Skip to comments.Veterans Organization Offers Reward (for vandals of Vietnam Veteran's Memorial)
Posted on 10/15/2007 9:12:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
AMVETS National Commander John P. "J.P." Brown III announced today that AMVETS is offering a $5,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and successful prosecution of those responsible for the Sept. 7, 2007 vandalism of the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial. According to the National Park Service, an unidentified substance stained 14 of the memorial's 140 panels. For more information, visit the AMVETS website.
I wish I had information on who did this. You can keep the five grand. I'd being tying the scum bag to the middle of the everglades. Let the rattlers, bugs, gators, and vultures do the rest. Or I might turn the scum sucker over to a few Vietnam Vets I know, after I hook him up to an IV. That way, they can keep pumpin' blood into him so he wont bleed to death while they knock the tar out of him.
The ACLU will jump on this if they ever catch the scumbags who did this. They’ll say it was “protected speech” the same as burning an American flag.
The First Amendment will protect them from the Government, not me.
There. How do they like free speech now?
But being thoughtful and reasonable is too much for FR these days. The inmates have taken over the asylum and irrationality reigns. Congratulate yourself.
Well, as someone who “didn’t want to be like liberals” as you...ahem...apparently felt you were were doing, you did a very reasonable representation one with your ad hominem attack on me.
I would suggest it is people like you who are most representative of a liberal mindset when even an overwhelming level of evidence is not enough to compel a person to use whatever mental faculties they have at their disposal to make a reasonable judgement. Some people apparently didn’t have enough mental facilities to look at the images closely enough and collate the facts to come to the conclusion that it wasn’t a weed cutter, lawnmower or a incompetent Park Employee, even long after vandalism was apparent.
These people, apparently with a mindset you share, are responsible for much of what is wrong in our country. Too weak minded people, unable to look at the known evidence and come to a conclusion out of fear of being deemed as judgemental.
Fine for you. Just stuff your phony indignation and faux intellectualism in a sack and keep it to yourself. You look less pathetic that way.
“...there were a bunch of dorks on FR...”
Ad hominem attack? By whom?
Exactly how do you define “overwhelming level of evidence”? There was a substance, mostly on the curbs and sidewalks but some on the memorial, and that was it. To date we know of no revelation about what that substance actually was, but it was obvious it had an oily character.
Based on it’s characteristics and dispersal pattern it was possible that it may been an oil/gas mixture and may have come from a maintenance tool like a lawn mower or edger. Until the Park Service checked their logs and ruled that out it was as logical as any other guess.
What disturbed me was how those who were most shocked by this incident appeared as if they WANTED it to be an act of vandalism. They not only refused to consider any other reasonable alternative but actively attacked anyone who had the gall to suggest one.
Consider that. The very people professing to be the biggest and most defenders of the sanctity of the Wall were hoping, praying that it was vandalized while those hoping it wasn’t and that it was a simple error on the part of maintenance employees were roundly chastised and vilified.
And the mob was egged and cheered on by those professing to be leaders on FR. That’s what is not only most sad but most telling about FR.
You can say that wasn't directed at me personally, but in my opinion that would be pretty close to a "...what the meaning of "is" is..." statement. What then would I be congratulating myself for?
What "overwhelming evidence" do I have? Well, it may not be overwhelming for some, but as Ann Coulter is fond of saying, there are people for whom even a shocking level of evidence will not be enough.
1.) I personally have met the people who were at the Vietnam Memorial that morning and who saw the vandalism with their own eyes. These are people who have been there many times and seen the wall in all conditions.
2.) The Park Service was close mouthed about whether it was vandalism or not. That is fine for them, they have a public relations face they have to maintain. But there is not a large body of people who would have been on the job the night it happened, and even a somewhat incompetent organization such as the Park Service can look at a schedule, find out who was on, and query them about what kinds of tasks they performed in maintaining the wall. If it had been an accident in equipment or technique, they would not have been clammed up as long as they were. It would have come out pretty quickly due to the national and international status of the monument.
