According to wikipedia, the source of all truth, "deportation" isn't the wrong word to describe what happened to the Japanese. It even says it's not the wrong word for what happened to the Jews.
.
Really? Well by that logic, Wikipedia also reports the normative understanding of the Holocaust is fact, so we can expect you to abandon your denial?
And BTW, checking the Wiki entry for Japanese internment camps, that article uses a variation of the word "deport" exactly 6 times: twice to refer to Japanese non-citizens, twice in reference to the Volga Germans in Siberia, twice to refer to Peruvian natives of Japanese descent.
And absolutely zero times to refer to American citizens of Japanese descent, making this another of your lies.
.
Nazis aren't the only people who deport. And that is what we're talking about. Deport.
.
No, you proposed, twice, and I agreed, twice, that "forced relocation" would be the term we used.
.
The issue at hand is "deportation." As in deporting Jews qua Jews in and of itself is a crime so obvious that only a hate filled bigot could disagree. We're talking about physically removing people against their choice/will. That is all.
.
And we seemed to have agreed that this doesn't just include forced relocations of Jews qua Jews, but forced relocations of Japanese qua Japanese and forced relocations of Germans qua Germans (just to name the two groups that had your panties in a wad.)
Or is it that you don't think that Jews qua Jews is a crime?
.
Well it wasn't a stupid thing to say for the Jews either.
.
No, it wasn't, because what happened to them *was* deportation. What happened to the vast majority of Japanese internees was that they were allowed to return to their homes after, in that they weren't killed.
.
,
I see, so you now feel you lied when you made your first "strong admission"?
.
My use. Dudalb's use. Let's say "the" use of the word.
.
No, let's not. I was very clearly and specifically talking about *your* use.
.
Or anybody who didn't follow the conversation from the beginning where it is clear we're talking about deportation in and of itself being a crime when it happens to the Jews vs when it happens to any other group of people. What happened to the Jews or the other people before or after 'deportation' or why it was done isn't part of the discussion
.
Tell me again: how is a discussion of the legality of deportation in general relevant to a discussion about the Holocaust?
You *do* realize that's the topic of the thread, right? The Holocaust?
.
.
Yes, I did. That the answer didn't take the exact format you insisted on later in your last response to me doesn't change that.
And then I responded in exactly the format you demanded, so why is this part of the conversation continuing?
.
NOW you answered the question. My "smear" was conditional so, yes, it is withdrawn. It was never really there to start.
.
No, what was never really there was a basis. There is nothing conditional about "Why don't you stop being a girly man and just admit you're prejudice".
.
.
Made perfect sense before, too. You just didn't understand.
.
I taught myself English while I was in prison, serving four years of a ten year sentence. It's not easy to learn a language when you're a young adult without any fluent speakers to help you practice.
.
I will begin to take that into account when I respond to you, and try to keep it simple and obvious (there was no sarcasm intended in that statement, BTW)
.
Well, duh! Of course it's MY problem! If it was everybody else's problem too, it wouldn't be a problem. It would be our understanding of what happened in the AR camps.
.
What I was trying to say is that the normative understanding completely explains why there are more dead people than there are bodies. It's only *your* version that lacks that explanation. If you want your explanation not to be laughed at, *you're* the one that has to come up with bodies.
.
No, we were talking about what a hate filled bigot would think of deportation, in and of itself, when it happened to the Jews.
.
... and then you brought up the Japanese internees, who have no relevance to what you *just said* was the topic under consideration.
.
No, I was specifically talking about 'deportation.' You are the one who read more into it by conflating 'deportation' with other actions following 'deportation.'
.
"Deportation," which you subsequently admitted was not the correct term. "Deportation," which everyone else also saw as the beginnings of an attempt to equate the overall treatment of the Japanese and the Jews.
.
I don't have any ignorant or mendacious opinions. The definition of "holocausted" can only be as detailed as the definition of "holocaust."
.
And you obviously have a different definition of the Holocaust than most people. So detail *that* definition and stop ducking the question.
.
Library. Thingys called books. Literacy. Yes. Good. Read. Find truth. Feed. No spoon.
.
One notes not even the slightest attempt to answer the question posed, so here it is again for you to run from again:
What specific page in this novel (that is to say, a work of fiction) are you lying supports your accusation that the Hungarian Jews were "set free to inflict an orgy of rape and pillage against the civilian population"?
It doesn't, and you have not read it so you don't even know it doesn't.
I have, so I do.
.
I don't know if it's a lie. The whole book is one fantastical event after another that describes the holocaust of the 1950s but little resemblance to the one today. Other sources document problems with DPs roaming the countryside so for this one aspect there is corroboration.
.
If these "other sources" document the Hungarian Jews raping and pillaging, why did you not cite them instead of a novel which does not mention them as having done so?
I'm still waiting for evidence in support the lie you told about the Hungarian Jews. And yes you *do* know that it's a lie, in that you know you made it up in a lame attempt to be clever by crapping on their graves. That says a lot about you.
.
Every time I log on it seems that various posts are being merged with others.
It makes sense to streamline all the HD discussions but it does make it difficult to answer questions or find the answers to the questions when they've been moved to another thread.
.
All of the posts mentioned were always a part of *this* thread. Dodge noted.
.
I thought it was obvious who Zvi was by the context. My bad.
.
... because, of course, there's only one Zvi who was ever mistreated by the Nazis...
.
Nobody said he was "sent to the gas chamber." Strawman much?
.
No, never.
As I said, little Henrio was snatched from the comfort and safety of his family and sent to the gas chamber in either Auschwitz or Treblinka. I'm not sure which one. It's possible--although not certain--that he was thrown alive into the gas oven. After the war, he moved to Brooklyn and became a successful ear, nose, and throat specialist.
Oh, wait a minute! That was Zvi, not Henrio.
.
Lie much? BTW, you have still yet to link to "where you said" this making this an again.
.
This picture is from the Stroop Report. What happened to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto after the ghetto was liquidated? Where were they sent? How many of the Jews in the photographs from the Stroop Report are presumed to have survived the war?
.
What picture is that?
.
I guess that's true. It's also easier than simply supporting your argument.
.
... says the expert on not supporting zir argument. Hypocrite much? How's that Hungarian "rape and pillage" thing working out for you?
My argument is that you can't say what happened to Henio, and that you can't because you know that the act of looking into it might cause you to reconsider your denial, which must be maintained at all costs.
.
That's your response to my denying that I said Madjanek was a transit camp (when actually you said that I claimed Madjanek was a "transport camp.")?!?
.
What? Pointing out your fundamental dishonesty isn't response enough?
.