Having chosen the cover of night, rather than displaying their great bravery in performing their acts of scorn in broad daylight, they remain cowards.
Ah, so “cover of night” = “coward.” Thanks, tomndebb, for clearing that up. So if someone-- say, for the purposes of argument, a soldier-- were assigned a task, and had discretion to choose whether to perform that task during day or night, whichever gave them the greater chance of success… why, if they chose to use cover of darkness, then they’d be a coward by your definition, right?
Cindy Sheehan was brave. She had a conviction, she was not afraid to publicly stand up for what she believed in by camping out near the current presidents property. She took the heat for her actions, and she attempted to get the discussion rolling on the Iraq war.
The vandals of the graveyard planned and executed their actions in a way to ensure that they themselves remain anonymous, and avoid the consequences of making a public statement. There was no way to question the vandals on their exact motives, no way for debate.
Do you see a difference?
Goddamn, I need to dial back on my sarcasm output don’t I? Sorry about that, tomndebb.
Still, I think my basic point is sound. Of course vandals tend to operate by night, so as not to get caught. Isn’t the whole point of vandalism to flout society’s rules? Going out of your way to attract punishment would sort of undercut that appeal, at least if you’re not a total masochist, or trying to make some larger political statement. I don’t think that was the case here; these guys were just yanking the community’s chain. For one thing, I suspect that really committed Neo-Nazis wouldn’t rely on handmade signs. There’s got to be dozens of outfits in Michigan alone manufacturing that sort of stuff.
I suppose one could argue that nighttime vandalism is more ‘cowardly’ than daylight vandalism, in the same sense that a sneak attack is more cowardly than a frontal assault. But sometimes a frontal assault would be a massively stupid thing to do, and I think this is also why daylight vandalism is a relatively rare occurrence. Genuine cowards never act on their impulse to vandalize stuff in the first place. I honestly don’t see how the epithet ‘coward’ applies in this instance, except insofar as any criminal could be described as ‘cowardly’ by avoiding arrest.
I hope it’s obvious that I’m arguing over language here, not defending vandalism.
I think a better question is, “Do I see a similarity?” Did Cindy Sheehan burn a flag at one point? I would have thought that would at least rate a picture in her Wikipedia article. I suppose that when W’s grave turns up vandalized, and whatever country’s flag flying over it is burned, she’ll probably be near the top of a fairly long list of suspects.
I don’t believe that the graveyard vandals actually had any exact political motives. They were engaging in a generally nonpartisan adolescent recreational activity known as “dicking around.” There happened to be a Veteran’s Cemetery in the neighborhood with a lot of little flammable flags set out, so they burned a bunch and stuck up some Nazi flags instead as a hoot. And now they’re famous. (Not to mention that Orcas Island probably has some fresh donation money to finance their much-needed cemetery groundskeeping. Or are huge piles of dead lawn clippings around graves considered a sign of respect for the deceased on the West Coast? It’s called a grass catcher, guys; they’re made to fit many popular brands of riding mower these days. At least sharpen your mulcher blades or something.)
If the punks are apprehended, and it turns out that they are genuine Nazis, then I guess I’ll have to concede that their actions were indeed more cowardly than open political discourse to advance their views.
I was trying to explain why some others may see the action (which definately has political statement overtones, IMO) as a “cowardly” act.
Sorry my Cindy Sheehan analogy was so poorly worded.
I think the stunt was probably done by local youth. But “dicking around”? That makes it sound like an impromptu, impulsive stunt. “Dicking around”, to me, is egging someones house, or leaving a flaming bag of poop on their door step, or spray painting the neighbors dog.
These vandals chose the venue and flavor of their actions with a little more deliberateness, I think.
I agree with the poster who had visualised the vandals as young adults who thought they were daring, smart, and “sticking it to that Fascist Bush”, then going back to their Starbuck’s all self satisfied and patting themselves on the back, when, in my humble opinion, the methods they chose make them look petty. shrug They are a victim of their own actions in this: because of they way that they remained anonymous, my little mind is free to fill in the blanks in this manner…
I have more respect for Cindy, as she is willing to be seen and take the heat.
Had the graves been desecrated with images from Iraq, I could see a “political” statement. By falling back on the Nazis, any “political” messaage is so badly obscured that I would guess simple vandalism before I sought a political message.
That’s true also, I suppose. I kind of doubt there was any huge amount of planning or deliberation. The cemetery stuck some new flags out for Memorial Day, and some kids decided to screw with them. They used the swastika because it’s guaranteed to offend, as well as easy to draw.
I just don’t get any connection with Bush, myself. If the vandalized graves had all belonged to Iraq veterans, then I could see how that would follow, but I didn’t notice anything about that in the article.
Honestly, I would think that if kids are engaged enough to find Bush’s Iraq policy sincerely objectionable, they’d also be smart enough to realize why putting Nazi flags on random vets’ graves would be a stupid way to protest.
I know we’ve had some seriously severe morons posting on this board over the years, but this post of yours puts their combined imbecilic input to shame. A Soldier choosing to perform his lawfully assigned task in the conditions which provide the greatest chance of successful completion is not cowardly. He is attempting to do something that is (a) lawful, (b) part of his job, his mission, and (c) something for which he will (or at least should) be praised by his higher-ups for completing it. Someone who sneaks around under the cover of darkness to avoid detection of their crime while they’re committing it is certainly a coward.
