core of what he was examining.
In that sense, focusing on the press rather than on Israel may have been intentional. The media mechanism he’s pointing to operates the same way regardless of who ends up being responsible. Once the narrative machine starts moving, it tends to produce the same moral framing every time.
So while the “elephant in the room” you mention is certainly part of the broader political debate, Childers may have chosen to keep the lens narrower in order to highlight the role of the press itself.
Great article. Anyone who doesn't know that the NYT is a rag must have their head under a rock. However the US invaded and attacked Iran so that is really the cause of it all directly and indirectly. I'm not a lover of Iran however America has been taunting Iran for decades on the behest of their butt buddy, Israel.
Well... At least there's two of us that agree. This "war" as well as all other middle-eastern conflict of the last 100 years, are the direct result of trade and financial *interests* via Rothschild Bank Group, International Monetary Fund(s) and the Bank(s) for International Settlement located in Basel, Switzerland. How many middle-eastern civilians have been displaced and/or murdered since January 20, 1930?
But let's not talk about that. Let's point fingers at corporate owned media and avoid mentioning the actual protagonists... Pfffttt!
Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years and has killed over 850 Americans directly. Iran has consistently called for the death of America, and Israel, and has spent it's fortune to develop nuclear weapons for just that purpose. Thru Iran's proxies they've killed many more Americans and countless other people, and supported the Oct 7 attack on Israel. And you think we've "taunted" them? And why shouldn't we be allies with Israel, the ONLY Democracy in the middle east?
yup:
https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2026/03/iran-has-been-at-war-with-us-for-47.html
Oh yes I think very strongly that we taunted them. Since Israel blew into the Middle East. As if Israel hasn't talked about killing every Muslim child, hated Palestinians, invaded their homes, destroyed their homeland then latched on to the US to pay for Israel's warfare. Israel shouldn't even BE in the Middle East. They came from Europe not the Middle East. Iran is constantly being threatened by Israel's warmongering and hatred. Don't forget Iran has been there for thousands of years and now this new kid on the block with a bully attitude thinks they can say what other nations do. You didn't add the count of all the people Israel (and the US) has killed. The US even uses its soldiers to experiment on with medical technologies. They're spraying poisons onto their own people and you defend them. They love that.
Israel freely gave all of Gaza to the Palestinians, gives them food, water, electricity, jobs. Doesn't sound to me like the description you gave. Jews have been in the middle east and all of Israel for 3500 years, there wasn't even the creation of any Muslim until 600CE. You don't have any grasp of history do you? The only "warmongering" Israel has done is when they're attacked, over and over again by Muslims. That's called "defense" Israel has made many incredible offers of a Palestinian state and they're always refused. The middle east had no Muslims at all, until the Muslim conquests of hundreds of years that killed millions. Israel is only 1.5% of all the middle east, 98.5% is Islamic, the so called "bullies" are the 98.5%
Israel has broken every ceasefire. Yes Jews lived in the middle east for centuries but for Israel to exist they had to kick out Palestinians. Zionists are not Jews really, they just hide amongst the Jews and would sacrifice Jews in a heartbeat. Netanyahu is satan's poster boy. I'm sure he has to have his horns filed off regularly. You could call it defense but Palestine never had an army so really Israel is quite fine with using weapons on unarmed people. To most that is the lowest of the law. I'm not for Muslims or any religion. I detest religions and see them as keeping us superstitious and retarded. How many people has Israel killed in its relatively minuscule history? How about Israel be relocated to America, or Alcatraz Island or someplace where their warmongering won't affect anyone else.
What about the cease fire Hamas broke Oct 7? What about the weapons of Hamas, rockets, machine guns, rifles, that isn't "Unarmed" You're not even considering how Islam conquered the entire middle east. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BGf8yVNCV/ After WW2 where would you have the Jews go? Many European countries wouldn't allow them, even Roosevelt wouldn't let Jewish refugee's in. The United Nations made a resolution for a Jewish homeland, gave land for the Palestinians too, and in 1948 6 Arab countries attacked Israel. Many Palestinians were told to leave to avoid the battle, and never came back. Keep in mind, none of the middle east was Islamic until the Muslims invaded and killed, raped, destroyed their way into taking over 98.5%. Do you have any idea why Muslims think all of Israel is theirs? Because in the Qur'an, Mohammed rode a magic donkey through the air and landed in Jerusalem, and they believe this divine act gives them Israel. And Muslims brutally conquered Jerusalem, Muslims believe that any place on earth they invaded and took, now belongs to them forever. Even though Jews were there first, and it was theirs, and Muslims were the aggressors and thieves.
Like I said, there is no comparison with Israel's firepower and Palestinians, besides who funded Hamas? And ISIS and Alqueda. Why have Jews been banished from over 100 countries? Can you answer that? I sure can, because some factions are a menace to society. They think they are superior than anyone else. I don't know why I really don't. Perhaps you can enlighten us on that. With all the wars that men have wrought it's hard to keep pace with a scorecard. We're living in today's times and Israel is by far the most murderous nation right now. How many Jews have not been sexually abused as children? It seems to be a cultural thing. You're talking about times long ago which we can't know all the factors of. Not saying other nations are saints but Jews have been consistently banished which makes one wonder. Where have Muslims invaded of late? As far as I know that hasn't been done by Iran for over 250 years. And who runs the media who lie and distort like drunken sailors and banks who skin people alive. It all comes down to this in my observation - Jews are hellbent of eradicating Islam because Islam considers interest immoral, which it is. Why are you defending them? They would liquidate you or anyone else if you get in their way. And all this anti-Semitism baloney, like they can kill, maim and fleece everyone blind but if you should hate them - you're the problem. I'm glad this is all coming out now and a lot of people are waking up to the diabolic customs of satanic Jews.
Sadly, you know the answer to your last question.