:? 
OK guys, stick to the topic!! 
Yessir, permission to speak sir?
I was led astray by a couple of moderators sir!
Wonāt happen again sir!
Ironically enough, the man who quite possibly ( to me at any rate) represents the personification of the British Empire, Rudyard Kipling, used the swastika as an impress on the bindings and flyleafs of his books until it was claimed by the Nazis.
As has been said, it was a Sanskrit symbol of good fortune, and apparently has been found on items as far back in history as Crete.
Kipling never allowed it to be used after Hitler started using it in the 30s.
I posted in the other Swastika thread, that the Swastika was used first in the modern, political meaning by the Freikorps Marinebrigade Ehrhardt in 1919 as a recognition sign on their vehicles.
Jan
i deffinatly think it shouldnt be banned. i think its stupid. its a part of history, why hide history?
We are not talking about censoring historic pictures, but we are talking about people using Nazi party symbols in their avatar or signature.
Jan
jan,that means,people using parts of history as an avatar or signature :lol: :lol: ,i think we have liberty of expression,so,if an user wants a nazi symbol as avatar or sign,i think he can have it.
and most of votes said: donĀ“t outlaw the swatica!.
I think its good to have freedom of expression, plus this is a site dedicated to WWII, and if Iām not mistaken, the Swastika was a part of the war, so we should definately be able to use it. Plus, like everyone else has said, itās a part of history. And theres only 3 votes against it and like 20 for it.
I do not think it is offensive. The swatstika, in my opinion, has a bad rep as a sign for the holocaust. Its a symbol of good luck, always has been, and a symbol of a former German party. The definition we give the swatstika now is a little unfair. Why donāt we get all offended by the Hammer and Sickle when they did as bad, if not worse, attrocities than the Nazis?
Iām not offended by the Swastika (so I voted no) but it should most DEFINITELY NOT be used as avatars in our site.
If a good number of users actually use Swastikas in their avatars or signatures, the image of our site will most likely go downwards which the newcomers will most definitely have the impression that our site allows neo-nazis expression.
We must keep our site look apolitical as much as possible.
Although I do not mind at all if we use other āGermanā signs such as the lightning SS as I do not think it has the same āneo-naziā impact as a Swastika does ā¦ and it could also be regarded as the Waffen-SS.
So Swastikas in our site? I hope not.
Agreed
Iām happy for people to be allowed to use the swastika on their avatar. Iād prefer it if they chose not to do so. However, it is a useful way of marking out questionable individuals and trolls. Note site user āAdolf Hitlerā and his āIs spilberg[sic] a jewā comment.
I couldnt agree more about the Swastika, I would also add that any SS runes be banned as well, it would definately give the wrong impression of this site, and may even draw those types here which we would not want to be here. It is not for a reason they are banned on other sites too.
I fully agree.
Jan
Well,thatĀ“s my first post.
I donĀ“t like this symbol,but we live in free democracy,so everyone was the right to use the symbols they want,but the administratorĀ“s of this forum are the boss.
I have vote NO.
What we learned from WW2 is that democratic rights stop for those who want to abolish democracy. Donāt forget, Hitler originally came to power through democratic elections, even though his declared goal was to abolish elections as soon as he was in power.
Jan
i think this finished
Thanks for that.
Thanks for that.[/quote]
thanks tubby