No, they are being practical. Committing crimes where you can be easily seen is dumb, not brave. Even dumber than doing this sort of thing in the first place.
Just to isolate the patriotism issue in particular, why would it be worse to put a swastika on a veteran’s grave than on my (gentile, non-veteran) grandmother’s grave?
The photo I saw was of a WWII veteran, a guy who may have been fought against and possibly killed by NSDAP.
Just to isolate the patriotism issue clearly, why are most people here offended over the desecration of the graves, but haven’t expressed much opinion over the burning of the flag in general?
Certainly one is worse than the other, but isn’t the burning of the flag offensive to most Americans irrespective of whether it was done in a cemetery or not?
I certainly think so, which is why I certainly think there is a anti-patriotism component here, and why I think the debate in the other thread about appropriate expressions of patriotism was germane to this discussion.
Bingo!
I guess “misled” may have been the wrong term to use; I should have said something more like, “Did anyone else misinterpret the thread title…” Once you actually read the OP the thread title is perfectly accurate.
I guess I just have the undead too much to the forefront of my mind.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my own answer would be my post in the “Patriotism…What Is It Good For?” thread.
The short version is that I regard patriotism as a tribal survival instinct that has outlived its usefulness. Click the link if you want the reasoning behind that.
And yet I’ve seen you call out the behavior of certain politicians as being un-American. Why should you care, if your loyalties are more global than that?
The swastika, and the Nazi flag is loaded with political overtones as a symbol of an authoritarian/police state, and especially ethnic cleansing or bigotry in the US.
Outside of history classes or war movies, it has always used either to make a political statement (for example, by anti-authoritarian or anti-war protesters), or to intimidate minorities (by neo-nazi types).
Simple vandalism would be kicking over the flowers on the tomb stones, leaving trash about, spray painting (or otherwise defacing) the grave markers.
The swastica was specifically selected, IMO, for the assumed maximum potential shock value it would have on the families and relatives of the interred, as well as on the living veterans who set up the Memorial Day decorations.
Comparisons of Bush & Co. to the Nazis have been made before, and they received national level notice. (The Ward Churchill remarks, for example, although those specifically weren’t directed at Bush, but at the folks in the Twin Towers.) I am not saying that these remarks are necessarily “main stream”, but they are not unheard of.
While I believe that you may think that the connection is thin, I am willing to bet that you realise that other folks may see it a little differently. We are talking about subjective perceptions here.
I agree, except with the “deliberation” part. They did not pick any old cemetary, they picked a Veterans cemetary. They might have cased the joint first, to see where the night watchman hangs out, and whether or when the dude makes his rounds. They gathered materials needed to make the little swastica flags. And they did it twice.
A huge amount of planning wasn’t needed for this operation, but it was very deliberate.
Cheers, all.
Sure, we all did. But misleading titles is the name of the game lately 
Um, Goofy? “Unlawful” doesn’t equal “cowardly” either, any more than “lawful” equals “brave.” These words actually have meanings other than what you invent for your own personal use.
And you still have yet to provide any evidence of fighting dead, as the thread title clearly implied. People like you give Orcas Island a bad name.
Can’t speak for anyone else on the boards, and i’m not an American citizen (although i do plan to spend the rest of my life here, and might take out citizenship when it becomes available to me).
But for me, burning a flag is not offensive at all. A flag is a piece of cloth. Burning it does no-one any harm, destroys no ideals or principles or values, and by itself says little about the values of the person doing to burning. Flags have been burned by fanatics who hate everything America stands for; flags have been burned by people who dislike particular aspects of American foreign policy; flags have been burned by Americans and non-Americans.
I agree with you that debates about displays of patriotism are germane to the discussion. And i agree with you there might be an anti-patriotism component in people’s attitude to the burning of the flag. That’s certainly the case for me. I have little time for patriotism, because in too many instances it manifests as jingoism, as an unwillingness to undertake a critical examination of one’s own country, and as an unhealthy superiority complex.
In this particular instance, i am opposed to the burning of the flag, not because it’s an American flag, but because it’s an American flag that belongs to somebody else, and that they have placed as a mark of respect and affection. As i said earlier, if they had placed a different flag over the graves, i would be no more and no less offended. Hell, the graves could have been draped with an IHOP flag for all i care; it still would have been wrong. Desecrating other people’s graves and memorials is shitty, whether or not they are draped with the stars and stripes.
Maybe because the United States was founded on a set of ideals, and on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a bunch of other documents that expressed certain values and beliefs that he finds congenial and beneficial? There’s no inconsistency in supporting those values, on the one hand, and opposing the tribal aspects of patriotism on the other. And there’s no inconsistency in asking our elected leaders to live up to the values that they claim to represent as Americans. Attempting to make a nation emphasize its most worthy characteristics is not inconsistent with opposition to patriotism.
By the way, i search RTFirefly’s posts for the term “un-American” and got exactly two hits. In one of them, the appearance of the term is in a quote from a different poster, and on the one occasion that he uses the term himself, he asks: