Israel imposes the ultimate justice on the October 7 killers 82%

By Andrea Widburg88%

7/14/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Indoctrination, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 56.7% saturation with 480 hits. Analysis detected 2,829 faulty-reasoning hits from 847 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.8% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,880 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.70% of the article peer group.

"To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." - Proverbs 21:3 
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." - Genesis 9:6 
Israel may be a leftist country, but it's still one that was founded on the Bible-and the Jewish Bible is about the rule of law and the necessity for justice. 
That's why it was good to learn that a special Israeli unit is bringing justice to the October 7 attackers. 
On October 7, 2023, an estimated 6,000 men from Gaza entered Israel. 
Of that number, around 3,800 were official Hamas fighters, while another 2,200 or so were civilian men excited to have the opportunity to participate in a violent, often sexual massacre. 
When the blood orgy ended, 1,200 Israelis and guest workers were dead, around 5,400 were physically wounded (the psychological wounds are uncountable), and 251 were kidnapped, of whom only 166 made it home. 
Most of the invaders were caught on camera-many, indeed, filming themselves. 
To understand the immensity of the attack given Israel's tiny population, if this had happened in America, it would have been equivalent to a neighboring country (not naming names) crossing our borders, and in a single day, brutally killing 41,000 people, wounding 185,000, and kidnapping 8,600, only 5,700 of whom returned home alive. 
America would have done two things, and no one would have challenged it: It would have invaded that neighboring country because the neighbor would obviously be harboring a toxic ideological pathogen that must be destroyed if America is to survive, and it would have brought justice to the actual killers. 
Everyone knows that Israel did the first thing-and, unlike any other country in the world, was viciously attacked for daring to try to erase a genocidal militia living on its borders. 
But what few know is that Israel has also been engaged in the second activity, relentlessly hunting down every single person who crossed into Israel on October 7 and participated in the rapes and slaughter. 
Israel's low-key justice tour shouldn't be a surprise. 
Many of us remember that, after the terrorist attack against Israel during the 1972 Munich Olympics, Israel embarked upon Operation Wrath of God to identify and execute the terrorists involved. 
Indeed, Steven Spielberg even made a movie about it, though it was an insult. 
It was based on a book of dubious accuracy and written by at least one hard-left, anti-Israel activist ( Tony Kushner ). 
It created a moral equivalence between the PLO and Israel and humanized the murderers. 
In other words, typical leftist garbage. 
Given Israel's history, it comes as no surprise that Israel would ensure that the October 7 attackers were brought to justice. 
After all, as the quotations at the head of this essay show, Judaism is about justice-and it is a religion based on law. 
(Just read the Torah, that is, the first five books of the Bible, if you doubt me.) 
Allowing killers to roam free because they are outside of Israel's borders cannot stand-and it isn't standing. 
Streiff at RedState summarizes Israel's activities, which are currently aimed at the official Hamas members who entered Israel on October 7: 
According to Israeli media, Israel has killed no fewer than 2,561 of the around 3,000 terrorists who crossed from Gaza into Israel on October 7. 
About 1,000 of these were killed in traditional combat with the IDF. 
The remainder got their one-way trip to Hell courtesy of a secretive unit called Nili. 
Nili was formed shortly after the October 7 attack and given the mission of tracking down every single terrorist who invaded Israel on October 7. 
The name Nili is an acronym for a biblical phrase (1 Samuel 15:29) that translates as "the Eternal One of Israel will not lie." 
It is composed of elements of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security and counterintelligence service, which operates directly under the Prime Minister, and the Israel Defense Forces. 
According to reports, the unit uses facial recognition software to identify terrorists captured on film inside Israel. 
It also uses electronic surveillance and, probably the most important element: prisoner interrogations. 
It helps, adds Streiff, that the massacre's perpetrators do not have a "bro code" that sees them protect their comrades from Israel's righteous vengeance. 
Instead, they seem to have a different attitude, one that can be summed up as "If I'm going to suffer, he should suffer, too." 
So, once caught, they're happy to squeal. 
This isn't surprising. 
As those who have witnessed Arab warfare for over a century know, they are beyond vicious when they feel they are ascendant and craven when finally caught. 
Just think of Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole... 
There are still a lot more killers to go, so I wish Israel luck in its hunt. 
Justice matters, and what happened on October 7 was an epic injustice that needs to be addressed. 
Graphic created by AI using official Israeli images of just eight October 7 terrorists . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.3%Andrea Widburg: 14.2%American Thinker: 10.4%Confirmation Bias15.3%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic15.3%This article: 3.5%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 2.8%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias2.8%This article: 1.5%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 1.2%Andrea Widburg: 6.7%American Thinker: 7.2%Framing Effect1.2%This article: 2.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion2.0%This article: 5.9%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.8%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 6.3%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 18.5%Andrea Widburg: 17.2%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias18.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.7%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Andrea Widburg: 4.4%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error2.8%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Andrea Widburg: 3.7%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias10.7%This article: 9.3%Andrea Widburg: 5.8%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Andrea Widburg: 2.1%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias1.7%This article: 0.9%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Andrea Widburg: 9.5%American Thinker: 5.7%Ad Hominem5.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 3.7%American Thinker: 4.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.1%Andrea Widburg: 6.4%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority17.1%This article: 16.2%Andrea Widburg: 5.0%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma16.2%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 3.1%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.5%Andrea Widburg: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning2.5%This article: 12.9%Andrea Widburg: 18.2%American Thinker: 16.9%Hasty Generalization12.9%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.3%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.7%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon3.7%This article: 30.3%Andrea Widburg: 9.1%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion30.3%This article: 16.3%Andrea Widburg: 3.6%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question16.3%This article: 3.5%Andrea Widburg: 4.0%American Thinker: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Andrea Widburg: 5.0%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 5.3%Andrea Widburg: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.6%Appeal to Nature5.3%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.4%Andrea Widburg: 3.0%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal7.4%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Andrea Widburg: 3.3%American Thinker: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrea Widburg: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.6%Andrea Widburg: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy2.6%This article: 1.5%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote1.5%This article: 4.6%Andrea Widburg: 2.8%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 56.7%Andrea Widburg: 31.0%American Thinker: 23.0%Biased Writer Voice56.7%This article: 20.2%Andrea Widburg: 5.3%American Thinker: 5.8%Indoctrination20.2%This article: 2.6%Andrea Widburg: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 11.5%Andrea Widburg: 14.4%American Thinker: 14.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.5%This article: 3.9%Andrea Widburg: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.9%

847 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.8%attributed speech823writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageStreiff • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Streiff

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+44.6 ptsWriter: 55.4%Streiff: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-20.8 ptsWriter: 20.8%Streiff: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Streiff: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Streiff: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Streiff: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Streiff: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Streiff: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.