3.) The talk about a lawnmower or weed cutter spraying oil was completely disconnected from fact. I am no crime detective, but even I could take one look at the undulating sine wave pattern of the damaging substance and see that someone had walked parallel to the wall with a squeeze or spray bottle held at waist level (trying to semi-conceal it) that directed a stream of the corrosive substance at the wall. As they walked parallel to the wall and sprayed the stream, they used an up and down motion to cover as much as they could. See this image that I Photoshopped to highlight was was easily visible:
4.) If this had been an improperly trained Park Service employee using an inappropriate substance by mistake, they would not have sprayed such a large area in that fashion and left it to sit on the surface. Even if they had been stupid enough to select the wrong cleaning solution, they would not have walked the entire length of just those damaged sections spraying the wall, and left it there to penetrate. They would have gone back and either wiped it off at some point or washed it off, neither of which was done.
5.) The clincher for me was this picture showing a clearly scored and defaced wall which is clear vandalism, unless it was this completely incompetent Park Service Employee who was trying to use a screwdriver to clean the wall. And I personally knew the source of these images, so I am confident they were not Photoshopped for effect.
The bottom line is there was plenty of compelling evidence to come to a firm and speedy conclusion with a high degree of accuracy that it was indeed vandalism. In my opinion, you do an injustice to those who wanted quick action on this while the trail was still hot, not waiting until weeks later for some bureaucracy to finally issue forth a proclamation.
Lastly, I have shot myself in the foot many times before, and I have no illusions that the most recent time I did it will be the last. I am human and make as many mistakes as anyone else.
I try to be as thoughtful and considerate as I can in my postings towards others, even when I disagree. I readily admit that I fell short in that standard by calling people "dorks" who held out for a week or more maintaining that it still might not be vandalism, and were often vociferous and acid in their condemnation of those who, in their opinion, were "jumping to conclusions". For that I apologize, not for my opinion of them, but for my having the rudeness to write with words what I thought of their opinion. That is what your reply to me conveyed.
"I did not attack any specific person personally..."
You called the people (2 or 3, one of which was me) who posited reasonable alternative possibilities to this incident on the original thread as "dorks". Just because you don't call us out personally by name doesn't make your name calling unspecific, so don't even go there, it is a weak and indefensible position.
"...which is required to meet the precise definition of ad hominem..."
I don't think you know what the definition of ad hominem is, so let me help.
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Which is quite funny and ironic since the reasonable people on that thread were under constant ad hominem attack from the mob.
"...but you specifically attacked me, and I quote: "But being thoughtful and reasonable is too much for FR these days. The inmates have taken over the asylum and irrationality reigns. Congratulate yourself." Quite the opposite I was making a generalised statement about how the quality of discussion on FR has reached the level of "Lord of the Flies", this incident being an example. That you carried this name calling over to a thread weeks later is more evidence of what I claim.
"What then would I be congratulating myself for?"
For helping to make FR at least some of what it's critics claim it to be.
"What "overwhelming evidence" do I have? Well, it may not be overwhelming for some, but as Ann Coulter is fond of saying, there are people for whom even a shocking level of evidence will not be enough."
It's not overwhelming except for the most jaded or those with an agenda...both of whom who could care a lick about the truth.
"1.) I personally have met the people who were at the Vietnam Memorial that morning and who saw the vandalism with their own eyes. These are people who have been there many times and seen the wall in all conditions."
...and the people who started the hysteria and led the attack on those trying to be reasonable. If you're trying to establish your credibility based on these associations, you're out of luck. You just became one more member of the mob.
"2.) The Park Service was close mouthed about whether it was vandalism or not."
They were not closed mouthed, they wanted to get all the facts in before making a determination so as not to egg on the mob mentality that was beginning to take shape over this incident. I personally called and discussed it with them, did you?
