# The film "American Sniper" is a shit propaganda film..



## ectomorphine

Agree or disagree? Why?


----------



## Shahada

I agree, the person the film is based off of was an open racist who talked at length about how much he enjoyed murdering innocent people and the film wants to turn him into a tortured war hero. The guy was a Nazi.


----------



## Glory

I don't think that was the point... but whatever, Eastwood's films are well made despite how cliche they tend to be.


----------



## JasmineDarlene

hahah yes... Same as "Zero Dark 30" a while back


----------



## Surreal Snake

I saw it yesterday usual hype BS. Average at best and yeah total propaganda


----------



## Arno

I have not actually seen it just yet, but I did watch a trailer just seconds ago. I'm surprised that the trailer has a bit of an emotional side to it as well. What's on with this movie then?


----------



## Ermenegildo

Two Russian films with a sniper topic and English subtitles:


*Stanislav Govorukhin: The Rifleman of the Voroshilov Regiment (Ворошиловский стрелок), Russia 1999*






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rifleman_of_the_Voroshilov_Regiment



*Aleksandr Rogozhkin (The Cuckoo, 2002): Checkpoint (Блокпост), Russia 1998*






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Rogozhkin


----------



## StranGaaa Danjjja

Brainwashing for the win...

i will wait till i can get a good torrent


----------



## Mimic octopus

Shahada said:


> I agree, the person the film is based off of was an open racist who talked at length about how much he enjoyed murdering innocent people and the film wants to turn him into a tortured war hero. The guy was a Nazi.


I've read that he lied about a few of his kills. But why is he a openly racist Nazi who enjoyed killing innocent people?


----------



## Apolo

HAHA! Oh dear me. He was a very humble man, who saved a LOT of american soldiers lives during the war. He was an exceptionally talented sniper. He also did a lot for veterans with PTSD when he came back from his fourth deployment, by working with them, spending time with them, taking them out to the range and teaching them, etc. 

Also, the movie is based on his book, not just some made up propaganda piece. But I can probably call now, who all will come crashing in here screaming bloody murder and propaganda.... Oh wait, someone already did by calling him a racist nazi, BAHAHAHAHA. Get real.


----------



## johnnyyukon

Apolo said:


> HAHA! Oh dear me. He was a very humble man, who saved a LOT of american soldiers lives during the war. He was an exceptionally talented sniper. He also did a lot for veterans with PTSD when he came back from his fourth deployment, by working with them, spending time with them, taking them out to the range and teaching them, etc.
> 
> Also, the movie is based on his book, not just some made up propaganda piece. But I can probably call now, who all will come crashing in here screaming bloody murder and propaganda.... Oh wait, someone already did by calling him a racist nazi, BAHAHAHAHA. Get real.



Ha, oh man. It's always funny to me that the people that scream "bloody murdering baby killers!" at soldiers, are the same people those very soldiers protect while their pasty asses sleep. 

I saw some previews, looks badass. I must have been living on another planet, because I had no idea Clint Eastwood directed it (does the man have no limits??). Last 20 years or so, his movies have been stupid dumb badass. Starting around _Unforgiven_.

Holding off on the movie, cuz I'm about halfway through American Sniper, the book with words and shit. So far, great read. Total fucking tragedy about Chris Kyle's death. What a goddamn waste, and the last place anyone would ever think he'd die. 2 kids without a dad, wife without a husband. His funeral procession was 200 miles long.

Devil of Ramadi, RIP.

One of the good guys, saving other good guys' lives. Killing bad guys that would and did use their own children and wives as human bombs.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Yeah everything is propaganda.


----------



## Apolo

johnnyyukon said:


> Ha, oh man. It's always funny to me that the people that scream "bloody murdering baby killers!" at soldiers, are the same people those very soldiers protect while their pasty asses sleep.
> 
> I saw some previews, looks badass. I must have been living on another planet, because I had no idea Clint Eastwood directed it (does the man have no limits??). Last 20 years or so, his movies have been stupid dumb badass. Starting around _Unforgiven_.
> 
> Holding off on the movie, cuz I'm about halfway through American Sniper, the book with words and shit. So far, great read. Total fucking tragedy about Chris Kyle's death. What a goddamn waste, and the last place anyone would ever think he'd die. 2 kids without a dad, wife without a husband. His funeral procession was 200 miles long.
> 
> Devil of Ramadi, RIP.
> 
> One of the good guys, saving other good guys' lives. Killing bad guys that would and did use their own children and wives as human bombs.


Exactly. I was actually able to see his procession while I was in that area visiting family. I have read the book, but saw the movie for the sole purpose of supporting his widow and kids. It was a good movie, with a very clear emotional side.


Here are a few interview with him. My favorite is the Conan Obrien. He calls Conan "sir". 






And this interview with Time magazine, where they ask him some pointed questions about his book:


----------



## johnnyyukon

Apolo said:


> Exactly. I was actually able to see his procession while I was in that area visiting family. I have read the book, but saw the movie for the sole purpose of supporting his widow and kids. It was a good movie, with a very clear emotional side.
> 
> 
> Here are a few interview with him. My favorite is the Conan Obrien. He calls Conan "sir".
> 
> 
> 
> And this interview with Time magazine, where they ask him some pointed questions about his book:


Good videos. Super humble guy. One reason I like the book, and books like it, are that these are registered and proven badasses that really have nothing to prove, so the read is just the facts. Very little, if any, ego.

"You don't have to call me 'sir' by the way, I'm a talk show host." haha, gotta love Conan.

I will say I'm getting a little impatient, 25% into the book (Kindle) and hasn't even begun to talk about his sniping legacy. Still good stuff though, and rare insight into that world/mindset. I also like the inclusion of his wife's excerpts about her perspective. Good juxtaposition of a deployed military hardass and the effects on those that love him at home.


----------



## ectomorphine

johnnyyukon said:


> Ha, oh man. It's always funny to me that the people that scream "bloody murdering baby killers!" at soldiers, are the same people those very soldiers protect while their pasty asses sleep.
> 
> I saw some previews, looks badass. I must have been living on another planet, because I had no idea Clint Eastwood directed it (does the man have no limits??). Last 20 years or so, his movies have been stupid dumb badass. Starting around _Unforgiven_.
> 
> Holding off on the movie, cuz I'm about halfway through American Sniper, the book with words and shit. So far, great read. Total fucking tragedy about Chris Kyle's death. What a goddamn waste, and the last place anyone would ever think he'd die. 2 kids without a dad, wife without a husband. His funeral procession was 200 miles long.
> 
> Devil of Ramadi, RIP.
> 
> One of the good guys, saving other good guys' lives. Killing bad guys that would and did use their own children and wives as human bombs.


I'm curious as to where you get your news? Also murdering innocent people is heroic? Dehumanizing others is heroic?


----------



## ectomorphine

Apolo said:


> HAHA! Oh dear me. He was a very humble man, who saved a LOT of american soldiers lives during the war. He was an exceptionally talented sniper. He also did a lot for veterans with PTSD when he came back from his fourth deployment, by working with them, spending time with them, taking them out to the range and teaching them, etc.
> 
> Also, the movie is based on his book, not just some made up propaganda piece. But I can probably call now, who all will come crashing in here screaming bloody murder and propaganda.... Oh wait, someone already did by calling him a racist nazi, BAHAHAHAHA. Get real.


Dehumanizing and murdering others is humility to you?


----------



## Apolo

ectomorphine said:


> Dehumanizing and murdering others is humility to you?


Haha, really now... How about you look at it objectively. The US Government went to war after 9/11. Chris Kyle did not start the war. Kyle served his duty, and protected soldiers who were also in the middle of that crap storm. He did his best to ensure that the men and women that the government sent over to that crap hole, made it back to their sons, daughters, and loved ones. He was skilled at sniping, and utilized that skill to save American lives. 

On top of all of that, and the fact that he is literally one of the most distinguished snipers in history, he was very humble, as well as a man devoted to loving his family. 

So, you can stop grasping at straws now. Getting on with that "murdering" "innocent" people is complete bullspit. Especially on his first 2 tours, any military aged man who was left in the city after it was evacuated stayed to either aid the enemy, or were there to kill Americans...

You obviously are oblivious to the disgusting, evil, and pure wickedness of the people he was facing. They would set up "Butcher Houses" where they would torture, dismember, and use acid on their own men, women, and children. They were putrid. 

The same crap ISIS is doing now, the Iraqi terrorists just didn't get the same camera time.

"Saif Al-Adlubi told the story when the Egyptian butcher would examine the row of people who were waiting their execution. Al-Adlubi witnessed at least two Armenians who were waiting their turn to be slaughtered since no one paid their ransom, the sum of $100,000 each.

“He grabbed the neck of one elderly Armenian Christian”, says Al-Adlubi, which the Egyptian butcher was about to slaughter. The Egyptian butcher felt the neck of the Christian Armenian saying “you’re an aged man and your neck is soft and I don’t have to sharpen my knife for you”. Others might be more difficult depending on their physique.

Saif Al-Adlubi tells of his miraculous escape to the Turkish village of Rehaniyeh from Syria. He was probably one of the few survivors who sounded the alarm on one of the gruesome systematic human extermination centers carried out by the Takfiri Jihadist group ISIS."

http://shoebat.com/2014/03/17/actual-literal-islamic-human-slaughterhouses-christians-discovered/

"Lifeless bodies hang upside down as if they were slaughtered sheep. The bodies are decapitated from the root of their necks, their chest cavities are opened and they disemboweled and hung upside down. The barbarism exhibited by these ISIS Muslim savages is reminiscent of the violence perpetuated by the Ottoman Turks."

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/...in-iraq-as-they-are-in-syria-warning-graphic/


----------



## johnnyyukon

ectomorphine said:


> I'm curious as to where you get your news? Also murdering innocent people is heroic? Dehumanizing others is heroic?


Where do you get yours? Do tell, what innocent people did he kill? I wasn't aware.


----------



## Snakecharmer

American Sniper is a dishonest whitewash of the Iraq war - Vox

American Sniper, Clint Eastwood's love letter to decorated, real-life Iraq war sniper Chris Kyle, is dominating America's box offices. But does this movie, much of which portrays intense ground combat in Iraqi cities, have anything to say about the war itself?

The film's star, Bradley Cooper, insists the film is "not a political discussion about war." But viewers of American Sniper are given a highly political re-telling of the Iraq War — and one that so wildly misrepresents the truth of the war that it is practically tantamount to whitewashing history.

*American Sniper falsely suggests we invaded Iraq over 9/11*

From the get-go, Chris Kyle's military career is all about responding to terrorism. Kyle joins up after al-Qaeda bombs the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. We see him and his wife Taya's stunned reactions to 9/11.

And then, bam. Kyle's at war in Iraq. The film does not contain, as best I can tell, a single reference to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, or weapons of mass destruction. There's no Dick Cheney, no Colin Powell at the UN, no anti-war protests. The film implies that the Iraq War was a deliberate response to 9/11.

In fact, the Bush administration premised its 2003 Iraq invasion primarily on the alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice memorably put it, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The Bush administration repeatedly asserted that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons and other programs it might use against the United States. Bush and some his top advisers had come into office, before 9/11 even occurred, believing that Saddam was a threat and discussing possible ways to remove him.

The war, in other words, was not actually about 9/11. And, crucially, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were the basis of the war turned out not to exist.

It's not just that American Sniper weirdly excises all of this history; it's that the film replaces it with the implication that 9/11 gave America little choice but to invade Iraq, that the 2003 US invasion was something that happened to us, not something we chose to do. Chris Kyle repeatedly explains that he's fighting to protect his family, again suggesting that the invasion was a necessary preemptive defense against Iraqi terrorists, when no such threat actually existed.

This implication wasn't necessary for the film to work: watching Kyle and his wife react in horror to 9/11 didn't add anything to our understanding of his character. All the scene does is recast the Iraq war in a false, noble light.

*American Sniper presents the war as a response to al-Qaeda. In fact, the opposite is true.*

In the film's narrative, the Iraq war begins with Kyle's first mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq. Over the course of four tours, Kyle fights a number of vicious AQI operatives, including a Syrian sniper named Mustafa that serves as Kyle's foil, as well as another guy nicknamed The Butcher.

Viewers are left with the impression that the Iraq war was against al-Qaeda at the outset, and that the fighting was chiefly against them. You could be forgiven for thinking that America invaded Iraq because it had become a hotbed of al-Qaeda operations.

In fact, Iraq did become a hotbed of al-Qaeda operations, but it was not until after the invasion, and indeed the invasion and bungled American occupation were what allowed them such fertile ground.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist at the war's outset. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who would later form the group, entered Iraq specifically because he hoped the US invasion would provide the chaos and anger he needed to succeed, and he was right. The group only established its large foothold after many Iraqis had turned against the American occupation, which alienated Iraqis with its mismanagement of the country, and with terrible mistakes such as disbanding the Iraqi army, which left many thousands of military-trained Iraqis unemployed and angry.

The real story of Iraq's insurgency is not just one of monstrous al-Qaeda, and it's not just of a fight between good and evil.

American Sniper can be forgiven for not wanting to explore the sordid history of al-Qaeda's rise. Less forgivable, though, is that it portrays the American invasion as a righteous blow against the evil of al-Qaeda, when in fact that invasion was one of the best things that ever happened to al-Qaeda. The film doesn't just skip this history, but actively distorts it.

*Iraqis are portrayed as "savages" and mostly evil terrorists*

The narrative sets up the war as a morality play: there are evil terrorists, and Chris Kyle needs to kill them. It's as simple as that.

In an early speech that basically defines the film's politics, Chris Kyle's father declares that there are three kind of people: sheep, the wolves that prey on them, and the sheep dogs that hold them at bay. "We're not raising any sheep in this family," Kyle's father tells his son, "and I'll whup your ass if you ever become a wolf."

