Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.

I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.

Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.

To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.

I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.

There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.

Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?

How were they doing that? To me it seemed like their point was a distinction between all hostages and civilian ones being released. I don’t know if they are correct, but I cannot see how it in any way dehumanizes anyone.

Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.

Oh nice! :D

I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.

The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.

Fascist regimes

^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.

I do not ageee with the poster you respond to, but false confessions are a serious problem. Often (in the US) they arise from hours long interrogations without a lawyer, in which police are allowed to lie about the evidence they have. This leads to situations where a suspect feels like they are done for even if they didn’t commit a crime. When a plea deal is then put in front of them which they are told would be much preferable to getting sentenced without it, they sign and admit to a crime they never committed. It shouldn’t happen but is a thing that unfortunately does occur.

That said, I doubt it being the case here.

The Unison language is one I keep an eye on

The theology may have evolved, but to say they were never Christians would be unjustified, even if I agreed they had stopped being Christians due to this.
I do however not think that is the case either. I agree that their veneration for Trump often becomes pretty much worship. That however doesn’t mean they aren’t Christian. He seems to take a status in their theology ranging from a saint-like figure to prophet and even the second coming of Jesus. Christians started out as a jewish sect and only over time became a distinct religion. I think this Trump worship is similarly a Christian sect that could potentially become a destinct religion. I just haven’t been convinced it has happened yet.

Should every country just surrender to aggressors, only those that require aid to defend themselves or some other criteria? This seems like a call for any small state to just give up when a conqueror is at their door ready to oppress them, is that what you believe?

Why would you claim them not to be Christians? They seem very clearly Christian to me. I can’t really see a non “no true scotsman” reason to say they aren’t, and especially that they never was.

So if neither would stand up to Israel, what makes Trump preferable to Biden?

Did he advocate for Trump over Biden?

Did you read their comment? They advocated for the use of force and violence although with more nuance than that.

That isn’t the tone I got from it, but I hope you’re right. I’d much rather it being me misunderstanding that he meant oppression tarnished the beuty, than the attempt at pointing out nonexistent hypocrisy I took it to mean.

Why couldn’t it? Could they not be confined to an area with historic buildings? It seems quite preposterous to me that nothing beautiful could exist in any area solely due to oppression of the people there.

Aah sorry, I responded a bit too quickly there :) I’d excuse it by nearing my stop with the train, but I should have read it through.

Yeah, I think the greatness of an assassin is quite subjective in the end and might be more of a vibe with arguments for it than any concrete metric.