"But there is not a large body of people who would have been on the job the night it happened, and even a somewhat incompetent organization such as the Park Service can look at a schedule, find out who was on, and query them about what kinds of tasks they performed in maintaining the wall. If it had been an accident in equipment or technique, they would not have been clammed up as long as they were. It would have come out pretty quickly due to the national and international status of the monument." Uhhhm, whatever you say Inspector Clouseau.
"3.) The talk about a lawnmower or weed cutter spraying oil was completely disconnected from fact. I am no crime detective, but even I could take one look at the undulating sine wave pattern of the damaging substance and see that someone had walked parallel to the wall with a squeeze or spray bottle held at waist level (trying to semi-conceal it) that directed a stream of the corrosive substance at the wall. As they walked parallel to the wall and sprayed the stream, they used an up and down motion to cover as much as they could."
ON the contrary, someone squirting from somewhat of a 90 degree angle would have produced much more splattering and would have been a much better shot. These looked like drips from someone walking along the top of the wall without the good angle to direct a stream. This would also explain the 90-95% of the substance that ended up on the curbs and sidewalk. A leaky edger from the grass extending partially over the wall would also have explained it reasonably particularly with reports of how the wind was blowing/swirling that weekend.
"4.) If this had been an improperly trained Park Service employee using an inappropriate substance by mistake, they would not have sprayed such a large area in that fashion and left it to sit on the surface."
If they were on the top of the wall they probably wouldn't have noticed it at all.
"Even if they had been stupid enough to select the wrong cleaning solution, they would not have walked the entire length of just those damaged sections spraying the wall, and left it there to penetrate."
If they were edging the grass on top of the wall it would have extended the length of the grass, which was pretty much the length of the wall and the damage area.
"5.) The clincher for me was this picture showing a clearly scored and defaced wall which is clear vandalism..."
Has this etching been tied directly to the oily substance? These scratches could have been made anytime. People are constantly rubbing items over paper on the wall to take back impressions to their home. Could someone have used a utensil, pen, key, who knows, to do this and accidentally scratched the surface? Funny, I don't remember the original reports, with plenty of photos and video, mentioning this scoring at all.
"And I personally knew the source of these images, so I am confident they were not Photoshopped for effect."
I've never questioned the authenticity of the photos.
I'm sorry, this is the second time you've said this and I just don't get the correlation between you knowing the people who made the reports (the ones who incited the mob) and how that has anything to do with the facts.
"The bottom line is there was plenty of compelling evidence to come to a firm and speedy conclusion with a high degree of accuracy that it was indeed vandalism."
I disagree. First a vandal would more likely use a can of spray paint and the location of most of the spots would indicate that this was a very incompetent or extremely drunk vandal. In fact, the photos pointed to it being an accident or some religious idiots consecrating the wall with their holy ointment.
"In my opinion, you do an injustice to those who wanted quick action on this while the trail was still hot..."
And what action would that be? Did the hysteria, torchs and axes move the efforts of the Park Police any quicker? On the contrary and IMHO after talking to the Park Police, the mob that quickly organized screaming and shouting for an resolution compelled the Park Police to take a slower, more methodical approach to make sure they got it right the first time. Such are in unintended consequences of actions that are not thought out nor contemplated by reasonable people.
"...not waiting until weeks later for some bureaucracy to finally issue forth a proclamation."
Uhhh, you mean conduct a thorough and competent investigation? Why was it necessary, nay critical, for the mob to have action and an answer so quickly? Was there something else going on that weekend that a quick, even if incorrect, answer would have facilitated?
When the truth is subjugated to the needs of the mob we become no better than the shrieking, hysterical libs.
"Lastly, I have shot myself in the foot many times before, and I have no illusions that the most recent time I did it will be the last."
Don't worry about it, it happens to all of us. ;-}. BTW - Sorry about the Clouseau comment.
