Shouldn’t there be some connection between the target of the vandalism and the goal of the protest? If you are going to inconvenience people it’s supposed to be so they are led to think hard about your issues, not so they are scratching their heads about your intentions.
What does "nah" mean? That they didn't have to replace the books, or that "other libraries were destroyed so it's okay to vandalize this one" isn't a tu quoque fallacy?
Yes? You're arguing it's okay to damage this library because those libraries and universities in Gaza were destroyed. Tu quoque, "you too," means justifying one wrong act (damaging the uni library) by pointing out others have also done wrong (US weapons destroying libraries in Gaza).
What about the idea the protesters could have simply directed all the same actions against the university president instead of the library? They could have gotten people on their side. Just admit they screwed the pooch.
No.
I am saying that the students were trying to make a statement about what *their own university* was doing.
I guarantee that the $750,000 is not for removing spray paint from the spines of books.