That means Kyle is a sheepdog. Kyle and his buddies in uniform are good guys hunting terrorists. It's hardly a surprise, then, that all of the violence in Iraq is attributed to simple evil, and that Iraq's millions of citizens are often barely distinguishable from al-Qaeda.

Kyle repeatedly refers to Iraqis as "savages," and the film makes no effort to prove him wrong. Two out of three Iraqi children the film focuses on pick up weapons (though one puts it down before firing), and the third tortured by another Iraqi. When another soldier questions whether Kyle may have shot an innocent man, Kyle simply shouts him down. The issue never comes up again.

In fact, many thousands of Iraqis died fighting al-Qaeda, and the group's defeat never would have been possible without the 2005 Anbar Awakening, in which many Iraqi communities in al-Qaeda hotspots took up arms to uproot the group.

The film also skips over one of the ugliest but most important aspects of the war: the divisions between Iraq's Sunni and its Shias, both of whom fought the US as well as one another, in what ultimately became a civil war. The words Sunni and Shia are hardly mentioned in the film, if at all. The idea that Iraqis could be much else other than terrorists, or that an Iraqi might take up arms for any reason other than to kill Americans, doesn't really factor in American Sniper's narrative.

Again, it would be understandable for a mainstream Hollywood production to not want to delve into sectarian politics. But rather than merely skirting Iraq's sectarian conflict, the film instead replaces it with a narrative that the war was all about America versus al-Qaeda, which is simply false and misleading.

*The dangerous implications of American Sniper's distortions*

Once the film has established the invasion as a righteous response to 9/11, which it wasn't, and the war itself as a black-and-white battle against evil al-Qaeda terrorists, when the truth is far murkier, it then carries that narrative to its logical conclusion: opposing the Iraq War, or even insufficiently endorsing its glory, is tantamount to betrayal.

When Kyle's brother, also a soldier, says "fuck this place," Kyle channels the viewer's bafflement. When another soldier dies, and a grieving family member reads an anti-war letter at the funeral, Kyle tells his wife that "that letter" is what killed him. His wife absorbs this line quietly, seemingly accepting it as gospel.

Without exploring why the Iraqis are fighting — America's mistakes, the Sunni/Shia sectarian dynamics — the film gives us no resources for seeing beyond Kyle's "good versus evil" perspective. In American Sniper, the Iraq War is nothing but a just war against al-Qaeda, and the only real casualties are American soldiers.

*Getting the Iraq War this wrong is a disservice to the Americans who fought in it*

American Sniper is absolutely consumed by questions of good and evil. From the opening sheepdog monologue, right down to Kyle's final assessment of the war — that the only thing he regretted is he that he couldn't save more American soldiers — the question of the war's morality is placed front-and-center.

But the politics of the Iraq war defy the film's simple "wolves" versus "sheepdogs" moral framing. American troops were alternately invaders and protectors. They destroyed the Iraqi state and left murderous chaos in its wake, but also helped defeat the truly evil al-Qaeda in Iraq (at least, until its rebirth as ISIS). The core mission was beyond flawed, but after the unpardonable mistake of invading was already made, American soldiers had some just missions to accomplish.

In the real world, and in any even remotely honest portrayal, it is impossible to talk about ethics of fighting in Iraq without acknowledging both sides of this moral coin. But American Sniper has the morality of an especially simple superhero movie: our side good, their side bad. In order to sell us on that, it's forced to twist history into an unrecognizable pretzel.

What might be the worst part is that it's all so unnecessary. American Sniper could have told Kyle's story while still giving his comic book worldview an appropriate degree of critical distance. Such a movie would not have needed to distort the truth, and it wouldn't have needed to condescend to Americans and American troops by acting as if we could not possibly handle moral ambiguity about America's mission in Iraq. But it did, and that is a disservice not just to film's viewers, but to the millions of Americans who were affected by the war and deserve to have that story told honestly.


----------



## Apolo

Snakecharmer said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Sniper is a dishonest whitewash of the Iraq war - Vox
> 
> American Sniper, Clint Eastwood's love letter to decorated, real-life Iraq war sniper Chris Kyle, is dominating America's box offices. But does this movie, much of which portrays intense ground combat in Iraqi cities, have anything to say about the war itself?
> 
> The film's star, Bradley Cooper, insists the film is "not a political discussion about war." But viewers of American Sniper are given a highly political re-telling of the Iraq War — and one that so wildly misrepresents the truth of the war that it is practically tantamount to whitewashing history.
> 
> *American Sniper falsely suggests we invaded Iraq over 9/11*
> 
> From the get-go, Chris Kyle's military career is all about responding to terrorism. Kyle joins up after al-Qaeda bombs the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. We see him and his wife Taya's stunned reactions to 9/11.
> 
> And then, bam. Kyle's at war in Iraq. The film does not contain, as best I can tell, a single reference to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, or weapons of mass destruction. There's no Dick Cheney, no Colin Powell at the UN, no anti-war protests. The film implies that the Iraq War was a deliberate response to 9/11.
> 
> In fact, the Bush administration premised its 2003 Iraq invasion primarily on the alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice memorably put it, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The Bush administration repeatedly asserted that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons and other programs it might use against the United States. Bush and some his top advisers had come into office, before 9/11 even occurred, believing that Saddam was a threat and discussing possible ways to remove him.
> 
> The war, in other words, was not actually about 9/11. And, crucially, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were the basis of the war turned out not to exist.
> 
> It's not just that American Sniper weirdly excises all of this history; it's that the film replaces it with the implication that 9/11 gave America little choice but to invade Iraq, that the 2003 US invasion was something that happened to us, not something we chose to do. Chris Kyle repeatedly explains that he's fighting to protect his family, again suggesting that the invasion was a necessary preemptive defense against Iraqi terrorists, when no such threat actually existed.
> 
> This implication wasn't necessary for the film to work: watching Kyle and his wife react in horror to 9/11 didn't add anything to our understanding of his character. All the scene does is recast the Iraq war in a false, noble light.
> 
> *American Sniper presents the war as a response to al-Qaeda. In fact, the opposite is true.*
> 
> In the film's narrative, the Iraq war begins with Kyle's first mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq. Over the course of four tours, Kyle fights a number of vicious AQI operatives, including a Syrian sniper named Mustafa that serves as Kyle's foil, as well as another guy nicknamed The Butcher.
> 
> Viewers are left with the impression that the Iraq war was against al-Qaeda at the outset, and that the fighting was chiefly against them. You could be forgiven for thinking that America invaded Iraq because it had become a hotbed of al-Qaeda operations.
> 
> In fact, Iraq did become a hotbed of al-Qaeda operations, but it was not until after the invasion, and indeed the invasion and bungled American occupation were what allowed them such fertile ground.
> 
> Al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist at the war's outset. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who would later form the group, entered Iraq specifically because he hoped the US invasion would provide the chaos and anger he needed to succeed, and he was right. The group only established its large foothold after many Iraqis had turned against the American occupation, which alienated Iraqis with its mismanagement of the country, and with terrible mistakes such as disbanding the Iraqi army, which left many thousands of military-trained Iraqis unemployed and angry.
> 
> The real story of Iraq's insurgency is not just one of monstrous al-Qaeda, and it's not just of a fight between good and evil.
> 
> American Sniper can be forgiven for not wanting to explore the sordid history of al-Qaeda's rise. Less forgivable, though, is that it portrays the American invasion as a righteous blow against the evil of al-Qaeda, when in fact that invasion was one of the best things that ever happened to al-Qaeda. The film doesn't just skip this history, but actively distorts it.
> 
> *Iraqis are portrayed as "savages" and mostly evil terrorists*
> 
> The narrative sets up the war as a morality play: there are evil terrorists, and Chris Kyle needs to kill them. It's as simple as that.
> 
> In an early speech that basically defines the film's politics, Chris Kyle's father declares that there are three kind of people: sheep, the wolves that prey on them, and the sheep dogs that hold them at bay. "We're not raising any sheep in this family," Kyle's father tells his son, "and I'll whup your ass if you ever become a wolf."
> 
> That means Kyle is a sheepdog. Kyle and his buddies in uniform are good guys hunting terrorists. It's hardly a surprise, then, that all of the violence in Iraq is attributed to simple evil, and that Iraq's millions of citizens are often barely distinguishable from al-Qaeda.
> 
> Kyle repeatedly refers to Iraqis as "savages," and the film makes no effort to prove him wrong. Two out of three Iraqi children the film focuses on pick up weapons (though one puts it down before firing), and the third tortured by another Iraqi. When another soldier questions whether Kyle may have shot an innocent man, Kyle simply shouts him down. The issue never comes up again.
> 
> In fact, many thousands of Iraqis died fighting al-Qaeda, and the group's defeat never would have been possible without the 2005 Anbar Awakening, in which many Iraqi communities in al-Qaeda hotspots took up arms to uproot the group.
> 
> The film also skips over one of the ugliest but most important aspects of the war: the divisions between Iraq's Sunni and its Shias, both of whom fought the US as well as one another, in what ultimately became a civil war. The words Sunni and Shia are hardly mentioned in the film, if at all. The idea that Iraqis could be much else other than terrorists, or that an Iraqi might take up arms for any reason other than to kill Americans, doesn't really factor in American Sniper's narrative.
> 
> Again, it would be understandable for a mainstream Hollywood production to not want to delve into sectarian politics. But rather than merely skirting Iraq's sectarian conflict, the film instead replaces it with a narrative that the war was all about America versus al-Qaeda, which is simply false and misleading.
> 
> *The dangerous implications of American Sniper's distortions*
> 
> Once the film has established the invasion as a righteous response to 9/11, which it wasn't, and the war itself as a black-and-white battle against evil al-Qaeda terrorists, when the truth is far murkier, it then carries that narrative to its logical conclusion: opposing the Iraq War, or even insufficiently endorsing its glory, is tantamount to betrayal.
> 
> When Kyle's brother, also a soldier, says "fuck this place," Kyle channels the viewer's bafflement. When another soldier dies, and a grieving family member reads an anti-war letter at the funeral, Kyle tells his wife that "that letter" is what killed him. His wife absorbs this line quietly, seemingly accepting it as gospel.
> 
> Without exploring why the Iraqis are fighting — America's mistakes, the Sunni/Shia sectarian dynamics — the film gives us no resources for seeing beyond Kyle's "good versus evil" perspective. In American Sniper, the Iraq War is nothing but a just war against al-Qaeda, and the only real casualties are American soldiers.
> 
> *Getting the Iraq War this wrong is a disservice to the Americans who fought in it*
> 
> American Sniper is absolutely consumed by questions of good and evil. From the opening sheepdog monologue, right down to Kyle's final assessment of the war — that the only thing he regretted is he that he couldn't save more American soldiers — the question of the war's morality is placed front-and-center.
> 
> But the politics of the Iraq war defy the film's simple "wolves" versus "sheepdogs" moral framing. American troops were alternately invaders and protectors. They destroyed the Iraqi state and left murderous chaos in its wake, but also helped defeat the truly evil al-Qaeda in Iraq (at least, until its rebirth as ISIS). The core mission was beyond flawed, but after the unpardonable mistake of invading was already made, American soldiers had some just missions to accomplish.
> 
> In the real world, and in any even remotely honest portrayal, it is impossible to talk about ethics of fighting in Iraq without acknowledging both sides of this moral coin. But American Sniper has the morality of an especially simple superhero movie: our side good, their side bad. In order to sell us on that, it's forced to twist history into an unrecognizable pretzel.
> 
> What might be the worst part is that it's all so unnecessary. American Sniper could have told Kyle's story while still giving his comic book worldview an appropriate degree of critical distance. Such a movie would not have needed to distort the truth, and it wouldn't have needed to condescend to Americans and American troops by acting as if we could not possibly handle moral ambiguity about America's mission in Iraq. But it did, and that is a disservice not just to film's viewers, but to the millions of Americans who were affected by the war and deserve to have that story told honestly.


I was waiting for more of you to show up. Have you seen the movie yet? Nope, didn't think so. Have you read the book? Nope didn't think so. I would respond appropriately, but I am not reading that entire wall of copy pasted trash. 

So, watch the movie and come let us know what you think. I would be really interested to hear *YOUR * thoughts at that point.

Though I will say, the people fighting the US troops, and thus being killed by Kyle, were in fact SAVAGES. Please, refute this fact, with some solid backing.


----------



## The_Wanderer

I can see why it would be taken that way, after all, it was a mediocre film about a rather nationalist "patriotic" American defending the "free world" from dirty brown people.

But you could take so many films that way, propaganda isn't a particularly unique or rare occurrence in the media, is it?


----------



## Snakecharmer

Apolo said:


> I was waiting for more of you to show up. Have you seen the movie yet? Nope, didn't think so. Have you read the book? Nope didn't think so. I would respond appropriately, but I am not reading that entire wall of copy pasted trash.
> 
> So, watch the movie and come let us know what you think. I would be really interested to hear *YOUR * thoughts at that point.
> 
> Though I will say, the people fighting the US troops, and thus being killed by Kyle, were in fact SAVAGES. Please, refute this fact, with some solid backing.


You sure make a lot of assumptions.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Apolo said:


> I would respond appropriately, but I am not reading that entire wall of copy pasted trash.


Hilarious. You accused me of not reading the book, but you won't read the article I posted.

Truth hurts, huh.


