This is the logic of someone mistaking a press release for a morgue log. The absence of televised bodies in a warzone with bombed hospitals, buried families, and a collapsed civil registry isn’t proof of falsehood — it’s the reality of infrastructure collapse. You’re demanding battlefield journalism from beneath pancaked concrete, and calling the silence a lie.
We see so many posed pictures out of Gaza, they clearly can get stuff out. We see the atrocity videos that Hamas people upload, those get out. Yet they can't document so many other horrors they claim exist--the only thing that makes sense is that they don't have anything to show because it's fake.
No — you cherry-pick history. When Hamas lies, you cite it forever. When Israel misleads, you give them a 10% margin of honor. You’re not reviewing patterns. You’re locking in conclusions and trimming facts to fit them.
I consider 10% normal fog of war.
That’s not skepticism — that’s outsourcing your entire sense of morality to a terrorist group’s camera crew. You’re giving Hamas editorial control over your empathy. If they don’t film a dying child, you declare that child imaginary. That’s not logic. That’s learned indifference.
I declare it imaginary because if you can report on a dying child why can't you take a video? What reporter doesn't have a phone these days? When they fail to do something that should be totally easy it must not actually be totally easy--and about the only way for that to be true is if it's a fabrication.
I understood your rationale. I didn’t say it held up. You dismiss every group whose findings contradict your preferred story, then cite military sources with zero critical pressure. The standard shifts not based on method — but on conclusion.
I disagree with any group that failed to note the garbage. That's proof they aren't checking, and thus by implication proof they aren't checking the other stuff, either.
Proportionality isn’t a slogan. It’s the legal measure of military necessity against civilian harm. You treat tunnels under apartments as green lights for flattening blocks. But Geneva doesn’t give you moral clearance just because a tunnel was beneath the kitchen. The burden is on the attacker to prove restraint — not just intent, but effect. You treat that burden like a footnote.
You keep up with this magic word. Reality is they have done far better than anyone else, the burden has been met.
Statistics don’t replace scrutiny. Mass death isn’t even across strikes — it concentrates in errors and high-value hits. One hospital, one refugee camp, one misidentified building — that’s all it takes. And when a whole family dies, you say “look at the father” as if that voids the rest. That’s not proportionality. That’s guilt by association, scaled up to neighborhoods.
1) You are simply claiming they must be wrong without even considering whether they are.
2) The refugee camp has been addressed repeatedly--that fire started from Hamas munitions.
3) And, yes, I say to look at the father--because when families are wiped out it's normally a strike on some senior Hamas person. You aren't even trying to address that.
No. I’m starting from: mass death requires moral scrutiny. You’re the one starting from innocence. That’s why any critique becomes bias, any dead child becomes an acceptable statistic, and any law that gets in the way becomes a “magic word.” You’ve already decided the verdict — I’m just refusing to look away from the evidence.
Yes, you want scrutiny--and are happy to take whatever "scrutiny" you can find without any regard for whether it's true, just that it blames Israel.
And when you focus on that dead child--Goodhart's Law. You are creating more dead children.
You say they clearly “can get stuff out” because of some atrocity videos, so the absence of full famine or mass grave footage must mean it’s fake.
That’s not logic, Loren — it’s convenience. You’re demanding a pristine media pipeline from a population being starved, bombed, and surveilled 24/7. A society where journalists are killed, hospitals are shelled, and power is intermittent isn’t going to upload trauma on your schedule. Your threshold for belief is calibrated not for truth, but for denial. If horror isn’t edited and broadcast to your liking, you decide it never happened. That’s not skepticism. That’s the shield you hold up to avoid responsibility.
You say “10% is fog of war” when Israel misreports, but eternal condemnation for Hamas.
So you accept errors when they come from your preferred side but build entire moral frameworks out of your enemies’ worst lies. That’s not moral consistency — that’s rigged accounting. “Fog of war” doesn’t apply only to governments you like. It applies across the board. And if you’re going to invoke it for Israel, then have the intellectual integrity to apply it to Palestinian sources too — or admit you’ve made your choice and are just defending the scoreboard now.
You declare a child imaginary if there’s no video.
How did we get to the point where a child dying beneath rubble is “not real” unless there’s HD footage of their final breath? What standard of journalism requires war zone morgues to livestream for your approval? Not all stories are visible. Not all victims are documented. That’s exactly why international law uses patterns of destruction — not Instagram posts — as evidence. You’ve let your skepticism turn into emotional anesthesia.
You say you dismiss groups that don’t “note the garbage.”
Translation: you dismiss any group that doesn’t reach your conclusion. That’s not methodological critique — that’s ideological filtering. If HRW or Amnesty reports Israeli violations, you reject them wholesale. If the IDF tweets something, you trust it like scripture. That’s not scrutiny. That’s selective obedience to whoever tells you what you want to hear.
You say proportionality is a “magic word.”
No — it’s law. And it means the military value of a target must justify foreseeable civilian harm. It doesn’t matter if Hamas was nearby. If the IDF levels a building and dozens of civilians die, they have to show the strike wasn’t just legally targeted — but also militarily necessary and restrained. That’s not magic. That’s how civilized nations distinguish themselves from the very actors you claim to oppose. You keep waving away proportionality because you know it doesn’t clear your side’s actions — and you’d rather mock it than wrestle with it.
You say the refugee camp fire was Hamas’s fault.
Even if that’s true in one case, it doesn’t erase the pattern. Camps have been bombed repeatedly. UN shelters hit. Schools collapsed. Ambulances targeted. Are those all Hamas accidents too? You can’t keep handing out blame exemptions every time the numbers get uncomfortable.
You say “look at the father” when whole families die.
So now parentage justifies mass death? If one person in the house is Hamas, everyone becomes expendable? That’s not counterterrorism. That’s vendetta. That’s how law collapses into vengeance. The IDF isn’t supposed to act like Hamas. But by your logic, guilt is contagious and due process is optional — if it makes the operation easier.
You say I accept any “scrutiny” that blames Israel.
No — I accept that when hundreds of independent bodies, including Israeli ones, report the same patterns of abuse, it’s not propaganda. It’s evidence. You just can’t stomach where that evidence leads, so you brand it all as enemy lies. That’s not moral discernment — it’s deflection.
You end by saying I’m creating more dead children by pointing to the dead.
That’s the ugliest inversion of all. You’re defending a strategy that levels homes and starves civilians, and blaming people who notice. I don’t create the corpses, Loren — I refuse to look away from them. You, on the other hand, are so desperate to win the argument that you’ve turned grief into a sin and accountability into treason. That’s not justice. That’s moral collapse disguised as tough talk.
NHC