That's not what I was arguing. I was arguing against someone being persecuted by simple association.
As I said, I agree with that - unless evidence of serious crimes comes up.
Maybe I prefaced it badly, but don't put words in my mouth.
My bad if I misread you, but I still think it is a pretty weird argument. Surely, the existence of holocaust museums has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's a good idea to prosecute this man. Maybe you meant: this is symbolic, maybe it'd have been a point worth making if people were very uninformed, but they're not and a good deal of attention is paid to it, citing ...
That's not what I was arguing. I was arguing against someone being persecuted by simple association.
Maybe I prefaced it badly, but don't put words in my mouth.
As I said, I agree with that - unless evidence of serious crimes comes up.
My bad if I misread you, but I still think it is a pretty weird argument. Surely, the existence of holocaust museums has nothing at all to do with whether or not it's a good idea to prosecute this man. Maybe you meant: this is symbolic, maybe it'd have been a point worth making if people were very uninformed, but they're not and a good deal of attention is paid to it, citing ...
You can't say this guy was simply "associated" when there are pictures of him with the regiment armed and reports of him participating in the battles.
Maybe the reports aren't accurate, but he wasn't the supply clerk.