Well, if you don't think directly calling someone mentally ill and irrational (which is what you did, and attributed it to me personally) is a personal attack, then you probably don't think there was anything wrong with the way liberals smeared Whittaker Chambers, whom they did call mentally ill and irrational.
The point is, you took a GENERAL comment made by me and personalized it, even though I have no idea who you are and don't even recall reading any posts from you. Then you made direct and specific derogatory comments towards me.
I recognize that you apparently feel stung from the criticisms of what you perceive to be a howling mob of people...I was on a few of those threads, and it is my recollection that the vitriol (if you classify it as such) went both ways. You have personalized this way too much, in my opinion. It is obviously a sore spot with you, and had I known I would not have made the comment since I generally do not attack people PERSONALLY unless I am attacked first.
I disagree completely with your analysis of the situation. But you know what...it doesn't make any difference now. I was as correct in retrospect as I was initially, but I don't really care about that.
I looked at your profile, and it says you are one of the earliest members of FR. I understand your resentment and obvious anger and disappointment at what you think FR has become, and that it isn't the good old days anymore. I can't do anything about that. If I had known it would scrape someone like you as raw as it did, I wouldn't have even said it.
Dude, you called I and others “dorks” and you launched first, quit trying to run away from that. The people on those threads were trying to appeal for calm, to get all the facts before jumping to the worst possible explanation.
If that’s what a “dork” is to you, then you are part of the problem of what is happening on FR...that it is being overtaken by a mob mentality where anyone that doesn’t subscribe to the opinions of the mob-majority are set upon, attacked and run off threads if not off FR.
Is it any wonder that many if not most of the brilliant thinkers that used to be here are now gone?
Sometimes FR looks like the flipside of DU. Nice.
Nobody's insisting that you stay.
You’d like that, wouldn’t you Jack?
Nope. Sorry. The feet dragging was long after it was evident what was going on. It was evident immediately to the people I know who were AT the wall with their own eyes the morning after it happened, and has since been positively verified as vandalism. You are so used to looking at the world through a keyboard that you cannot see the reality when it hits you in your face.
I do regret that your precious little comfortable online world (inhabited by Einsteins) is gone, invaded by a bunch of mental midgets. Ohh, all the mental giants are gone.
I was trying to be polite, but now you really do sound pathetic and egocentric. I hope you aren’t holding yourself up as evidence that some brilliant thinkers still remain here on Free Republic.
As I said, I am sorry your feelings were hurt. I meant that genuinely, but you don’t seem to be able to read anymore because you are so emotionally upset about this. Here is some advice for free:
Step back away from your keyboard, go outside and look at the real world.
Get over it and get on with your life.
One of the riders said that the damage is so significant that he believes that they will likely have to replace several of the panels.
Don’t be a tool.
I still get angry when I think about it.
Don’t be a tool?
Yeah, well I meant what I said when I wrote that I wouldn’t have said it if I thought it was going to cause someone like you so much pain. You didn’t have the grace to either accept the statement or acknowledge it. I don’t know you personally, so I won’t pass judgement on whether that was standard unclassy behavoir or just an oversight on the part of someone still boiling with anger and resentment.
I haven’t been on Free Republic as long as you have, but I do have standards of courtesy that I try to adhere to, because I think that is important.
Have I had some heated conversations on here? Yes, I have. A few of them have got personal too, because I am not going to sit back and accept it from someone.
If I had known there were people like you sitting out there, still simmering and harboring a personal resentment over their perceived treatment regarding this issue, I would have been more diplomatic. My posting history is that of a conciliator, not a emotional button pusher.
And one more thing, Bob J.
You asserted that “What disturbed me was how those who were most shocked by this incident appeared as if they WANTED it to be an act of vandalism.”
I find that assertion extemely offensive, especially since I know many of those people from personal experience at the Gathering of Eagles and Walter Reed Freeps. Some of those people, like me, have loved ones buried at Arlington or immortalized on the wall.