----------



## ectomorphine

Apolo said:


> Haha, really now... How about you look at it objectively. The US Government went to war after 9/11. Chris Kyle did not start the war. Kyle served his duty, and protected soldiers who were also in the middle of that crap storm. He did his best to ensure that the men and women that the government sent over to that crap hole, made it back to their sons, daughters, and loved ones. He was skilled at sniping, and utilized that skill to save American lives.
> 
> On top of all of that, and the fact that he is literally one of the most distinguished snipers in history, he was very humble, as well as a man devoted to loving his family.
> 
> So, you can stop grasping at straws now. Getting on with that "murdering" "innocent" people is complete bullspit. Especially on his first 2 tours, any military aged man who was left in the city after it was evacuated stayed to either aid the enemy, or were there to kill Americans...
> 
> You obviously are oblivious to the disgusting, evil, and pure wickedness of the people he was facing. They would set up "Butcher Houses" where they would torture, dismember, and use acid on their own men, women, and children. They were putrid.
> 
> The same crap ISIS is doing now, the Iraqi terrorists just didn't get the same camera time.
> 
> "Saif Al-Adlubi told the story when the Egyptian butcher would examine the row of people who were waiting their execution. Al-Adlubi witnessed at least two Armenians who were waiting their turn to be slaughtered since no one paid their ransom, the sum of $100,000 each.
> 
> “He grabbed the neck of one elderly Armenian Christian”, says Al-Adlubi, which the Egyptian butcher was about to slaughter. The Egyptian butcher felt the neck of the Christian Armenian saying “you’re an aged man and your neck is soft and I don’t have to sharpen my knife for you”. Others might be more difficult depending on their physique.
> 
> Saif Al-Adlubi tells of his miraculous escape to the Turkish village of Rehaniyeh from Syria. He was probably one of the few survivors who sounded the alarm on one of the gruesome systematic human extermination centers carried out by the Takfiri Jihadist group ISIS."
> 
> Actual And Literal Islamic Human Slaughterhouses For Christians Discovered - Walid Shoebat
> 
> "Lifeless bodies hang upside down as if they were slaughtered sheep. The bodies are decapitated from the root of their necks, their chest cavities are opened and they disemboweled and hung upside down. The barbarism exhibited by these ISIS Muslim savages is reminiscent of the violence perpetuated by the Ottoman Turks."
> 
> http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/...in-iraq-as-they-are-in-syria-warning-graphic/


lol.. Ok first of all, Iraq was not part of 9/11. Second, Chris Kyle was part of an invasion he chose to be in. What do you expect Iraqis to do? Hug you, kiss you? You are invading their country. Third, I haven't seen any Iraqis running around the U.S. gunning down civilians. Have you?.. Fourth, women and children are not spared in war. They are defenseless. Fifth, you are most likely to get killed by a police officer than a member of ISIS. Sixth, have you heard of Guantanamo Bay? The torture prisons of the C.I.A?


----------



## ectomorphine

johnnyyukon said:


> Where do you get yours? Do tell, what innocent people did he kill? I wasn't aware.


Unbiased outlets.


----------



## Apolo

Snakecharmer said:


> Hilarious. You accused me of not reading the book, but you won't read the article I posted.
> 
> Truth hurts, huh.


Truth? So now you are comparing the reading/watching of the book and film in the OPs topic, with your wall of text? Interdasting... Get real.




ectomorphine said:


> lol.. Ok first of all, Iraq was not part of 9/11. Second, Chris Kyle was part of an invasion he chose to be in. What do you expect Iraqis to do? Hug you, kiss you? You are invading their country. Third, I haven't seen any Iraqis running around the U.S. gunning down civilians. Have you?.. Fourth, women and children are not spared in war. They are defenseless. Fifth, you are most likely to get killed by a police officer than a member of ISIS. Sixth, have you heard of Guantanamo Bay? The torture prisons of the C.I.A?


Women and children are defenseless huh? I know currently, 2 different men who were shot by children they were handing candy to, and another who's brother died, when he dove on top of a grenade a child threw off of a bridge. Clueless would be a good word to describe you on this topic.


----------



## johnnyyukon

Apolo said:


> I am not reading that entire wall of copy pasted trash.



Lol.


Weellll, I really can't say much as I haven't seen the movie (maybe I'll just go ahead without finishing the book) but from what I've read, and previews I've seen, right in the second paragraph of that very article (as far as I got):

"The film's star, Bradley Cooper, insists the film is "not a political discussion about war." 

And f'n shit, it's an american movie about an american navy SEAL told from his perspective.

Why on earth would it be a complete, objective, and thorough examination of the Iraq war, and everyone involved?

That's absurd. 

Filmmakers aren't obligated to cater to people too brain dead to think for themselves. Especially in this information day and age.


----------



## ectomorphine

Snakecharmer said:


> American Sniper is a dishonest whitewash of the Iraq war - Vox
> 
> American Sniper, Clint Eastwood's love letter to decorated, real-life Iraq war sniper Chris Kyle, is dominating America's box offices. But does this movie, much of which portrays intense ground combat in Iraqi cities, have anything to say about the war itself?
> 
> The film's star, Bradley Cooper, insists the film is "not a political discussion about war." But viewers of American Sniper are given a highly political re-telling of the Iraq War — and one that so wildly misrepresents the truth of the war that it is practically tantamount to whitewashing history.
> 
> *American Sniper falsely suggests we invaded Iraq over 9/11*
> 
> From the get-go, Chris Kyle's military career is all about responding to terrorism. Kyle joins up after al-Qaeda bombs the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. We see him and his wife Taya's stunned reactions to 9/11.
> 
> And then, bam. Kyle's at war in Iraq. The film does not contain, as best I can tell, a single reference to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, or weapons of mass destruction. There's no Dick Cheney, no Colin Powell at the UN, no anti-war protests. The film implies that the Iraq War was a deliberate response to 9/11.
> 
> In fact, the Bush administration premised its 2003 Iraq invasion primarily on the alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. As National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice memorably put it, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." The Bush administration repeatedly asserted that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was actively developing nuclear weapons and other programs it might use against the United States. Bush and some his top advisers had come into office, before 9/11 even occurred, believing that Saddam was a threat and discussing possible ways to remove him.
> 
> The war, in other words, was not actually about 9/11. And, crucially, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that were the basis of the war turned out not to exist.
> 
> It's not just that American Sniper weirdly excises all of this history; it's that the film replaces it with the implication that 9/11 gave America little choice but to invade Iraq, that the 2003 US invasion was something that happened to us, not something we chose to do. Chris Kyle repeatedly explains that he's fighting to protect his family, again suggesting that the invasion was a necessary preemptive defense against Iraqi terrorists, when no such threat actually existed.
> 
> This implication wasn't necessary for the film to work: watching Kyle and his wife react in horror to 9/11 didn't add anything to our understanding of his character. All the scene does is recast the Iraq war in a false, noble light.
> 
> *American Sniper presents the war as a response to al-Qaeda. In fact, the opposite is true.*
> 
> In the film's narrative, the Iraq war begins with Kyle's first mission against al-Qaeda in Iraq. Over the course of four tours, Kyle fights a number of vicious AQI operatives, including a Syrian sniper named Mustafa that serves as Kyle's foil, as well as another guy nicknamed The Butcher.
> 
> Viewers are left with the impression that the Iraq war was against al-Qaeda at the outset, and that the fighting was chiefly against them. You could be forgiven for thinking that America invaded Iraq because it had become a hotbed of al-Qaeda operations.
> 
> In fact, Iraq did become a hotbed of al-Qaeda operations, but it was not until after the invasion, and indeed the invasion and bungled American occupation were what allowed them such fertile ground.
> 
> Al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist at the war's outset. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who would later form the group, entered Iraq specifically because he hoped the US invasion would provide the chaos and anger he needed to succeed, and he was right. The group only established its large foothold after many Iraqis had turned against the American occupation, which alienated Iraqis with its mismanagement of the country, and with terrible mistakes such as disbanding the Iraqi army, which left many thousands of military-trained Iraqis unemployed and angry.
> 
> The real story of Iraq's insurgency is not just one of monstrous al-Qaeda, and it's not just of a fight between good and evil.
> 
> American Sniper can be forgiven for not wanting to explore the sordid history of al-Qaeda's rise. Less forgivable, though, is that it portrays the American invasion as a righteous blow against the evil of al-Qaeda, when in fact that invasion was one of the best things that ever happened to al-Qaeda. The film doesn't just skip this history, but actively distorts it.
> 
> *Iraqis are portrayed as "savages" and mostly evil terrorists*
> 
> The narrative sets up the war as a morality play: there are evil terrorists, and Chris Kyle needs to kill them. It's as simple as that.
> 
> In an early speech that basically defines the film's politics, Chris Kyle's father declares that there are three kind of people: sheep, the wolves that prey on them, and the sheep dogs that hold them at bay. "We're not raising any sheep in this family," Kyle's father tells his son, "and I'll whup your ass if you ever become a wolf."
> 
> That means Kyle is a sheepdog. Kyle and his buddies in uniform are good guys hunting terrorists. It's hardly a surprise, then, that all of the violence in Iraq is attributed to simple evil, and that Iraq's millions of citizens are often barely distinguishable from al-Qaeda.
> 
> Kyle repeatedly refers to Iraqis as "savages," and the film makes no effort to prove him wrong. Two out of three Iraqi children the film focuses on pick up weapons (though one puts it down before firing), and the third tortured by another Iraqi. When another soldier questions whether Kyle may have shot an innocent man, Kyle simply shouts him down. The issue never comes up again.
> 
> In fact, many thousands of Iraqis died fighting al-Qaeda, and the group's defeat never would have been possible without the 2005 Anbar Awakening, in which many Iraqi communities in al-Qaeda hotspots took up arms to uproot the group.
> 
> The film also skips over one of the ugliest but most important aspects of the war: the divisions between Iraq's Sunni and its Shias, both of whom fought the US as well as one another, in what ultimately became a civil war. The words Sunni and Shia are hardly mentioned in the film, if at all. The idea that Iraqis could be much else other than terrorists, or that an Iraqi might take up arms for any reason other than to kill Americans, doesn't really factor in American Sniper's narrative.
> 
> Again, it would be understandable for a mainstream Hollywood production to not want to delve into sectarian politics. But rather than merely skirting Iraq's sectarian conflict, the film instead replaces it with a narrative that the war was all about America versus al-Qaeda, which is simply false and misleading.
> 
> *The dangerous implications of American Sniper's distortions*
> 
> Once the film has established the invasion as a righteous response to 9/11, which it wasn't, and the war itself as a black-and-white battle against evil al-Qaeda terrorists, when the truth is far murkier, it then carries that narrative to its logical conclusion: opposing the Iraq War, or even insufficiently endorsing its glory, is tantamount to betrayal.
> 
> When Kyle's brother, also a soldier, says "fuck this place," Kyle channels the viewer's bafflement. When another soldier dies, and a grieving family member reads an anti-war letter at the funeral, Kyle tells his wife that "that letter" is what killed him. His wife absorbs this line quietly, seemingly accepting it as gospel.
> 
> Without exploring why the Iraqis are fighting — America's mistakes, the Sunni/Shia sectarian dynamics — the film gives us no resources for seeing beyond Kyle's "good versus evil" perspective. In American Sniper, the Iraq War is nothing but a just war against al-Qaeda, and the only real casualties are American soldiers.
> 
> *Getting the Iraq War this wrong is a disservice to the Americans who fought in it*
> 
> American Sniper is absolutely consumed by questions of good and evil. From the opening sheepdog monologue, right down to Kyle's final assessment of the war — that the only thing he regretted is he that he couldn't save more American soldiers — the question of the war's morality is placed front-and-center.
> 
> But the politics of the Iraq war defy the film's simple "wolves" versus "sheepdogs" moral framing. American troops were alternately invaders and protectors. They destroyed the Iraqi state and left murderous chaos in its wake, but also helped defeat the truly evil al-Qaeda in Iraq (at least, until its rebirth as ISIS). The core mission was beyond flawed, but after the unpardonable mistake of invading was already made, American soldiers had some just missions to accomplish.
> 
> In the real world, and in any even remotely honest portrayal, it is impossible to talk about ethics of fighting in Iraq without acknowledging both sides of this moral coin. But American Sniper has the morality of an especially simple superhero movie: our side good, their side bad. In order to sell us on that, it's forced to twist history into an unrecognizable pretzel.
> 
> What might be the worst part is that it's all so unnecessary. American Sniper could have told Kyle's story while still giving his comic book worldview an appropriate degree of critical distance. Such a movie would not have needed to distort the truth, and it wouldn't have needed to condescend to Americans and American troops by acting as if we could not possibly handle moral ambiguity about America's mission in Iraq. But it did, and that is a disservice not just to film's viewers, but to the millions of Americans who were affected by the war and deserve to have that story told honestly.


Awesome article, it's as if things are seen in a black and white context for supporters of this film.. America good, Iraq evil..


----------



## Apolo

johnnyyukon said:


> Lol.
> 
> 
> Weellll, I really can't say much as I haven't seen the movie (maybe I'll just go ahead without finishing the book) but from what I've read, and previews I've seen, right in the second paragraph of that very article (as far as I got):
> 
> "The film's star, Bradley Cooper, insists the film is "not a political discussion about war."
> 
> And f'n shit, it's an american movie about an american navy SEAL told from his perspective.
> 
> Why on earth would it be a complete, objective, and thorough examination of the Iraq war, and everyone involved?
> 
> That's absurd.
> 
> Filmmakers aren't obligated to cater to people too brain dead to think for themselves. Especially in this information day and age.


But they need to grasp at any possible straw, create false issues to chastise, and latch on to anything they can to whine about it....


----------



## ectomorphine

Apolo said:


> Truth? So now you are comparing the reading/watching of the book and film in the OPs topic, with your wall of text? Interdasting... Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women and children are defenseless huh? I know currently, 2 different men who were shot by children they were handing candy to, and another who's brother died, when he dove on top of a grenade a child threw off of a bridge. Clueless would be a good word to describe you on this topic.


