Jack Ma makes first live appearance in three months in online meet

You need to understand,the people in German concentration camps were accused of betraying the German state, supporting terrorism, or hurting Germany and its people. The German government did not say "we are taking all the Jews and gassing them", they said they were taking criminals, traitors, and their sympathizers, and sending them to re-education camps where we will use labor to re-educate them.

https://training.ehri-project.eu/nazi-concentration-camps

> During 1933-34 some 100 concentration camps existed throughout Germany, and more than 100,000 detainees went through them. The purpose of the camps was correctional because detainees of "Aryan blood" were to be "re-educated" by means of violence and hard discipline, slave labor and propaganda in order to make them give up earlier ideas and beliefs and merge into the conformist “Volksgemeinschaft” or "people's community," which the Nazis proclaimed.

It was not until later that the extermination was really ramped up, and it was not until after the war that the full scope of the genocide was revealed. And as another commenter pointed out, there actually were multiple different types of camps, some which were labor camps (such as auschwitz), and some which were extermination camps (such as sobibor).

Now, you claim to be arguing that the re-education camps are not concentration camps, but the plain words of your argument make it clear that you agree that the re-education camps indeed fit the definition of a concentration camp. Instead, you seem to mainly be arguing that concentration camps are not necessarily so bad, since they don't involve literally mass murdering Muslims, and that they are actually necessary (??), so you prefer not to call them concentration camps since it has bad associations.

But understand that yes, it is entirely appropriate to compare the Chinese concentration camps to the Nazi ones, because just on the basis of the description you gave of the Chinese concentration camps, they match the description of the camps as understood by the German public at the time, and some prisoners actually were treated in that way.

> had I the inclination, skills, and firepower

That's a very big "had I", and certainly not "anyone with a gun" as you said previously.

Let me put it this way: suppose you're Bezos or Jack Ma and had access to unimaginable resources, comfort, and security from the best of the best. Surely it would be absolutely trivial to hire someone so that the vast, vast, majority of people with guns wouldn't be able to get to you, no matter how hard they tried, even _with_ so-called inclination and skills?

I'm not even referring to having guard detail around them all the time; when you're that important and hundreds of billions of market cap depends on your very existence, their entire schedules will be mapped down to the smallest detail to minimize risk of harm to them, since if they were to get kidnapped, it would immediately wipe billions off the stock price. Do you really think that the only reason Bezos hasn't been captured is because ordinary people with guns just chose not to do so, and if anyone wanted, they could just kidnap Bezos easily? What percent of ordinary people like you or I have "skills" and "inclination" that can beat that hired by Bezos' billions?

"well-respected and neutral news organizations"? Adrien Zenz publically admitted that the BBC paid him to write a bad report about Uyghurs! Again, watch the video and see the evidence.

Why do you glance over the fact that the UN, another well-respected organization, visited and reported favorably?

I won't let you define who I am. I have a say in that. Seems to me more like you're so fanatically anti-China that you can't help but label everyone who's not as zealous, as "pro-CCP". This is a false dichotomy.

No, I don't support literal concentration camps. No I'm not arguing that actual concentration camps shouldn't be called as such because that sounds bad. I'm arguing that the standard for evidence should be very high because it's a very serious accusation, and that this standard hasn't been met! Until the evidence is clear, it's irresponsible to assume there are concentration camps.

You keep trying to link me back to nazis and keep painting me as a concentration camp supporter, but you keep avoiding 60% of the arguments I put forth (where I showed ahain and again how problematic your sources are), focussing instead on a few strawmans.

Do you think my concerns are like pro-Nazi Germans worried about their image? Don't you remember Iraq and the non-existant WMDs? The result of that is a literal genocide by the hands of the US and its allies! Weapons manufacturers are cooking up consent for a war with China. They've deceived us again and again; see earlier instances: https://theintercept.com/2018/02/06/lie-after-lie-what-colin... and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony How long will you let yourself and your zeal to see nazis everywhere, to be used to cause actual atrocities?

So I ask you again: do you denounce the US war on terror? Do you denounce the verifiable concentration camps at the US border? Are you really arguing in good faith?