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?