Looks like the sort of thing you get when teenagers stomp on packets of salad dressing. Otherwise someone made an effort to keep the stain below a normal person’s line of siight. That’s hardly the mark of vandals.
Alright, let’s try this again, since you ignored my observation the first time, yet continue to try to claim that you didn’t assign this to any specific movement.
You chose the title “Vandalizing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial does your cause no good, fucker!”
You also included this in your OP: “Now, I’d like to call this an isolated act of an isolated loon - but I really can’t. There has been quite a rash of these incidents recently - and they have an obvious antiwar theme.”
Please resolve your current claims that you did not assign this to any movement with your apparent original implication that this was part of a string of anti-war incidents and that the “fucker” had a “cause” (implicitly an anti-war cause).
Man up and defend your OP or at least acknowledge that you did at first ascribe this to an anti-war cause, even if you now recognize the error of your ways.
95% of us will be right behind you in your efforts to condemn vandalism, no matter how vanilla such a pit thread would really be.
Woops! Yeah, especially because of that, eh? Holy cow, the Wall may not have been defaced by imaginary antiwar activists after all! This may actually be the work of religious lunatics instead! Uh oh… should the ideology of religious vandals be condemned in the same terms as those hypothetical antiwar activists, with lavish profanity and allusions to physical violence? Nah, better to retract the statement entirely and forget the whole thing ever happened. Suddenly the damage to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial seems much less interesting, doesn’t it?
Well, duuuuuuuuh. Nobody’s saying otherwise.
And what they were supposed to be ‘illustrative’ of was “quite a rash of these incidents” with “an obvious antiwar theme.”
Good.
How about “only two of these incidents manifested any ideological associations. I admit that I’ve got nothing to suggest that the other incidents I brought in to this discussion have anything to do with the antiwar movement or any other movement, ideology, or political orientation. There’s no antiwar pattern in these incidents. I’m just pissed about vandalism in general to veterans’ monuments, and do not blame it on lefties or antiwar types.”
First you’d need to define ‘these incidents’ well enough to be tested. Then you’d need to say between what dates the increase occured. (Since you’ve included incidents in the 1990s as part of your assessment of what’s going on now, it’s kinda confusing.)
Then how about saying that nice long quote I suggested earlier in this post, just to clear things up.
Well considering that I have criticized some religious lunatics with some vigor here in the past, I have no problem doing so now. I said above that motivations were not the issue, and tried to explicitly state as much in my OP.
The only way I think they come into play is if they cast a bad light on activists in general and if the general political tone right now might be causing an increase in these incidents. Neither of which would cause any responsible group or person on any side to advocate or commit these acts.
Again, I could list many more of these acts, many explicitly political. I merely was trying to be illustrative here by listing very recent ones - these acts were just a few months old, with the exception of the Medal of Honor Memorial vandalism, which was a particularly bad case. Of course, there was a particular poster who missed the point of that, despite my clear statements stating otherwise, and insisted that this list was comprehensive and this illustrative of only a small problem.
I can surely come up with a more comprehensive list. It will take a little bit of time.
I think the point, among others, was that your illustrative list included acts which were not explicitly political and some not even necessarily vandalism. If the list was indeed illustrative, it wasn’t illustrating your position.
Yup. Here’s a particularly egregious example of the political vandalism of a war memorial.
Without delving too deeply in psychoanalysis, I think you made an unconcious assumption, Moto. Of course this was the work of anti-war guys, who else would do such a thing?
Remember the OK City bombings? Remember how many people were for sure and for certain: it was Arab terrists. As I recall, at least one poor dumb schmuck suffered for being brown. Remember? How surprised were you when in turned out to be some shit-witted white boy? And an Army vet to boot!
I know dozens and dozens of these people, they are my people. I know them, I know their children, I know their grandchidren. Not one of them…not *one!..*would approve of such a thing, much less commit, for reasons outlined above. Because each and every one of us has a face attached to one of those names enscribed.
Actually, plenty of people who fought in WWII would appreciate the ambiance of that memorial. They’d appreciate it even more when they consider how rare it is for a memorial to reflect the artistic preferences of the losers.
Yeah. I remember that. There was a thread about it that I posted in:
Which jibes pretty well with my sentiments expressed above, natch.
And I think you made an unconscious assumption yourself - assuming all antiwar guys are left-wingers. I have corrected that mistake in later posts - you might want to correct it now yourself.
You have to let go of this, unless you can back that up with data. It seems to me, however, to be one of those things that is impossible to prove or disprove. What qualifies as “these incidents” and who is reliably keeping track of all of them?
But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, we could verify that “these incidents” were increasing in frequency. Maybe, just maybe, that might have something to do with the increasing frequency with which this country is going to war. That is something which concerns me much, much more than some idiots defacing war memorials-- something almost no poster here is going to defend. These type of recreational outrage threads often end up badly, Moto. You should know that.
Oh, c’mon! It cost $197 million dollars! How could it possibly be bad?
Boy, you got me there, Moto. I completely overlooked the dozens of prominent right-wingers who are publicly anti-war. Perhaps if they weren’t quite so subtle and polite about it, I might have noticed them. Better still, you must have their names right at your fingertips, all of these prominent right-wing anti-war guys. Dozens of them.
Bring.
Well, there’s Chuck Hagel, but haven’t they about kicked him out of the party?
And Ron Paul, who’s anti-this war, anyway.
Our friend, George Will, is now anti-war, although he did support it in the beginning. And our own Airman Doors, though disallussioned with the GOP, has hardly become a lefty. (Chuck Hagel is safe in the GOP, but he isn’t going to run for re-election.)
Most of my friends tend to vote Republican, but I can think of only 1 who is anti-war (and he was anti-war from the beginning). I doubt you’d find all that many righties at anti-war rallies, although some of that might be because of the other causes that tend to get tacked on-- everything from anti-globalization nonsense to Palestinian issues and environmental causes. One might say there has been a pattern and an increased trend to that sort of thing of late. 
Heh.
“What do we want?”
“A plan to get us out of this godforsaken fever swamp that doesn’t make us look like a bunch of idiots for supporting it!”
“When do we want it?”
“Pretty soon, if its not too much trouble…”
Doors no longer makes passing references to the Republican party?
