| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago |
| > genuinely don't know how to respond to this in good faith Not flagging, but also not upvoting. One, it’s an ambiguous archive link. Two, I’m not getting the sense that the source is unbiased [1]. For a contentious topic, I want to form my opinions—and hear those of fellow HN users—around rock-solid sourcing. > post is beyond political, its a humanitarian post If it’s not political, it’s irrelevant. Gawking at humanitarian disaster isn’t a popular pass-time outside narrow bands of the internet. If you’re posting it to effect change, it is political. That’s fine. But I’m also sceptical why this would be expected to change the balance of views on the wars in the region. IDF and Hamas—the former, probably due to resources, at larger scale than the latter—being horrible to captives is well established. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye |
|
| ▲ | dang 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| This subthread was originally in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47557437 before we merged the threads. (I mention this because otherwise the bit about archive links doesn't make sense.) |
| |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Dang, can we post topical Ukrainian news stories now? Because it wasn't allowed for so long and all the strong wording around it not being allowed most people have probably given up, but it would be good to know if the seemingly new policy applies to all conflicts now or just Gaza/Iran seeing as you are now un-flaging conflict related threads. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it wasn't allowed for so long Ukraine has been my pet war for years now. I never got this sense. It just needed to have a novel technological or geostrategic angle to make the front page. "Russia is being evil" didn't usually meet that threshold because it's not news, just colouring in between the lines. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Imustaskforhelp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Not flagging, but also not upvoting. One, it’s an ambiguous archive link This wasn't the case with the previous post that I mentioned yet it got flagged ? . Two, I’m not getting the sense that the source is unbiased [1]. For a contentious topic, I want to form my opinions—and hear those of fellow HN users—around rock-solid sourcing. When the post had gotten flagged/ I had thought of giving another link like msn (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/gaza-toddler-released-f...) and this is a bit more in-depth (https://www.msn.com/en-us/war-and-conflicts/military/palesti...) But I found no articles as thorough as this one. I don't believe as to if anything is factually wrong Also oops, yea I had just the link of archive.org and not the proper link (https://web.archive.org/web/20260328122756/https://www.middl...) I am editing this for that, thank you for suggesting this! Edit: I can't edit the hackernews post, I am a bit sorry then to hackernews community for just sharing the archive.org link but I had accidentally pasted just the archive link instead, a bit sorry about that, perhaps moderators (if they wish) can change to this particular link or if someone wants to read it: https://web.archive.org/web/20260328122756/https://www.middl... |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > I found no articles as thorough as this one. I don't believe as to if anything is factually wrong Did a physician ever evaluate the child? And were the neighbours’ accounts that the child was unharmed when handed over by the father to the IDF independently verified? Torturing a toddler wouldn’t be out of character for the IDF right now. But just because something is believable doesn’t mean it’s true. The fact that nobody else is reporting on this should be cause for pause. | | |
| ▲ | gibbitz 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-to... There are details here including quotations from an unnamed doctor. If feel you can't trust the media credentials of the Independent, you could contact them for the identity of the unnamed doctor (who they are likely protecting based on the nature of the conflict) and ask them directly. | | |
| ▲ | dang 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The doctor is named in the article now, perhaps as part of a later edit. Since people are questioning the objectivity of the other domain, we'll use this link you found for the merged thread. I'll put the original link in the top text. | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 2 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Naming the doctor adds nothing. It’s a doctor from Gaza with an Islamic name, and presumably at a hospital in an area controlled by Hamas All of this requires substantiation. Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible. > how can such claims accepted without more scrutiny? What does "accepted" mean in this context? I'm forming a personal opinion. Based on the preponderance of evidence–evidence you'll see, in this very thread, I was earlier sceptical of–it looks like serious people are putting their names to the opinion that this toddler was tortured. | | |
| ▲ | SilverElfin 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Without it, a named medical professional rendering a medical opinion is credible. That’s your opinion. I disagree. It’s not credible, because being a “professional” does not mean you are capable of ignoring your own biases, especially when they run deep as they do in this particular conflict. I’ll also point out that the medical opinion you’re referring to lacks any actual details. For example - if the injuries are consistent with a cigarette burn, what specifically makes it “consistent” and how does this medical professional differentiate this possibility from all the other ones? Why is anything substantial conveniently omitted from all these stories, which instead all use the vague phrasing of “consistent with”? Why are there no details on this doctor, where they practice, or their credentials anywhere? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That’s your opinion. I disagree That's fair. For what it's worth, we need more polls that have a ESH option for Israel and Palestine, because my patience with both sides in this has basically run empty. > what specifically makes it “consistent” and how does this medical professional differentiate this possibility from all the other ones? I'm not a medical professional. Another medical professional would need to disagree with the findings for this to rise to meriting attention again. > Why are there no details on this doctor, where they practice, or their credentials anywhere? They gave a name. Are you claiming they're a fake doctor? |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And we should only trust Israel that never lies? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gibbitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did you investigate it? If someone posted that Claude code created a new language that was typesafe and 50% more efficient for LLM coding and 20% faster for a human to review without any details about the language, would you not look it up? No knock on you directly, just an observation about the attitude in our culture. If this is true a child was tortured, if it's false someone is lying and needs to be outed (with facts) so they are not trusted. Neither one is good but is no one looking into it? | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Did you investigate it? Nope. Rejecting a source doesn’t mean I am obligated to investigate it. As I said, whether this is true or not doesn’t seem particularly politically relevant. It would be interesting to know. But purely for curiosity, not because I think it will have practical effects. |
|
|
|
