Okay, I lied. One more post before I call it a computing night. Sorry, but I’m motivated by disgust.
I told y’all about the vandalism done to ROTC buildings at two N.C. universities this week. Well, now a recruiting office in Minnesota has fallen prey to paint and protest.
Six people, including a man who allegedly splashed paint on a recruiting station, were arrested Friday following a rally of area high school and college students at the University of Minnesota to protest the war in Iraq.
Police estimated the crowd at more than 200 people, who chanted and listened to nearly a dozen speakers for about an hour.
[…]
When it came time for a march downtown, organizers changed course and went to a U.S. Army and Navy recruiting station near Washington Avenue and SE. Oak Street.
One person, with face covered and dressed in all black, splashed a bucket of red paint on the station’s windows. Other protesters pounded the windows and scribbled messages including a peace sign over a sticker of the American flag.
“They’re exercising their rights,” said Army Capt. Val Bernat, adding that campus police alerted the office days earlier of a potential incident. “However, we don’t appreciate the vandalism.”
The protest group then dispersed at the nearby Coffman Memorial Union, where police arrested the man who apparently threw the paint, according to campus police Deputy Chief Steve Johnson. Five others also were cited for disorderly conduct and released, Johnson said.
As military workers began cleanup outside the rented storefront, a group of students pitched in.
“They disgraced our country and our military,” Ole Hovde, 19, a freshman, said as he wiped down the windows.
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin, who adds the following:
This is not “freedom of speech.” This is vandalism. It is a crime. The punks responsible for destroying property and trying to intimidate our volunteer military and potential recruits need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
OpFor‘s Charlie Munn looks at one of the story’s pictures and questions the imagery entailed.
For the life of me, I don’t understand this. From the picture, I get the symbolism: red paint=blood, but the peace signs? What this image shows me is the inherent fallacy of the “peace†movement. These protestors, who advocate a “peace†in our time, are actually demanding inaction in the face of genocide, murder, and ethnic cleansing. Millions of people should be allowed to die, according to this logic, but if one US combat brigade moves to stop it (and heaven forbid if it lines up with US national interest) then the only recourse can be “No Blood For Oil.â€
This picture shows me that the modern peace movement has blood on their hands. They have blood on their hands from the deaths of thousands of South Vietnamese that we didn’t help after our withdrawal. They have blood on their hands from the genocide in Cambodia that occurred when the “Domino Theory†came to fruition and Pol Pot got to enact his crazed thesis of societal equalization and wealth distribution (communism carried to its ultimate end state, where children killed their parents with machetes at the behest of the government).
Mr. Munn goes on, citing more blood to date and potential blood to come. He’s right.
I look at the picture, though, and I see shades of future dhimmitude brought on by misplaced and misdirected idealism. It is not the radical Islamist enemies fighting to destroy our civilization that sacrifice for these protestors’ freedom, but those enemies would quite happily bring the the peace of slavery or death to these idiots stained literally in paint and actually in blood.