They are defenseless, and they have no option but to defend their families against an invading army. Do you think they like killing like Chris Kyle did?


----------



## Apolo

ectomorphine said:


> Awesome article, it's as if things are seen in a black and white context for supporters of this film.. America good, Iraq evil..


I guess you missed all of the content I posted for you, on how these people were pure scum. Dismembering, gutting, torturing their own women and children without remorse... 

"Don't forget how Butcher of Baghdad earned the name
March 10, 2003|By Mona Charen
WASHINGTON -- The solid reasons for going to war with Iraq -- and rebuilding that nation as a democracy -- are cogently and succinctly sketched in Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol's slim volume The War Against Iraq. The case does not rest upon humanitarian concerns alone, but if it did, it would still be powerful.

The tyranny that Saddam Hussein has imposed on Iraq has few equals in the world today. International human rights groups, as well as the United Nations, report that some 16,000 Iraqis have disappeared, never to be accounted for.



Mr. Hussein's agents are everywhere searching out evidence of disloyalty.

The British Index on Censorship, Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Kristol recount, reported a case in which a Baath Party member was present at a gathering where jokes at Mr. Hussein's expense were exchanged. The party member was executed -- along with all of the other males in his family -- and the family home was bulldozed.

Another man had his tongue sliced off for "slandering" the Iraqi leader.

One of Mr. Hussein's first acts after coming to power in 1979 was to declare the existence of a "Zionist spy ring." Fourteen people, including 11 Iraqi Jews, were strung up before a crowd of thousands in Baghdad, and over the next several months, hundreds of Muslims said to have collaborated in the plot were also executed. Mr. Hussein had the "plotters" executed on live television and their bodies hung from lampposts in the city.

In 1992, Mr. Hussein arrested 500 of Baghdad's most successful businessmen on charges of "profiteering." Forty-two were executed, their bodies left hanging outside their stores with signs around their necks saying "Greedy Merchant." In 1994, the regime issued a new decree announcing that anyone found guilty of stealing an item worth more than $12 would have his hand amputated. For a second offense, the thief would be branded.

Many regimes practice torture on their enemies. But Mr. Hussein tortures the children of his enemies before their eyes. Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kaplan quote testimony from a former political prisoner provided by Middle East Watch: "Each hour, security men opened the door and chose three to five of the prisoners -- children or men -- and removed them for torture. Later, their tortured bodies were thrown back into the cell. They were often bleeding and carried obvious signs of whipping and electric shock."

Twenty-nine of the children mentioned in that report were eventually killed. Their bodies were returned to their parents with the eyes gouged out. Mr. Hussein often took his own sons to the nation's prisons to have them observe the torture -- the better to "toughen them up.""

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-03-10/news/0303100303_1_torture-war-against-iraq-hussein

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2fd_1406033717

http://www.theweepingeagle.com/2014/06/will-isis-be-operating-human-slaughter.html

http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_551_l3.htm


----------



## Snakecharmer

I still don't see anyone disproving anything that article I posted says.


----------



## ectomorphine

[No message]


----------



## Apolo

ectomorphine said:


> They have a flawed sense of reality and logic.. Sometimes it feels like if you are talking to a brick wall lol





ectomorphine said:


> They are defenseless, and they have no option but to defend their families against an invading army. Do you think they like killing like Chris Kyle did?


You can call a pig an elephant, but at the end of the day, it is still a pig, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself.Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## ectomorphine

Apolo said:


> I guess you missed all of the content I posted for you, on how these people were pure scum. Dismembering, gutting, torturing their own women and children without remorse...
> 
> "Don't forget how Butcher of Baghdad earned the name
> March 10, 2003|By Mona Charen
> WASHINGTON -- The solid reasons for going to war with Iraq -- and rebuilding that nation as a democracy -- are cogently and succinctly sketched in Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol's slim volume The War Against Iraq. The case does not rest upon humanitarian concerns alone, but if it did, it would still be powerful.
> 
> The tyranny that Saddam Hussein has imposed on Iraq has few equals in the world today. International human rights groups, as well as the United Nations, report that some 16,000 Iraqis have disappeared, never to be accounted for.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Hussein's agents are everywhere searching out evidence of disloyalty.
> 
> The British Index on Censorship, Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Kristol recount, reported a case in which a Baath Party member was present at a gathering where jokes at Mr. Hussein's expense were exchanged. The party member was executed -- along with all of the other males in his family -- and the family home was bulldozed.
> 
> Another man had his tongue sliced off for "slandering" the Iraqi leader.
> 
> One of Mr. Hussein's first acts after coming to power in 1979 was to declare the existence of a "Zionist spy ring." Fourteen people, including 11 Iraqi Jews, were strung up before a crowd of thousands in Baghdad, and over the next several months, hundreds of Muslims said to have collaborated in the plot were also executed. Mr. Hussein had the "plotters" executed on live television and their bodies hung from lampposts in the city.
> 
> In 1992, Mr. Hussein arrested 500 of Baghdad's most successful businessmen on charges of "profiteering." Forty-two were executed, their bodies left hanging outside their stores with signs around their necks saying "Greedy Merchant." In 1994, the regime issued a new decree announcing that anyone found guilty of stealing an item worth more than $12 would have his hand amputated. For a second offense, the thief would be branded.
> 
> Many regimes practice torture on their enemies. But Mr. Hussein tortures the children of his enemies before their eyes. Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kaplan quote testimony from a former political prisoner provided by Middle East Watch: "Each hour, security men opened the door and chose three to five of the prisoners -- children or men -- and removed them for torture. Later, their tortured bodies were thrown back into the cell. They were often bleeding and carried obvious signs of whipping and electric shock."
> 
> Twenty-nine of the children mentioned in that report were eventually killed. Their bodies were returned to their parents with the eyes gouged out. Mr. Hussein often took his own sons to the nation's prisons to have them observe the torture -- the better to "toughen them up.""
> 
> Butcher Of Baghdad | Don't forget how Butcher of Baghdad earned the name - Baltimore Sun
> 
> LiveLeak.com - baghdads slaughterhouse
> 
> The Weeping Eagle: Will ISIS Be Operating Human Slaughter Houses in Iraq as They are in Syria? (WARNING: Graphic)
> 
> 30Giorni | Slaughterhouse Iraq (by Davide Malacaria)


Like I said, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.. "Scum", thats what they think about you too in the middle east. I wonder why?


----------



## Snakecharmer

johnnyyukon said:


> Weellll, I really can't say much as I haven't seen the movie (maybe I'll just go ahead without finishing the book) but from what I've read, and previews I've seen, right in the second paragraph of that very article (as far as I got):
> 
> "The film's star, Bradley Cooper, insists the film is "not a political discussion about war."
> 
> And f'n shit, it's an american movie about an american navy SEAL told from his perspective.
> 
> Why on earth would it be a complete, objective, and thorough examination of the Iraq war, and everyone involved?
> 
> That's absurd.
> 
> Filmmakers aren't obligated to cater to people too brain dead to think for themselves. Especially in this information day and age.


Right. It's propaganda. Kyle was also known for being a liar.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Apolo said:


> You can call a pig an elephant, but at the end of the day, it is still a pig, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself.Welcome to my ignore list.


Why can't you discuss this without getting so upset and personal about it?


----------



## ectomorphine

Apolo said:


> Welcome to my ignore list.


Ignore, ignore, ignore... Ignore the families of Iraqis murdered unnecessarily for profit.


----------



## johnnyyukon

> Where do you get yours? Do tell, what innocent people did he kill? I wasn't aware.





ectomorphine said:


> Unbiased outlets.


Still waiting on the innocent people you said he killed. I'm sure you'll get back to me.




Snakecharmer said:


> I still don't see anyone disproving anything that article I posted says.


Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot? The burden of proof does NOT lie upon the skeptic. 

"There's an article that says a bunch of stuff, if you can't prove it all wrong, it must be right."

It's crap logic.





Apolo said:


> But they need to grasp at any possible straw, create false issues to chastise, and latch on to anything they can to whine about it....


Too much time on their hands?


----------



## Snakecharmer

Some of us care about truth, and don't buy into this "big bad evil Muslims/terrorists/Middle Easterners" the media and government like to propagate.


----------



## johnnyyukon

Snakecharmer said:


> Right. It's propaganda. Kyle was also known for being a liar.


If that's propaganda, then so was Rambo. 

He was? Do you have anything to back that up, or you just like to say things?


----------



## Apolo

johnnyyukon said:


> Still waiting on the innocent people you said he killed. I'm sure you'll get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with Russell's Teapot? The burden of proof does NOT lies upon the skeptic.
> 
> "There's an article that says a bunch of stuff, if you can't prove it all wrong, it must be right."
> 
> It's crap logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too much time on their hands?


You are not supposed to point out that the burden of proof lies on them, or that mr. ecto has yet to back up his claims of slaughtered innocents... 


And unfortunately that may be right. I do not understand how some people can be so removed from reality. I suppose that if you take an emotional stance on every issue that arises, then it is bound to happen at some point. But the people they were fighting in Fallujah were very clearly sick, twisted, and evil people, who had no problems committing genocide on their own people... 










johnnyyukon said:


> If that's propaganda, then so was Rambo.
> 
> He was? Do you have anything to back that up, or you just like to say things?


At this point, none of them have backed their slander... Hmmm


----------



## Snakecharmer

johnnyyukon said:


> He was? Do you have anything to back that up, or you just like to say things?


Give me some time. I'll gather info with citations.


----------



## ectomorphine

We're not the only ones with time on our hands.. Maybe you should use that time to learn some history. Learn about the C.I.A. links to Al-Qaeda. Learn about Israel's dependence on U.S. profits. Learn about true humility..


----------



## johnnyyukon

Apolo said:


> You are not supposed to point out that the burden of proof lies on them, or that mr. ecto has yet to back up his claims of slaughtered innocents...
> 
> 
> And unfortunately that may be right. I do not understand how some people can be so removed from reality. I suppose that if you take an emotional stance on every issue that arises, then it is bound to happen at some point. But the people they were fighting in Fallujah were very clearly sick, twisted, and evil people, who had no problems committing genocide on their own people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, none of them have backed their slander... Hmmm



yeah, and though there's many excellent documentaries, one that comes to mind is HBO's _Afghan Star_, basically a doc on their version of American Idol.

One of the final woman contestants sings and then does something evil, wicked, and really, abominable, she dances with free body movements without her hijab.

Dude, right after, she starts freaking out, and the other contestants are like "oh fuck she shouldn't have done that." And then they interview conservative Muslims in the street and they're literally calling for her to be stoned to death. 

For dancing (and I'm not talking Shakira style, she moved her feet and hands around a bit).

Fucking insane.


----------



## ectomorphine

johnnyyukon said:


> yeah, and though there's many excellent documentaries, one that comes to mind is HBO's _Afghan Star_, basically a doc on their version of American Idol.
> 
> One of the final woman contestants sings and then does something evil, wicked, and really, abominable, she dances with free body movements without her hijab.
> 
> Dude, right after, she starts freaking out, and the other contestants are like "oh fuck she shouldn't have done that." And then they interview conservative Muslims in the street and they're literally calling for her to be stoned to death.
> 
> For dancing (and I'm not talking Shakira style, she moved her feet and hands around a bit).
> 
> Fucking insane.


Lol.. it's funny that you generalize a whole group of people..


----------



## Stasis

ectomorphine said:


> They are defenseless, and they have no option but to defend their families against an invading army. Do you think they like killing like Chris Kyle did?


There is the option to die. Throwing a grenade into a crowd is a choice, one could always refuse and deal with the consequences of that decision. I know we like to believe that children cannot think for themselves but I believe otherwise.

Disliking the kill does not excuse the act of murder and disliking America's position in the war does not make Iraq innocent. It's possible for both sides to have some dirt on their hands.


----------



## johnnyyukon

Apolo said:


> Haha, really now... How about you look at it objectively. The US Government went to war after 9/11. Chris Kyle did not start the war. Kyle served his duty, and protected soldiers who were also in the middle of that crap storm. He did his best to ensure that the men and women that the government sent over to that crap hole, made it back to their sons, daughters, and loved ones. He was skilled at sniping, and utilized that skill to save American lives.
> 
> On top of all of that, and the fact that he is literally one of the most distinguished snipers in history, he was very humble, as well as a man devoted to loving his family.
> 
> So, you can stop grasping at straws now. Getting on with that "murdering" "innocent" people is complete bullspit. Especially on his first 2 tours, any military aged man who was left in the city after it was evacuated stayed to either aid the enemy, or were there to kill Americans...
> 
> You obviously are oblivious to the disgusting, evil, and pure wickedness of the people he was facing. They would set up "Butcher Houses" where they would torture, dismember, and use acid on their own men, women, and children. They were putrid.
> 
> The same crap ISIS is doing now, the Iraqi terrorists just didn't get the same camera time.
> 
> "Saif Al-Adlubi told the story when the Egyptian butcher would examine the row of people who were waiting their execution. Al-Adlubi witnessed at least two Armenians who were waiting their turn to be slaughtered since no one paid their ransom, the sum of $100,000 each.
> 
> “He grabbed the neck of one elderly Armenian Christian”, says Al-Adlubi, which the Egyptian butcher was about to slaughter. The Egyptian butcher felt the neck of the Christian Armenian saying “you’re an aged man and your neck is soft and I don’t have to sharpen my knife for you”. Others might be more difficult depending on their physique.
> 
> Saif Al-Adlubi tells of his miraculous escape to the Turkish village of Rehaniyeh from Syria. He was probably one of the few survivors who sounded the alarm on one of the gruesome systematic human extermination centers carried out by the Takfiri Jihadist group ISIS."
> 
> Actual And Literal Islamic Human Slaughterhouses For Christians Discovered - Walid Shoebat
> 
> "Lifeless bodies hang upside down as if they were slaughtered sheep. The bodies are decapitated from the root of their necks, their chest cavities are opened and they disemboweled and hung upside down. The barbarism exhibited by these ISIS Muslim savages is reminiscent of the violence perpetuated by the Ottoman Turks."
> 
> http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/...in-iraq-as-they-are-in-syria-warning-graphic/




Yeesh, just read all that.

