[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'd say the concentration camps and the human rights abuse could very well count against Trump but that's just me...

You can object to the detention facilities all you like, they're still not concentration camps.

We decided to take a closer look at whether historians believe the label "concentration camp" can be reasonably applied to the migrant detention camps now being operated in the United States.

Historians we contacted said it was possible to make a case that the term "concentration camp" is a more general term than just referring to camps in Nazi Germany. However, these historians said Ocasio-Cortez glosses over some important differences.

They also said that the strong, longstanding association of the term "concentration camps" with Nazi Germany likely overwhelms any technical similarities the two types of camps may have. We won’t rate this item on our Truth-O-Meter for that reason.

-

Immigrant rights advocates have long warned about poor standards and the mistreatment of detainees at some detention facilities. Generally, information about detention facilities can be difficult to obtain, inconsistent and outdated, and overall lacking in transparency.

-

Overall, experts described the U.S. detention facilities as being far different from those of the earliest concentration camps, or from the Nazi camps — even from the ones that weren’t "death camps."

"The original purpose of concentration camps was to remove the populace from areas that were controlled or contested by guerrillas and thus deny the guerrillas popular support in its tangible forms — food, shelter, information, recruits, and so on," said Texas A&M University historian Brian McAllister Linn. "This is not the purpose of the detention facilities in the Southwest."

Janda — who emphasized that he is unhappy with the current U.S. detention policy — nonetheless drew a distinction based on intent.

"What we’re doing is just not the same as what the Nazis or the Soviets did, and it’s a disservice to people suffering under dictatorships around the world to act like it is," Janda said. "We’re not rounding up legal citizens, or going after specific minority groups and holding them indefinitely to squash dissent."

Richard Breitman, an American University historian, was among several experts who said they would have avoided the term "concentration camp."

While the term "does show where abuse and dehumanization might lead," he said, "it confuses more than it explains."

There are two things the holding facilities are not :
1) Nice
2) Concentration camps

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

You can object to the detention facilities all you like, they're still not concentration camps.



There are two things the holding facilities are not :
1) Nice
2) Concentration camps

Again, if you're more offended by people calling these concentration camps what they are then by what goes on in them.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, if you're more offended by people calling these concentration camps what they are then by what goes on in them.

I am capable of thinking two different thingsat once, thank you. I don't agree with what's going on in the facilities, but I also don't think what the people within are going through should be weaponised, especially with emotive and spurious language like "concentration camps"

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I am capable of thinking two different thingsat once, thank you. I don't agree with what's going on in the facilities, but I also don't think what the people within are going through should be weaponised, especially with emotive and spurious language like "concentration camps"

Ergo you are more offended by the term then the practices going on there because you've got this incorrect narrative that people can't highlight human rights abuse without it being 'weaponised'.

You can say you don't agree and that you oppose what's going on but you are more offended by these concentration camps being called what they are because they make people you are politically aligned with look bad and thus, you look bad and so any attempt to highlight what's going on for what it is, is considered an attack by you, not on human rights but on your political leaning. That is the truth of things. You're being defensive because you're playing the party lines when this is a case of blatant human rights abuse by the current administration that both sides of the aisle should be up in arms about.

This isn't a partisan issue, Oliver. It's human rights abuse and calling the camps by a nicer name doesn't change that, it merely attempts to minimise and hide what is going on within them. So by all means, take issue with the name used while not speaking out against the abuse, but know you are on the wrong side of history.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

You can object to the detention facilities all you like, they're still not concentration camps.



There are two things the holding facilities are not :
1) Nice
2) Concentration camps

Yep it's just scoring political points on the backs of children. Vile

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yep it's just scoring political points on the backs of children. Vile

And you are content to let the debate of what to call these camps override the abuses going on in this place. Don't try to take the moral highground when you are attempting to minimise human rights abuse and the deaths of children by trying to make their suffering into a point scoring exercise.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yep it's just scoring political points on the backs of children. Vile

This line of argument is immoral.

Calling out oppression is scoring points on the back of oppression? What demagoguery

I guess then that calling for end of apartheid was scoring points on the back of blacks?

Dont do wrong and then you won't be called on it!