Zoney wrote:
I do not doubt that assertion, but it's more to do with the specific
circumstances involved. Eastern Europe was mentioned. Well, the USSR
sure wanted to control those countries, but the complete eradication
of their peoples was not attempted (even if less "total" activities
were going on). I don't doubt many in Eastern Europe would not like to
see a hammer and sickle, but I don't think it's remotely comparable to
what the Swastika stands for to Jews.
I'm not sure how the supposed reasons for murder are relevant to the
repugnance of symbols associated with those murders. The fact that they
are murders and were committed under the auspices of that symbol seems
to be the salient point. The fact that many more murders were committed
under the auspices of the symbol you dismiss as being less abhorrent
further raises confusion in my mind about your system of measurement of
the worth of a life and the crime of taking it.
Apparently, to you, killing someone for being a Jew is more wrong than
killing someone for speaking out of turn. To me, it's equivalent in
either case, because in both cases it is murder.
Completely aside from that, the swastika has been used for other
purposes for hundreds of years before World War II, including as a
Christian symbol, while the hammer and sickle went from obscurity to
symbol of an oppressive, mass-murdering regime in a relative blink of an
eye.
And also, if we are to begin considering "indirect deaths", well, the
US is responsible for quite a lot "indirectly".
Let's not start with the circumstantial ad hominem comparisons. It
would be nice if you'd retract that statement.
--
Chad