On ISIS, they recently threw 2 men off a tower to their deaths for being gay, stoned a woman to death for accusations of adultery, and FUCKING CRUCIFIED 2 men accused of "banditry." And that's the tiny tip of the iceberg. (ISIS targets 'educated, professional women' )

And just looking at the news search, also,
"The jihadists crushed the revolt in three days, killing, *beheading and crucifying members of the tribe. Around 900* people were estimated to have been killed in the bloodiest single atrocity committed by Islamic State in Syria."
(Syria: Isis crucifixion frenzy in revenge for wave of assassinations)

THOSE are the kind of people we're fighting.


----------



## asewland

I personally thought the movie was well done and was interesting to watch. I think the main problem with the controversy surrounding the movie is that everyone is trying to attach their own political views to what is essentially one man's experiences and views on the Iraq War. Most people are forgetting that "American Sniper" is Kyle's story as much as its his actions and experiences in the Iraq War. Therefore, I agree with Bradley Cooper when he says that the movie doesn't really send a strong political message.


----------



## johnnyyukon

asewland said:


> I personally thought the movie was well done and was interesting to watch. I think the main problem with the controversy surrounding the movie is that everyone is trying to attach their own political views to what is essentially one man's experiences and views on the Iraq War. Most people are forgetting that "American Sniper" is Kyle's story as much as its his actions and experiences in the Iraq War. Therefore, I agree with Bradley Cooper when he says that the movie doesn't really send a strong political message.


Simple as that.

But you know panties, they like to get in a twist.


----------



## ectomorphine

EDLC said:


> There is the option to die. Throwing a grenade into a crowd is a choice, one could always refuse and deal with the consequences of that decision. I know we like to believe that children cannot think for themselves but I believe otherwise.
> 
> Disliking the kill does not excuse the act of murder and disliking America's position in the war does not make Iraq innocent. It's possible for both sides to have some dirt on their hands.


I never said Iraq is innocent, children are. Children are easily suggestible.


----------



## ectomorphine

Like I said, your most likely to get killed by a police officer than ISIS.


----------



## ectomorphine

johnnyyukon said:


> Simple as that.
> 
> But you know panties, they like to get in a twist.


Lol, your logic is in a twist too.


----------



## johnnyyukon

ectomorphine said:


> Lol.. it's funny that you generalize a whole group of people..


I did? Please, provide a quote when I did that.

What's even funnier is your attempt at logic, and the inability to handle, or even provide,


----------



## Surreal Snake

On a lighter note


----------



## Snakecharmer

Chris Kyle's lies:

The Real American Sniper’s 5 Alleged Lies -- Vulture

American Sniper: How army sharpshooter Chris Kyle's story became a political battleground - Features - Films - The Independent


----------



## fallingarrow6

I thought it was a great film about the life of Chris Kyle. That movie hit me hard and made me do some soul searching as any good form of art will do. Clint Eastwood did a fantastic job in composing the material and I thank Chris Kyle for the service he gave the American people.


----------



## ectomorphine

johnnyyukon said:


> I did? Please, provide a quote when I did that.
> 
> What's even funnier is your attempt at logic, and the inability to handle, or even provide,


 "And then they interview conservative Muslims in the street and they're literally calling for her to be stoned to death."

There you go.


----------



## Stasis

ectomorphine said:


> I never said Iraq is innocent, children are. Children are easily suggestible.


You're downplaying the violence that people suffer at the hands of children in war. The impact of murder does not diminish because the murderer is a child or was manipulated. 

Children have choices. Detention centers, youth facilities, and prison systems were created with kids in mind.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

I'm sure its a great movie and very moving. Still, its obvious propaganda. And Iraq being the less powerful country gets the short end of the stick. Not that Iraq would be any better, but we're definitely not the "good guys" in this fiasco. There is no good guy in war.


----------



## Metalize

No idea, but someone whom I consider rather unintelligent recommended it to me, so I'll take your word for it.

Hooray for critical thinking.


----------



## ectomorphine

EDLC said:


> You're downplaying the violence that people suffer at the hands of children in war. The impact of murder does not diminish because the murderer is a child or was manipulated.
> 
> Children have choices. Detention centers, youth facilities, and prison systems were created with kids in mind.


No, I'm not downplaying murder. Murder is murder. Yes, children have choices. But decision-making by children is heavily influenced by adults and peers.


----------



## Stasis

ectomorphine said:


> No, I'm not downplaying murder. Murder is murder.





ectomorphine said:


> *They are defenseless*, and *they have no option* but to defend their families against an invading army. *Do you think they like killing* like Chris Kyle did?


Yes you are.



> Yes, children have choices. But decision-making by children is heavily influenced by adults and peers.


Yes.


----------



## ectomorphine

EDLC said:


> Yes you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


I mentioned they were defenseless in the context of being invaded by a foreign army.. What would you do if you were a child and your people, family, friends, were being massacred? Would you run away or fight back?


----------



## johnnyyukon

Snakecharmer said:


> Chris Kyle's lies:
> 
> The Real American Sniperâ€™s 5 Alleged Lies -- Vulture
> 
> American Sniper: How army sharpshooter Chris Kyle's story became a political battleground - Features - Films - The Independent


From your article, all *alleged* lies, nothing has been proven (except maybe the first one. in a court. though there's MORE than enough people that disagree with their decision. including retired Navy SEALs that were around)

*He punched Jesse Ventura in the face, knocking him to the ground.*
Heard about this one. 8 of 10 jurors decided Kyle didn't have enough proof.

Here's the witnesses: One saw him take a punch. Another said he saw him on the sidewalk outside a bar. Another saw him leave with blood on his lips.

Seems like a strange thing to just make up. 

But ya know, Ventura, a full on pothead obsessed with conspiracy theories that sued the widow of a fallen Navy SEAL for millions, is definitely not a shady guy.

*He killed dozens of looters during Hurricane Katrina from atop the Super Dome.*

According to ONE journalist.

*He shot two guys who were trying to steal his truck.*

There's evidence to suggest it happened. The 2 guys apparently had guns pulled on him. Here’s What American Sniper Chris Kyle Said About His Killing Two Men at a Gas Station in 2009 | FrontBurner | D Magazine

*In Kyle's book, he claims he saw war protesters carrying signs that said "baby killer" *

Yeah, that's totally unimaginable and impossible (sarcasm)


*He found chemical weapons in Iraq that came from France and Germany.*

"Michael McCaffrey writes that this story is lie because 'there is no proof or evidence that this incident occurred.'"

McCaffery is a, let's see here, an ACTING COACH??

Well he would have full clearance on all Special Operation mission details then. Who would know better.


Ha, if that's the best you got, I'm a little disappointed. Not even sure what you're saying it means. That the whole book was made up? 160 confirmed kills out of 255 probable kills. Confirmed kills means there was a witness/witnesses.

k, bored now.


----------



## ectomorphine

EDLC said:


> Yes you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


They dont have an option to run.. where would they run to? Iraq is their home.


----------



## johnnyyukon

> Lol.. it's funny that you generalize a whole group of people..





> I did? Please, provide a quote when I did that.





ectomorphine said:


> "And then they interview conservative Muslims in the street and they're literally calling for her to be stoned to death."
> 
> There you go.


yeah, that's what happened. and they were conservative Muslims.

If I say, "a white man was interviewed and he said he was racist" that doesn't mean all white men are racist.

You get an "E" for effort though.


----------



## conscius

*'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize*

'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize | Rolling Stone



Rolling Stone said:


> -Jan 21 2015
> 
> *I saw American Sniper last night, and hated it slightly less than I expected to. Like most Clint Eastwood movies – and I like Clint Eastwood movies for the most part – it's a simple, well-lit little fairy tale with the nutritional value of a fortune cookie that serves up a neatly-arranged helping of cheers and tears for target audiences, and panics at the thought of embracing more than one or two ideas at any time.*
> 
> It's usually silly to get upset about the self-righteous way Hollywood moviemakers routinely turn serious subjects into baby food. Film-industry people angrily reject the notion that their movies have to be about anything (except things like "character" and "narrative" and "arc," subjects they can talk about endlessly).
> 
> This is the same Hollywood culture that turned the horror and divisiveness of the Vietnam War era into a movie about a platitude-spewing doofus with leg braces who in the face of terrible moral choices eats chocolates and plays Ping-Pong. The message of Forrest Gump was that if you think about the hard stuff too much, you'll either get AIDS or lose your legs. Meanwhile, the hero is the idiot who just shrugs and says "Whatever!" whenever his country asks him to do something crazy.
> 
> Forrest Gump pulled in over half a billion and won Best Picture. So what exactly should we have expected from American Sniper?
> 
> Not much. But even by the low low standards of this business, it still manages to sink to a new depth or two.
> 
> *The thing is, the mere act of trying to make a typically Hollywoodian one-note fairy tale set in the middle of the insane moral morass that is/was the Iraq occupation is both dumber and more arrogant than anything George Bush or even Dick Cheney ever tried.*
> 
> No one expected 20 minutes of backstory about the failed WMD search, Abu Ghraib, or the myriad other American atrocities and quick-trigger bombings that helped fuel the rise of ISIL and other groups.
> 
> *But to turn the Iraq war into a saccharine, almost PG-rated two-hour cinematic diversion about a killing machine with a heart of gold (is there any film theme more perfectly 2015-America than that?) who slowly, very slowly, starts to feel bad after shooting enough women and children – Gump notwithstanding, that was a hard one to see coming.*
> 
> Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism. The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question.
> 
> It's the fact that the movie is popular, and actually makes sense to so many people, that's the problem. "American Sniper has the look of a bona fide cultural phenomenon!" gushed Brandon Griggs of CNN, noting the film's record $105 million opening-week box office.
> 
> Griggs added, in a review that must make Eastwood swell with pride, that the root of the film's success is that "it's about a real person," and "it's a human story, not a political one."
> 
> Well done, Clint! You made a movie about mass-bloodshed in Iraq that critics pronounced not political! That's as Hollywood as Hollywood gets.
> 
> The characters in Eastwood's movies almost always wear white and black hats or their equivalents, so you know at all times who's the good guy on the one hand, and whose exploding head we're to applaud on the other.
> 
> In this case that effect is often literal, with "hero" sniper Chris Kyle's "sinister" opposite Mustafa permanently dressed in black (with accompanying evil black pirate-stubble) throughout.
> 
> Eastwood, who surely knows better, indulges in countless crass stupidities in the movie. There's the obligatory somber scene of shirtless buffed-up SEAL Kyle and his heartthrob wife Sienna Miller gasping at the televised horror of the 9/11 attacks. Next thing you know, Kyle is in Iraq actually fighting al-Qaeda – as if there was some logical connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
> 
> Which of course there had not been, until we invaded and bombed the wrong country and turned its moonscaped cities into a recruitment breeding ground for… you guessed it, al-Qaeda. They skipped that chicken-egg dilemma in the film, though, because it would detract from the "human story."
> 
> Eastwood plays for cheap applause and goes super-dumb even by Hollywood standards when one of Kyle's officers suggests that they could "win the war" by taking out the evil sniper who is upsetting America's peaceful occupation of Sadr City.
> 
> When hunky Bradley Cooper's Kyle character subsequently takes out Mustafa with Skywalkerian long-distance panache – "Aim small, hit small," he whispers, prior to executing an impossible mile-plus shot – even the audiences in the liberal-ass Jersey City theater where I watched the movie stood up and cheered. I can only imagine the response this scene scored in Soldier of Fortune country.
> 
> To Eastwood, this was probably just good moviemaking, a scene designed to evoke the same response he got in Trouble With the Curve when his undiscovered Latin Koufax character, Rigoberto Sanchez, strikes out the evil Bonus Baby Bo Gentry (even I cheered at that scene).
> 
> The problem of course is that there's no such thing as "winning" the War on Terror militarily. In fact the occupation led to mass destruction, hundreds of thousands of deaths, a choleric lack of real sanitation, epidemic unemployment and political radicalization that continues to this day to spread beyond Iraq's borders.
> 
> Yet the movie glosses over all of this, and makes us think that killing Mustafa was some kind of decisive accomplishment – the single shot that kept terrorists out of the coffee shops of San Francisco or whatever. It's a scene that ratified every idiot fantasy of every yahoo with a target rifle from Seattle to Savannah.
> 
> The really dangerous part of this film is that it turns into a referendum on the character of a single soldier. It's an unwinnable argument in either direction. We end up talking about Chris Kyle and his dilemmas, and not about the Rumsfelds and Cheneys and other officials up the chain who put Kyle and his high-powered rifle on rooftops in Iraq and asked him to shoot women and children.
> 
> They're the real villains in this movie, but the controversy has mostly been over just how much of a "hero" Chris Kyle really was. One Academy member wondered to a reporter if Kyle (who in real life was killed by a fellow troubled vet in an eerie commentary on the violence in our society that might have made a more interesting movie) was a "psychopath." Michael Moore absorbed a ton of criticism when he tweeted that "My uncle [was] killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards …"
> 
> And plenty of other commentators, comparing Kyle's book (where he remorselessly brags about killing "savages") to the film (where he is portrayed as a more rounded figure who struggled, if not verbally then at least visually, with the nature of his work), have pointed out that real-life Kyle was kind of a dick compared to movie-Kyle.
> 
> (The most disturbing passage in the book to me was the one where Kyle talked about being competitive with other snipers, and how when one in particular began to threaten his "legendary" number, Kyle "all of the sudden" seemed to have "every stinkin' bad guy in the city running across my scope." As in, wink wink, my luck suddenly changed when the sniper-race got close, get it? It's super-ugly stuff).
> 
> The thing is, it always looks bad when you criticize a soldier for doing what he's told. It's equally dangerous to be seduced by the pathos and drama of the individual solider's experience, because most wars are about something much larger than that, too.
> 
> They did this after Vietnam, when America spent decades watching movies like Deer Hunter and First Blood and Coming Home about vets struggling to reassimilate after the madness of the jungles. So we came to think of the "tragedy" of Vietnam as something primarily experienced by our guys, and not by the millions of Indochinese we killed.
> 
> That doesn't mean Vietnam Veterans didn't suffer: they did, often terribly. But making entertainment out of their dilemmas helped Americans turn their eyes from their political choices. The movies used the struggles of soldiers as a kind of human shield protecting us from thinking too much about what we'd done in places like Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.
> 
> This is going to start happening now with the War-on-Terror movies. As CNN's Griggs writes, "We're finally ready for a movie about the Iraq War." Meaning: we're ready to be entertained by stories about how hard it was for our guys. And it might have been. But that's not the whole story and never will be.
> 
> We'll make movies about the Chris Kyles of the world and argue about whether they were heroes or not. Some were, some weren't. But in public relations as in war, it'll be the soldiers taking the bullets, not the suits in the Beltway who blithely sent them into lethal missions they were never supposed to understand.
> 
> And filmmakers like Eastwood, who could have cleared things up, only muddy the waters more. Sometimes there's no such thing as "just a human story." Sometimes a story is meaningless or worse without real context, and this is one of them.


