Or just some punk kid who wanted to make a big mess in a prominent location. As far as vandalism goes, this reads less like a grand political statement, and more like, “Dude, what’s something fucked up we can do with this can of oil?”
From the Washington Post story:
“Dark blotches were found along a stone curb at the base of the memorial for most of its length, and at least two of the wall’s panels appeared to have had something splashed on them.”
That sounds like a hell of a lot of “accidental fumbling”. :dubious:
What a fascinating ceremony.
And maybe those people who topple gravestones in cemeteries are devotees of an alternate religion attempting to recreate Stonehenge, only horizontally. :rolleyes:
When I visited the Vietnam Memorial, I saw tributes left on the ground. Flowers, letters…and a McDonald’s cheeseburger. If the cheeseburger hadn’t been among the other items (and aligned with the wall, not just dropped) it might have been taken for trash. But in context, it clearly was not. Just saying.
Please do. BTW, at the time I was responding to your OP, you hadn’t added that detail. I’ll look forward to seeing whether your ‘rash’ of such incidents amounts to anything much. After all, your third-best example was the pink paintballs fired into a Huey. Vandalism, yes. But not exactly your prototypical antiwar protest.
Links would be appreciated too. Googling “huey ‘bay city’ MI pink paintball” got me pages of crap like this:
But no incident of anyone paintballing a Huey in Bay City.
It’s not like the Vietnam Memorial is specifically an antiwar monument, but it’s certainly no glorification of war, as the epithets directed at it by the self-described ‘patriots’ when it was being proposed, constructed, and dedicated amply demonstrate. “Gash,” “wall of shame,” and others I recall.
But if you had to say whether it was more pro- or anti-war, you’d have to say it leans anti.
Accordingly, vandalizing it as an antiwar protest would be pretty retarded.
It just doesn’t look much like vandalism, does it? Kind of more like something inadvertently spilled there, huh? I mean, who vandalizes more of the base of some monument instead of really getting the monument? And who vandalizes by spilling some small amount of dark stuff?
This seems more like some crazy nonsense from a crazy nutjob. Thanks for sharing another one, Moto.
That’s what I’m getting at.
Which I why I find this whole thing so annoying. It’s an attempt by the pro-war right to
A: Claim a monument as their own when they fought it to begin with.
B: Use a rather minor incident, which may or may not have been an act of vandalism with unknown intent, to attack the anti-war left.
No, I don’t think so. They are treating it as an act of vandalism in order to investigate it. If they rule no crime has been committed, then there is no criminal investigation, and they don’t have the resources to investigate non-crimes. It provides a justification for having cops and crime lab folks working on it.
Personally, I think this IS vandalism regardless of the intent of the people who did it. So what if it was a well-intentioned “annointment”? It damaged and defaced a national monument. Does an idiot who starts a forest fire by accident get a pass on responsibility for the damage?
Mr. Moto, have you ever considered doing a little research on those talking points you get before mindlessly reposting them here?
I agree that it could be vandalism. However, to draw the conclusion that this is some sort of organized effort by some group is silly at best, and desperate at worst. Try to imagine a typical meeting with this imaginary cabal:
“What are we going to do this year to terrorize people?”
“Well, last year we paintballed a helicopter. How could we possibly top that this year?”
“I know! let’s spread a little oil on a single monument. That’ll show the authorities in a clear and unmistakable manner that we mean business!”
The police there thought it could be vandals in need of community service. Could they be horribly mistaken? Could they have underestimated the scope of this cabal’s misdeeds?
It’d be a shame if the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were damaged due to vandalism, whatever the motivation. It’s a genuine treasure: a modern public sculpture that’s actually tasteful. The Memorial itself is probably the most powerful antiwar message in Washington DC. It doesn’t particularly endorse the conflict, just sits there and overwhelms with all those names. I seem to recall that there was a lot of bitching when the Memorial was created that the design wasn’t more gung-ho and flag-encrusted. Just imagine what the Iraq Veterans Memorial will be like. It’ll probably play music like those novelty greeting cards.
On the other hand… a Huey being shot with pink paintballs? That’s actually kind of funny.
Thought I made that clear, by noting that acts like this would be denounced by any group.
But if you need me to make it even clearer, I can type slower. 
Look, I never implied that this was organized - quite the contrary. That doesn’t change the fact that there have been quite a lot of these incidents - certainly more than general vandalism would account for. Especially given the political messages given to the vandalism.
Now, I certainly don’t think there is any kind of grand conspiracy here - I specifically discounted that in my OP. This is merely a reaction to ramped up rhetoric. But I don’t think it can be ignored, especially by those who might be tainted by association. Like it or not, the antiwar movement does have some baggage.
I did some research here. Maybe you ought to do some yourself before waving your hands and wishing this all away.
If someone in fact deliberately vandalized the memorial for any reason, that person is a scumbag. If they did it to make a political point, they are still a scumbag, whatever that point was. If they did it for anti-war reasons, as the OP is suggesting, they are still a scumbag. Scumbag scumbag scumbag.
And if the person who did this did NOT do it as an act of vandalism, then they were either extraordinarly careless, or stupid, or insane, or sociopathically malicious.
As a gut feeling, I’d agree that the OP’s interpretation is somewhat more likely than any other single interpretation I can think of, but that’s far from QED.
You mention a bunch of unrelated incidents spread out over a long period of time , say the antiwar movement has “some baggage”, then claim you weren’t trying to imply anything? :rolleyes:
There were probably liberals responsible for it…after all, does anyone think there was anything else going on in Moto’s tiny little brain?
I’m sure in his fantasy brain trip (inspired no doubt by some clever www.batshitinsanerightyblog.com that would make “Loose Change” look like a reasonable and well-reasoned theory) it’s naturally a cabal of moustache-twirling hippies who drove to these places in their VW minibus. Except they wouldn’t use a paintball gun, because that’s practically being part of The Establishment. I’m sure they fired them from a slingshot made from naturally-raised rubber plants and Moonbeam’s braided armpit hair.
Pretty close, eh Moto?
Of course, in that cramped little brain he’s probably convinced himself that The Wall is more of a Nixonian monument than a Hippie monument.
-Joe
I still don’t see the connection between this specific act and the anti-war movement. Please elaborate.
Was the pickle slice removed and set carefully atop the bun? That would have meaning, you know.
Give him a little time-he might not have received those particular talking points yet.