It may have appeared to YOU that these people wanted it to be an act of vandalism, but I maintain that many of these people have a very realistic understanding of what some of these human scum we have to fight for the soul of our country are actually capable of.
It may well be that you have the personal experience as well, or even the military background or underpinnings of some of those same people who you were in opposition to. But your painting them (and me) with a brush like that, especially one so odious, is simply wrong.
I’m not in any pain and I’m not simmering. I used this incident as an example of what I believe to be a much wider and endemic problem at FR, that of tribalism that centers itself around issues and develops a mob mentality to shout down opponents and stifle discussion through name calling. We condemn the left for the same so when we do it we are no better than them. I urge we try to be better than that.
You say you have “standards of courtesy” and call my behavior “unclassy” but you were the one who tossed the first salvo by calling people whom I believe to be rational and objective “dorks”.
You say I didn’t accept or acknowledge your somewhat mea culpa but you ignore this statement of mine to you in #10;
“Don’t worry about it, it happens to all of us. ;-}. BTW - Sorry about the Clouseau comment.”
You state “A few of them have got personal too, because I am not going to sit back and accept it from someone.” Evidently you believe it is justified when you cross the line but are reluctant to forgive others when they have may done the same.
As far as my comment about some people appearing as if they wanted it to be an act of vandalism, I stand by it. For me, I was hoping it wasn’t and was willing to look at other reasonable alternatives that might explain it. Others were not and attacked those who did.
So while you look at this in it’s microcosm I look at the macro. If you want to personalize it, go ahead, I prefer to understand how it fits into a much larger pattern of undesirable group dynamics and what that portends for the future of FR.
That is disgusting and reprehensible. I cannot believe that. Some of those people you are accusing have relatives whose names are on that wall. Put up or SHUT UP. Post me ONE..JUST ONE post that backs up your ridiculous, inflammatory, ignorant claim that someone WANTED it to be vandalism.
YOU PROVE THAT POS STATEMENT.
Just unbelievable. And YOU have the unmitigated GALL to accuse people of being UNCIVIL?
Shame on you. I would like to see you make that claim to some of their faces directly, but I doubt you have the guts.
Wow, you're helping prove my point. You're looking for something, anything, to get hysterical about and ascribing personalized comments to me that I did not make. Now, I could get as emotional and riled as you about you doing this to me, but I won't because I understand why you do it. If you can rile the mob and paint me as a military despising villain and disparaging my character, you actually don't have to debate the issue unemotionally. Emotion is so much easier and you actually don't have to think critically.
This is exactly what happened on the Memorial vandalism threads.
My statement that there were some who seemed to want it to be a case of vandalism, IMO, is borne out by them almost militantly rejecting ANY other explanation, no matter how reasonable, and then personally attacking those who made them. Who would anyone want the Memorial to be vandalized? Wouldn't it be better if it was found out to be a simple mistake?
It was possible, as possible as the the vandalism scenario, that this could have been a maintenance mistake by Park workers, or that it was some kind of consecration ceremony by a religious group (which was very similar to what happened at another memorial and was mentioned on the thread. Of course that would still have been vandalism but it wasn't vandalism with defacement in mind). We simply would not know until the Park Service conducted their investigation. But some didn't want to wait, they wanted an answer, their answer, right then and there.
There were reasonable people who politely posted that while these alternative explanations were possible, they still believed it was vandals. Fair enough, everyone has a right to their CSI opinions. Then there were others whose main goal seemed to be the conservation of group think and worked to rile up a mob against all other possible explanations and attacking those who proffered them.
Shutting down discussion and unfairly attacking the character of those who reasonably disagree are the tactics of bullies who have no interest in what others might think or the truth, only in instilling their own version of the truth, their own agenda, and creating a hostile environment that discourages future disagreements with their dogma.
Hardly helping you mke your point. You cannot privide one quote to back up your slanderous and derogatory statement.
If anything, you show just how much you have personalized the issue and refuse to see it except through your lens.
I see your viewpoint, it is invalid in this case.