----------



## Mimic octopus

JasmineDarlene said:


> hahah yes... Same as "Zero Dark 30" a while back


So true, they would never send a ginger on a desert mission, their skin would fry.


----------



## johnnyyukon

TheProphetLaLa said:


> I'm sure its a great movie and very moving. Still, its *obvious propaganda.* And Iraq being the less powerful country gets the short end of the stick. Not that Iraq would be any better, but we're definitely not the "good guys" in this fiasco. *There is no good guy in war.*


Totally. Saw _Captain America,_ was so biased towards America. Couldn't believe it. Propaganda machine at work.

How poetic. I wonder if Parisians would agree that there's no good guys when the U.S. Third Army liberated them from 4 years of Nazi occupation. Or when the Jews in concentration camps were set free by Allied forces.


----------



## Donovan

ectomorphine said:


> They are defenseless, and they have no option but to defend their families against an invading army. Do you think they like killing like Chris Kyle did?


why are they using children to begin with? (keep in mind, i'm not equating the actions of cowards to all people who reside in, or are from, that place)


i haven't seen the movie, nor have i read the book. while i don't necessarily agree (with what i know) of our going to war in the first place, why is this guy getting so much flack? even better question: why is he getting more flack than his counterparts, who do use extreme methods of warfare (such as: using children as weapons, as well as mutilating and desecrating bodies of those that dissent from their cause... i know that our soldiers do the latter as well, but somehow it's worse, and not the exact same, based on who it is that commits the action? also, as far as i know, we don't sanction those kind of war crimes... aside from drone striking innocent civilians, and rationalizing that "terrorists are hiding there"... like it fucking matters. get better at your job and reduce civilian casualty)? 


what exactly is being defended, or attacked here? ISIS (again, as far as i know--what source can you trust?) isn't a sympathetic agency, many of those who we do fight against are not sympathetic combatants, and many of their tactics are gruesome and show a complete lack of respect--to the point of morbidity and pathological sociopathy--for human life... let alone the type of tolerance that i routinely see on this site, given specifically for them.


edit post: if you're going to speak ill of the dead--such as calling them a racist--can you at least back up claims like that... instead of just leaving them and spreading propaganda of your own?


----------



## ectomorphine

Patrick_1 said:


> So true, they would never send a ginger on a desert mission, their skin would fry.


whoa dude, calm down.. she's just stating her opinion.


----------



## MNiS

I'll probably watch it when it comes out on Netflix. I think making a non-political film into something political is pathetic though.


----------



## Stasis

ectomorphine said:


> I mentioned they were defenseless in the context of being invaded by a foreign army.. What would you do if you were a child and your people, family, friends, were being massacred? Would you run away or fight back?


You stated that they were defenseless as a rebuttal to @Apolo's examples of a man giving candy to a child and getting shot and a man throwing himself on a grenade that a kid dropped off of a bridge. It seems like they weren't the defenseless ones in these situations.

This is about me now? Have you ever lived in a hostile environment surrounded by violence? I'm not from the U.S. I know that it can be frightening when you're under constant watch and you can witness a murder right in front of your eyes. The country I was raised in was and still is run by a corrupt government that doesn't even pretend to hide her sins from her people. I can tell you what I've done when I witnessed people killed in front of me but I think it would be more important to explain that I knew that I had a choice in what I did in the aftermath.

The bottom line is, you cannot spare that which is destroying you. I'm not saying that we should kill all women and children because they are possible threats. I'm saying that a child who throws a grenade in a crowd is entitled to the consequences of his or her behavior. Allowing a known threat to run free because they are innocent doesn't really work when the threat is armed and dangerous.


----------



## Mimic octopus

conscius said:


> 'American Sniper' Is Almost Too Dumb to Criticize | Rolling Stone


This article was very tainted by the author's subjectivity.


----------



## ectomorphine

Donovan said:


> why are they using children to begin with? (keep in mind, i'm not equating the actions of cowards to all people who reside in, or are from, that place)
> 
> 
> i haven't seen the movie, nor have i read the book. while i don't necessarily agree (with what i know) of our going to war in the first place, why is this guy getting so much flack? even better question: why is he getting more flack than his counterparts, who do use extreme methods of warfare (such as: using children as weapons, as well as mutilating and desecrating bodies of those that dissent from their cause... i know that our soldiers do the latter as well, but somehow it's worse, and not the exact same, based on who it is that commits the action? also, as far as i know, we don't sanction those kind of war crimes... aside from drone striking innocent civilians, and rationalizing that "terrorists are hiding there"... like it fucking matters. get better at your job and reduce civilian casualty)?
> 
> 
> what exactly is being defended, or attacked here? ISIS (again, as far as i know--what source can you trust?) isn't a sympathetic agency, many of those who we do fight against are not sympathetic combatants, and many of their tactics are gruesome and show a complete lack of respect--to the point of morbidity and pathological sociopathy--for human life... let alone the type of tolerance that i routinely see on this site, given specifically for them.
> 
> 
> edit post: if you're going to speak ill of the dead--such as calling them a racist--can you at least back up claims like that... instead of just leaving them and spreading propaganda of your own?


Maybe this can help.. Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Stone
-Jan 21 2015

I saw American Sniper last night, and hated it slightly less than I expected to. Like most Clint Eastwood movies – and I like Clint Eastwood movies for the most part – it's a simple, well-lit little fairy tale with the nutritional value of a fortune cookie that serves up a neatly-arranged helping of cheers and tears for target audiences, and panics at the thought of embracing more than one or two ideas at any time.

It's usually silly to get upset about the self-righteous way Hollywood moviemakers routinely turn serious subjects into baby food. Film-industry people angrily reject the notion that their movies have to be about anything (except things like "character" and "narrative" and "arc," subjects they can talk about endlessly).

This is the same Hollywood culture that turned the horror and divisiveness of the Vietnam War era into a movie about a platitude-spewing doofus with leg braces who in the face of terrible moral choices eats chocolates and plays Ping-Pong. The message of Forrest Gump was that if you think about the hard stuff too much, you'll either get AIDS or lose your legs. Meanwhile, the hero is the idiot who just shrugs and says "Whatever!" whenever his country asks him to do something crazy.

Forrest Gump pulled in over half a billion and won Best Picture. So what exactly should we have expected from American Sniper?

Not much. But even by the low low standards of this business, it still manages to sink to a new depth or two.

The thing is, the mere act of trying to make a typically Hollywoodian one-note fairy tale set in the middle of the insane moral morass that is/was the Iraq occupation is both dumber and more arrogant than anything George Bush or even Dick Cheney ever tried.

No one expected 20 minutes of backstory about the failed WMD search, Abu Ghraib, or the myriad other American atrocities and quick-trigger bombings that helped fuel the rise of ISIL and other groups.

But to turn the Iraq war into a saccharine, almost PG-rated two-hour cinematic diversion about a killing machine with a heart of gold (is there any film theme more perfectly 2015-America than that?) who slowly, very slowly, starts to feel bad after shooting enough women and children – Gump notwithstanding, that was a hard one to see coming.

Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism. The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question.

It's the fact that the movie is popular, and actually makes sense to so many people, that's the problem. "American Sniper has the look of a bona fide cultural phenomenon!" gushed Brandon Griggs of CNN, noting the film's record $105 million opening-week box office.

Griggs added, in a review that must make Eastwood swell with pride, that the root of the film's success is that "it's about a real person," and "it's a human story, not a political one."

Well done, Clint! You made a movie about mass-bloodshed in Iraq that critics pronounced not political! That's as Hollywood as Hollywood gets.

The characters in Eastwood's movies almost always wear white and black hats or their equivalents, so you know at all times who's the good guy on the one hand, and whose exploding head we're to applaud on the other.

In this case that effect is often literal, with "hero" sniper Chris Kyle's "sinister" opposite Mustafa permanently dressed in black (with accompanying evil black pirate-stubble) throughout.

Eastwood, who surely knows better, indulges in countless crass stupidities in the movie. There's the obligatory somber scene of shirtless buffed-up SEAL Kyle and his heartthrob wife Sienna Miller gasping at the televised horror of the 9/11 attacks. Next thing you know, Kyle is in Iraq actually fighting al-Qaeda – as if there was some logical connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Which of course there had not been, until we invaded and bombed the wrong country and turned its moonscaped cities into a recruitment breeding ground for… you guessed it, al-Qaeda. They skipped that chicken-egg dilemma in the film, though, because it would detract from the "human story."

Eastwood plays for cheap applause and goes super-dumb even by Hollywood standards when one of Kyle's officers suggests that they could "win the war" by taking out the evil sniper who is upsetting America's peaceful occupation of Sadr City.

When hunky Bradley Cooper's Kyle character subsequently takes out Mustafa with Skywalkerian long-distance panache – "Aim small, hit small," he whispers, prior to executing an impossible mile-plus shot – even the audiences in the liberal-ass Jersey City theater where I watched the movie stood up and cheered. I can only imagine the response this scene scored in Soldier of Fortune country.

To Eastwood, this was probably just good moviemaking, a scene designed to evoke the same response he got in Trouble With the Curve when his undiscovered Latin Koufax character, Rigoberto Sanchez, strikes out the evil Bonus Baby Bo Gentry (even I cheered at that scene).

The problem of course is that there's no such thing as "winning" the War on Terror militarily. In fact the occupation led to mass destruction, hundreds of thousands of deaths, a choleric lack of real sanitation, epidemic unemployment and political radicalization that continues to this day to spread beyond Iraq's borders.

Yet the movie glosses over all of this, and makes us think that killing Mustafa was some kind of decisive accomplishment – the single shot that kept terrorists out of the coffee shops of San Francisco or whatever. It's a scene that ratified every idiot fantasy of every yahoo with a target rifle from Seattle to Savannah.

The really dangerous part of this film is that it turns into a referendum on the character of a single soldier. It's an unwinnable argument in either direction. We end up talking about Chris Kyle and his dilemmas, and not about the Rumsfelds and Cheneys and other officials up the chain who put Kyle and his high-powered rifle on rooftops in Iraq and asked him to shoot women and children.

They're the real villains in this movie, but the controversy has mostly been over just how much of a "hero" Chris Kyle really was. One Academy member wondered to a reporter if Kyle (who in real life was killed by a fellow troubled vet in an eerie commentary on the violence in our society that might have made a more interesting movie) was a "psychopath." Michael Moore absorbed a ton of criticism when he tweeted that "My uncle [was] killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards …"

And plenty of other commentators, comparing Kyle's book (where he remorselessly brags about killing "savages") to the film (where he is portrayed as a more rounded figure who struggled, if not verbally then at least visually, with the nature of his work), have pointed out that real-life Kyle was kind of a dick compared to movie-Kyle.

(The most disturbing passage in the book to me was the one where Kyle talked about being competitive with other snipers, and how when one in particular began to threaten his "legendary" number, Kyle "all of the sudden" seemed to have "every stinkin' bad guy in the city running across my scope." As in, wink wink, my luck suddenly changed when the sniper-race got close, get it? It's super-ugly stuff).

The thing is, it always looks bad when you criticize a soldier for doing what he's told. It's equally dangerous to be seduced by the pathos and drama of the individual solider's experience, because most wars are about something much larger than that, too.

They did this after Vietnam, when America spent decades watching movies like Deer Hunter and First Blood and Coming Home about vets struggling to reassimilate after the madness of the jungles. So we came to think of the "tragedy" of Vietnam as something primarily experienced by our guys, and not by the millions of Indochinese we killed.

That doesn't mean Vietnam Veterans didn't suffer: they did, often terribly. But making entertainment out of their dilemmas helped Americans turn their eyes from their political choices. The movies used the struggles of soldiers as a kind of human shield protecting us from thinking too much about what we'd done in places like Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.

This is going to start happening now with the War-on-Terror movies. As CNN's Griggs writes, "We're finally ready for a movie about the Iraq War." Meaning: we're ready to be entertained by stories about how hard it was for our guys. And it might have been. But that's not the whole story and never will be.

