I think the evidence provided during the attack sufficiently meets the criteria for terrorism. What you're asking about is details. it's rather like being punched in the face and debating whether someone was wearing knuckle dusters or not. If Hamas did burn babies and put people on spikes (and I don't think they did - I think that was misinformation) that doesn't mean that nothing happened. Unless you want to argue that on the 7th October there was a mass cross-country ramble/walkabout where nothing happened?

You can make that assertion if you wish - by all means make the case that nothing happened on the 7th October and I'll look at the evidence you present in line with what I already looked at.

But if it turns out it wasn't a ramble/cross country hike and it was kidnap, rape, and murder then I'm afraid you're on shaky ground. Arguing that someone wasn't punched because they might've lied about whether the person was wearing a ring or not is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst.

No. I'd rather form an opinion on the evidence provided and the balance of probabilities.