We'll make movies about the Chris Kyles of the world and argue about whether they were heroes or not. Some were, some weren't. But in public relations as in war, it'll be the soldiers taking the bullets, not the suits in the Beltway who blithely sent them into lethal missions they were never supposed to understand.

And filmmakers like Eastwood, who could have cleared things up, only muddy the waters more. Sometimes there's no such thing as "just a human story." Sometimes a story is meaningless or worse without real context, and this is one of them.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

johnnyyukon said:


> Totally. Saw _Captain America,_ was so biased towards America. Couldn't believe it. Propaganda machine at work.
> 
> How poetic. I wonder if Parisians would agree that there's no good guys when the U.S. Third Army liberated them from 4 years of Nazi occupation. Or when the Jews in concentration camps were set free by Allied forces.


Yeah, I saw Captain America too. It was so bad I cried. That was clearly reverse propaganda by the enemies. They're everywhere!

I wonder why they were in that situation to begin with. I'm sure its because the Germans are such evils. Honestly, I envy you. Your world must be so simple.


----------



## johnnyyukon

TheProphetLaLa said:


> I wonder why they were in that situation to begin with. I'm sure its because the Germans are such evils. Honestly, I envy you. Your world must be so simple.


Huh? Oh no, the Nazis were good and kind.

Yeah, most people envy me. Ya know, it does get simple when I interact with you. No effort. Like a cat playin' with a mouse, it's nice. Thanks!


----------



## ectomorphine

EDLC said:


> You stated that they were defenseless as a rebuttal to @Apolo's examples of a man giving candy to a child and getting shot and a man throwing himself on a grenade that a kid dropped off of a bridge. It seems like they weren't the defenseless ones in these situations.
> 
> This is about me now? Have you ever lived in a hostile environment surrounded by violence? I'm not from the U.S. I know that it can be frightening when you're under constant watch and you can witness a murder right in front of your eyes. The country I was raised in was and still is run by a corrupt government that doesn't even pretend to hide her sins from her people. I can tell you what I've done when I witnessed people killed in front of me but I think it would be more important to explain that I knew that I had a choice in what I did in the aftermath.
> 
> The bottom line is, you cannot spare that which is destroying you. I'm not saying that we should kill all women and children because they are possible threats. I'm saying that a child who throws a grenade in a crowd is entitled to the consequences of his or her behavior. Allowing a known threat to run free because they are innocent doesn't really work when the threat is armed and dangerous.


No, it was just a question I asked. No need to get personal. I wonder what causes a child to throw a grenade off a building? Maybe because children are suggestible? Maybe environmental factors are at work? Speak for yourself, I would never gun down a child or a woman just because they are a perceived threat. Specially, if I'm the instigator.


----------



## conscius

Patrick_1 said:


> This article was very tainted by the author's subjectivity.


Author is not the one being subjective, unless you're talking about the strength of his distaste for the movie (though he admist to liking most of Eastwood's films). The reason his review works is that he is saying that if you look at the _facts_, you see the movie is an arrogant and offensive dumbing down of a horrific tragedy and a complex phenomenon, something that's still going on! 

I personally think that movie makers could get away with it 20 years from now, when most people had forgotten about the over one million Iraqi deaths, the death of thousands of US soldiers, torture of thousands of people by American soldiers (graphically documented for the world to see), all part of a pre-emptive and illegal invasion and occupation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 attacks.

That's how it is with me and movies about Vietnam. I don't know how truthful they are, how offensive they are, how reductionistic and oversimplified they are. I was not born yet. I'm too lazy to read history. The Hollywood version, if entertaining enough, is worth a look. Because it's about a war from long ago. It's not the Iraq war.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

Donovan said:


> two serial killers, one big, one small: is there a reason to sympathize with either?


Yes, there is.


----------



## Donovan

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Yes, there is.


there's a reason to sympathize with the civilian population (in my opinion), but i disagree with giving any sympathy to those that use tactics as monstrous as our own. i also refuse to sympathize with organizations that think nothing is "wrong" with the barbaric way that they treat homosexuals, women, those who disagree with their opinions, and who choose to utilize children as a form of weaponry. 

unless i'm misconstruing your stance, i think we'd just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## conscius

Clint Eastwood seems to have tried to turn this very questionable character into a hero by leaving out some of his more bigoted views and comments, yet unfortunately he seems to have still adopt this person's dumbed down version of war, a battle of good vs evil. This makes for a popular film because most people don't like complexity and movies with characters that are not all good or all bad, or a war that's confusing. Mindless action-packed entertainment is appealing. Again, I think this could have worked some years from now when people would have forgotten some of the facts of what actually happened and furthermore, when US was no longer involved in Iraq so that there was no way to see this movie as a propaganda tool. But not now. 

"Clint Eastwood's 'American Sniper' Is Flushing Out Twitter's Bloodthirsty Racists"

Clint Eastwood's 'American Sniper' Is Flushing Out Twitter's Bloodthirsty Racists



Huffington Post UK said:


> The movie, which has been nominated for six Oscars, has been widely criticised for supposedly promoting Islamophobic propaganda, glamourising the invasion of Iraq and propagating racial violence.
> 
> Kyle's hatred for Arabs, who he called "savages", was actually toned down quite substantially for his book's journey through Hollywood and focused more on his battle with his own personal demons, but that didn't stop a large chunk of people completely missing the point.


The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?

The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero? | Lindy West | Comment is free | The Guardian



The Guardian said:


> ...much of the US right wing appears to have seized upon American Sniper with similarly shallow comprehension – treating it with the same unconsidered, rah-rah reverence that they would the national anthem or the flag itself. Only a few weeks into its release, the film has been flattened into a symbol to serve the interests of an ideology that, arguably, runs counter to the ethos of the film itself. How much, if at all, should Eastwood concern himself with fans who misunderstand and misuse his work? If he, intentionally or not, makes a hero out of Kyle – who, bare minimum, was a racist who took pleasure in dehumanising and killing brown people – is he responsible for validating racism, murder, and dehumanisation? Is he a propagandist if people use his work as propaganda?
> 
> That question came to the fore last week on Twitter when several liberal journalists drew attention to Kyle’s less Oscar-worthy statements. “Chris Kyle boasted of looting the apartments of Iraqi families in Fallujah,” wrote author and former Daily Beast writer Max Blumenthal. “Kill every male you see,” Rania Khalek quoted, calling Kyle an “American psycho”.
> 
> Retaliation from the rightwing twittersphere was swift and violent, as Khalek documented in an exhaustive (and exhausting) post at Alternet. “Move your America hating ass to Iraq, let ISIS rape you then cut your cunt head off, fucking media whore muslim,” wrote a rather unassuming-looking mom named Donna. “Rania, maybe we to take you ass overthere and give it to ISIS … Dumb bitch,” offered a bearded man named Ronald, who enjoys either bass fishing or playing the bass (we may never know). “Waterboarding is far from torture,” explained an army pilot named Benjamin, all helpfulness. “I wouldn’t mind giving you two a demonstration.”...


American Sniper Is a Rah-Rah War-on-Terror Fantasy - Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly



LA Weekly said:


> ...Kyle's actual enemies were less defined. As seen here, any Iraqi man between 10 and 60 isn't middle-aged but "military-aged" — i.e., a threat. Kyle seemed to think that of every Muslim, writing in his book, "I don't shoot people with Korans. I'd like to, but I don't." (That, too, Eastwood deletes.)...
> 
> It's clear in his book that Kyle had become numb to death. On killing two Iraqis on a moped with one bullet, he joked, "It was like a scene from Dumb and Dumber." (Naturally, Eastwood also omits that.) Eastwood can't carve a morally complicated movie when his main character — in life and on screen — defined people in black-and-white: There's bad guys and good guys and anyone else is a pussy.


----------



## johnnyyukon

> _Ha, oh man. It's always funny to me that the people that scream "bloody murdering baby killers!" at soldiers, _*are the same people those very soldiers protect while their pasty asses sleep.*





Wellsy said:


> This makes me curious, how are soldiers protecting US Citizens by invading another nation illegally based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction that were never found on the basis of "pre-emptive self defense"?


First of all, soldiers don't get together and invade countries. That's politicians making those decisions.

And I know it's probably hard to believe, but there's people that want to harm Americans. I wonder if we'd be in danger if we just dissolved the military. Probably be fine.

Regardless of the questionable invasion of Iraq, there ARE people that voluntarily risk their lives to protect this country and its citizens. They're called soldiers, as is indicated in my quote.

If you can't get that, man, I got nothing for you.







Wellsy said:


> I think the reason you can't see such films as a matter of propaganda for promoting american jingoism is by the fact that you're such a person to buy into this.


Ha, it's the story of one man's experience with war, from his perspective. Are people not allowed to tell those? 

Told by another, Clint Eastwood, who, produced _Letters from Iwo Jima, _ a movie told entirely from the perspective of the Japanese, and with a huge human element. And who also starred in, directed, and produced a movie called _Gran Torino_, about a extremely racist Korean war vet, that comes to understand and respect his Hmong neighbors and culture. Even dying for one of them.

If this movie is jingoist propaganda, ha, as you say, they picked an odd choice for a director.




Wellsy said:


> If I asked you to determine what was fact from fiction in the film i'd be pleasantly surprised if you had a great deal of accuracy, because such entertainment is prone to using its poetic license to portray things in a better light than they occur and that also includes no criticism of American imperialism and the real world harm from the US aggressive foreign policy.


I know for a fact there's inaccuracies. One of the main teasers shows the sniper in the moral dilema of shooting a child running at troops with a rocket/mortar. Confirmed by witnesses, and from the sniper himself, it was actually a woman, not a child. That's called embellishment. 

This isn't a documentary. It's not journalism. It's not a 10 part mini series, objectively examining all the facts. It's entertainment, and based on an incredible (mostly true) story.

It's hilarious to me, people that think hollywood movies are supposed to be unbiased journalism. Journalism isn't even unbiased.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

Donovan said:


> there's a reason to sympathize with the civilian population (in my opinion), but i disagree with giving any sympathy to those that use tactics as monstrous as our own. i also refuse to sympathize with organizations that think nothing is "wrong" with the barbaric way that they treat homosexuals, women, those who disagree with their opinions, and who choose to utilize children as a form of weaponry.
> 
> unless i'm misconstruing your stance, i think we'd just have to agree to disagree.


Yeah, I'd wouldn't sympathize with them either. But there is reason to.


----------



## Wellsy

johnnyyukon said:


> First of all, soldiers don't get together and invade countries. That's politicians making those decisions.
> 
> And I know it's probably hard to believe, but there's people that want to harm Americans. I wonder if we'd be in danger if we just dissolved the military. Probably be fine.
> 
> Regardless of the questionable invasion of Iraq, there ARE people that voluntarily risk their lives to protect this country and its citizens. They're called soldiers, as is indicated in my quote.
> 
> If you can't get that, man, I got nothing for you.


And do you think going into other countries to kill them deters them or actually gives extremists fuel for young angry men to join in on the anti-west sentiment?
I don't see what a rifle can do to destroy these sentiments, using force doesn't stop people hating the US, I'd argue the opposite that it incites more hate, it evokes violence back to the US.
I can admit those that believe they are genuinely giving their lives for their country have a noble intention but I would say in practice it is misguided because one isn't defending their own country by being apart of the invasion of another, unless one has a creative but extremely loose definition of what defense equates to as the US government seems to have. 
But even then I would say it's not helping the US citizens because the benefits from these political maneuvers don't serve the citizens but politicians and associates and the soldiers and their families pay a heavy cost for this.



> Ha, it's the story of one man's experience with war, from his perspective. Are people not allowed to tell those?
> 
> Told by another, Clint Eastwood, who, produced _Letters from Iwo Jima, _ a movie told entirely from the perspective of the Japanese, and with a huge human element. And who also starred in, directed, and produced a movie called _Gran Torino_, about a extremely racist Korean war vet, that comes to understand and respect his Hmong neighbors and culture. Even dying for one of them.
> 
> If this movie is jingoist propaganda, ha, as you say, they picked an odd choice for a director.


No, I think it's fine but one is also allowed to be critical of such works which I imagine you'd agree is fine thing to do. One's perspective is a fine thing to share but there are also other perspective in existence that can also contradict what is shared by the individual, personally I don't hold much against poetic license to improve a story for audiences.
Such criticisms don't mean that the film is a bad one either, just that there are themes that may be present and to be aware of them. Who Clint Eastwood is and what he's done in the past doesn't hold much to the implications and criticisms of this film though. 





> I know for a fact there's inaccuracies. One of the main teasers shows the sniper in the moral dilema of shooting a child running at troops with a rocket/mortar. Confirmed by witnesses, and from the sniper himself, it was actually a woman, not a child. That's called embellishment.
> 
> This isn't a documentary. It's not journalism. It's not a 10 part mini series, objectively examining all the facts. It's entertainment, and based on an incredible (mostly true) story.
> 
> It's hilarious to me, people that think hollywood movies are supposed to be unbiased journalism. Journalism isn't even unbiased.


I don't believe movies are meant to be unbiased journalism, they aren't designed to be documentaries and the ones that say based on a true story aren't held to every detail of course because it's merely based on one. Hell I've not even watched the film myself, but let me guess one thing about it, the main character is a good guy and everyone he kills is a bad guy.
TO many they would consider it rather strange that heroes are made out of those who kill other people for dubious means, we convict murderers, in the context of war though, we give them medals.
Generally though this is equalized by the nature that if the other is a enemy combatant, all is fair with in some limitations.
Think of the reverse, what would you think of extremists if they had a cultural promotional industry like Hollywood and they made a film about killing Americans and what a champion the person was for killing American soldiers.
It kind of puts in perspective that this sense of good guys = our side and bad guys = their side is rather similar to how it could be on the opposition in viewing Americans.

I think criticisms of a film merely incite thoughts as to the real moral foundations of these things, is he a hero for killing these people? To some yes, others no. I would say many pick and choose at what content they're willing to put in frame when assesing this, for example it's easy to assume that all of the people he shot deserved it but we don't actually know the reasons for those he shot.

Let me provide to a review of a game that is actually brutally critical of such media conceptions that if you have the time you might find interesting, I feel it explores the nature of this sort of thing but through the lens of a video game that is critical of not only jingoism but also just the structure of video games. 
It goes for 20 mins so I don't blame you if you skip through it or don't watch it XD




I also don't wish to paint this as an either or thing, it's not that peolpe in the miltiary are either good or bad, such a view of anything to me is too simplified to be accurate.
Those in the military can do justifiably good things just as they can arguably do arguably unjustifiable things.
Condemning the war isn't really a inherent condemnation of the individuals that participate in it but it would be naive to just inherently assume goodness and badness without context and insight into details. I would hope many people think more of their serviceman than as action heroes, there is a reality to those individuals and I would even go so far as to argue that the structure of the US seems well suited to feeding through it's young citizens through it.
It has amazingly appealing benefits, but of course if one ends up on the front line those benefits perhaps don't mean so much if it takes a lot of cost physically and psychologically. 

One could say a game like this itself is propaganda, it's not reflecting inherent truth, but it does offer the counter perspective that one would find most common in American media. 
Because there is often a darker part of such conflicts which give rise to people to stand up against the "bad" but less than perfect people to do terrible things. 
I wouldn't want anyone to be naive to think that their own military is beyond the same pitfalls and flaws of humanity that one can see follow any collection of people in particular circumstances and the US does have plenty of positive stories of strength as well as dark ones of human rights violations. 

But just for further emphasis i'll add this to better frame why we're talking about propaganda.


> Propaganda is a powerful weapon in war; *it is used to dehumanize and create hatred toward a supposed enemy, either internal or external, by creating a false image in the mind.* This can be done by using derogatory or racist terms, avoiding some words or by making allegations of enemy atrocities. *Most propaganda wars require the home population to feel the enemy has inflicted an injustice, which may be fictitious or may be based on facts. The home population must also decide that the cause of their nation is just.*
> 
> Propaganda is also one of the methods used in psychological warfare, which may also involve false flag operations. The term propaganda may also refer to false information meant to reinforce the mindsets of people who already believe as the propagandist wishes. *The assumption is that, if people believe something false, they will constantly be assailed by doubts. Since these doubts are unpleasant* (see cognitive dissonance), *people will be eager to have them extinguished, and are therefore receptive to the reassurances of those in power*. For this reason _propaganda is often addressed to people who are already sympathetic to the agenda_. This process of reinforcement uses an individual's predisposition to self-select "agreeable" information sources as a mechanism for maintaining control.


TO the point of dehumanizing the enemy, this is where I brought up it's easy to hate a caricature, something that is an image as opposed to a human being.
We dissociate the human qualities that this person feels, that they might have family and friends who have been killed which gave rise to their angry motivation that was directed at a easy target, the US, with some views being more correct than others. 
Instead we think of them in racial terms to push them as not being from out group and summarize them as inherently evil with no question as to what created such a person, as if they are simply born this way rather than shaped by an environment and culture that was in part largely establish and destablized by US imperialism.

I imagine you wouldn't perceive yourself as a bad guy if another nation invaded the US, you'd be out to defend your home literally but no doubt the other side would take these same propaganda tactics to portray you as less than you are.
I'm not even sure if one could actually kill another human being while acknowledging aspects of their humanity in their entirety unless they were devoid of the capacity to empathize.


----------



## sootyflues

It's bewildering that someone would even want to make a movie about this guy.


----------



## Mimic octopus

sootyflues said:


> It's bewildering that someone would even want to make a movie about this guy.


Probably because it will gain a lot more interest than "Sootyflues: The Social Justice Warrior".


----------



## sootyflues

I dunno, it could be a comedy. People usually like comedies where the characters insult each other for no reason.


----------



## Mimic octopus

conscius said:


> Author is not the one being subjective, unless you're talking about *the strength of his distaste for the movie* (though he admist to liking most of Eastwood's films). The reason his review works is that he is saying that if you look at the _facts_, you see the movie is an arrogant and offensive dumbing down of a horrific tragedy and a complex phenomenon, something that's still going on!
> 
> I personally think that movie makers could get away with it 20 years from now, when most people had forgotten about the over one million Iraqi deaths, the death of thousands of US soldiers, torture of thousands of people by American soldiers (graphically documented for the world to see), all part of a pre-emptive and illegal invasion and occupation that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 attacks.
> 
> That's how it is with me and movies about Vietnam. I don't know how truthful they are, how offensive they are, how reductionistic and oversimplified they are. I was not born yet. I'm too lazy to read history. The Hollywood version, if entertaining enough, is worth a look. Because it's about a war from long ago. It's not the Iraq war.


That is what I'm talking about, it's not written as a review. My opinion on the Iraq war wouldn't even be valid because there's no way to know everything.


----------



## Mimic octopus

sootyflues said:


> I dunno, it could be a comedy. People usually like comedies where the characters insult each other for no reason.


Ok, I'm actually sorry for that.


----------



## sootyflues

:wink:


----------



## johnnyyukon

Wellsy said:


> And do you think going into other countries to kill them deters them or actually gives extremists fuel for young angry men to join in on the anti-west sentiment?


I think if a group of radicals like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or ISIS is are willing to slaughter cartoonists for drawing pictures, imposing mass crucifixions for those that think differently, total subjugation of women, and a whole host of human atrocities, they're angry/fucked in the head and hate filled already. 

And terrorists have been around bombing embassies, and even U.S. soil long before we invaded Iraq.

Strangely, no major attacks on U.S. soil since then.



Wellsy said:


> I don't see what a rifle can do to destroy these sentiments, using force doesn't stop people hating the US, I'd argue the opposite that it incites more hate, it evokes violence back to the US.


What violence back to the U.S.?






Wellsy said:


> TO many they would consider it rather strange that heroes are made out of those who kill other people for dubious means, we convict murderers, in the context of war though, we give them medals.


As long as humans are around, there will be war. There always has been and always will be.

"Dubious means"? 

Soldiers kill to protect their friends and fellow soldiers. I assure you they're not thinking about idealism in that moment. Far cry from the connotation of "murderer." Though there does exist a small percentage that are truly natural born killers. Lots of studies there.




Wellsy said:


> Think of the reverse, what would you think of extremists if they had a cultural promotional industry like Hollywood and they made a film about killing Americans and what a champion the person was for killing American soldiers.
> It kind of puts in perspective that this sense of good guys = our side and bad guys = their side is rather similar to how it could be on the opposition in viewing Americans.


Oh they most definitely think we are the bad guys. And guarantee they have propaganda. But Iraq and other countries we fight against are/were literally committing genocide (the Kurds, for example).

Not a lot of genocide going on here. On top of their treatment of women and such. That's not a reason to invade, per se, but as far as I'm concerned, they are badder and we are gooder. No black and white, all grey. Our country is far from squeaky clean, nor totally moral. Was never an argument I was making. But I am of the opinion we have higher morals. 




Wellsy said:


> TO the point of dehumanizing the enemy, this is where I brought up it's easy to hate a caricature, something that is an image as opposed to a human being.
> We dissociate the human qualities that this person feels, that they might have family and friends who have been killed which gave rise to their angry motivation that was directed at a easy target, the US, with some views being more correct than others.
> Instead we think of them in racial terms to push them as not being from out group and summarize them as inherently evil with no question as to what created such a person, as if they are simply born this way rather than shaped by an environment and culture that was in part largely establish and destablized by US imperialism.
> 
> I imagine you wouldn't perceive yourself as a bad guy if another nation invaded the US, you'd be out to defend your home literally but no doubt the other side would take these same propaganda tactics to portray you as less than you are.
> I'm not even sure if one could actually kill another human being while acknowledging aspects of their humanity in their entirety unless they were devoid of the capacity to empathize.


Yeah, dehumanizing makes it easier to hate, and practically necessary to kill. Agree.


----------



## ectomorphine

johnnyyukon said:


> I think if a group of radicals like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or ISIS is are willing to slaughter cartoonists for drawing pictures, imposing mass crucifixions for those that think differently, total subjugation of women, and a whole host of human atrocities, they're angry/fucked in the head and hate filled already.
> 
> And terrorists have been around bombing embassies, and even U.S. soil long before we invaded Iraq.
> 
> Strangely, no major attacks on U.S. soil since then.
> 
> 
> 
> What violence back to the U.S.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as humans are around, there will be war. There always has been and always will be.
> 
> "Dubious means"?
> 
> Soldiers kill to protect their friends and fellow soldiers. I assure you they're not thinking about idealism in that moment. Far cry from the connotation of "murderer." Though there does exist a small percentage that are truly natural born killers. Lots of studies there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they most definitely think we are the bad guys. And guarantee they have propaganda. But Iraq and other countries we fight against are/were literally committing genocide (the Kurds, for example).
> 
> Not a lot of genocide going on here. On top of their treatment of women and such. That's not a reason to invade, per se, but as far as I'm concerned, they are badder and we are gooder. No black and white, all grey. Our country is far from squeaky clean, nor totally moral. Was never an argument I was making. But I am of the opinion we have higher morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, dehumanizing makes it easier to hate, and practically necessary to kill. Agree.


Hey I'm curious, are you defending Chris Kyle, the film, or both? Also, do you justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq?


----------



## johnnyyukon

ectomorphine said:


> Hey I'm curious, are you defending Chris Kyle, the film, or both? Also, do you justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq?


I'm absolutely defending him. And the film. I love Clint Eastwood's stuff. But I'm not in here expecting to change minds. Some people really seem to hate this guy. I'm merely bored and like debate. 

No, not justifying Iraq. I have no idea why we went over there. Seems like a disaster and motivated by some very shady political reasons. I can't say much on that because I don't know enough.


----------



## Wellsy

johnnyyukon said:


> I think if a group of radicals like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or ISIS is are willing to slaughter cartoonists for drawing pictures, imposing mass crucifixions for those that think differently, total subjugation of women, and a whole host of human atrocities, they're angry/fucked in the head and hate filled already.
> 
> And terrorists have been around bombing embassies, and even U.S. soil long before we invaded Iraq.
> 
> Strangely, no major attacks on U.S. soil since then.


Why do you think they did this? 
The middle east has been fucked over by Western political powers for a century now and though the British Empire has faded somewhat, the US has risen in it's place and continues the tradition.
Extremists generally exist on the fringe of society and have little power except when circumstances push society to an extreme itself in reaction to material factors negatively influencing it, of which the US is in part responsbile for the outcome.
These people aren't born hate filled, they' shaped by their an environment, an environment that was undermined by international political action.



> What violence back to the U.S.?


Islamic terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> As long as humans are around, there will be war. There always has been and always will be.
> 
> "Dubious means"?
> 
> Soldiers kill to protect their friends and fellow soldiers. I assure you they're not thinking about idealism in that moment. Far cry from the connotation of "murderer." Though there does exist a small percentage that are truly natural born killers. Lots of studies there.


War is messy and people get hurt who shouldn't.
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* *






> The Iraq Body Count project (IBC project), incorporating subsequent reports, has reported that by the end of the major combat phase up to April 30, 2003, 7,419 civilians had been killed, primarily by U.S. air-and-ground forces.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][88][/SUP]It shows a total range of at least 110,591 to 120,816 civilian deaths in the whole conflict as of December 12, 2012.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][91][/SUP]
> This total represents civilian deaths due to war-related violence that have been reported by media organizations, non-governmental-organization-based reports, and official records.[SUP][19][/SUP] The IBC project has been criticized by some who believe it counts only a small percentage of the number of actual deaths because of its reliance on media sources.[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][92][/SUP] The IBC project's director, John Sloboda, has stated, "We've always said our work is an undercount, you can't possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the deaths."[SUP][93][/SUP] However, the IBC project rejects many of these criticisms as exaggerated or misinformed.[SUP][94][/SUP]





Though of course I imagine one would say this is because shit happens but when I think of putting this into context of it being an illegal war, these are needless deaths, the deaths of the soldiers are needless and I don't believe the US government is genuinely interested in footing the bill for the healthcare costs of veterans, not only physically but psychologically. 
Though there are good people who work to raise funds to support those physically and mentally wounded, but charity doesn't work on as large a scale as the state generally.

But to pose the morality of it pose an example that if you and someone purposely went out of your way to be in a situation in which you knew there'd be a violent confontation meaning you or another person were going to die and you defended your friend from being killed you could perhaps claim self defense.
But i'd say it's still morally dubious in the sense that you purposely went to that situation knowing it was going to end one way or the other, is it a moral high ground to say i'm simply defending my friends which is a valid reason to shoot back but when you purposely are put in that scenario for it to play out?
Perhaps wouldn't legally be accountable because anyone in such a situation has a right to defend themselves and I do consider the environment to which I think people are funneled through the army to which I see US citizens a victim of their military industrial complex as I do those who suffer at the hands of US foreign policy. 



> Oh they most definitely think we are the bad guys. And guarantee they have propaganda. But Iraq and other countries we fight against are/were literally committing genocide (the Kurds, for example).
> 
> Not a lot of genocide going on here. On top of their treatment of women and such. That's not a reason to invade, per se, but as far as I'm concerned, they are badder and we are gooder. No black and white, all grey. Our country is far from squeaky clean, nor totally moral. Was never an argument I was making. But I am of the opinion we have higher morals.


I'm not yet convinced involvement of the American Armed Forces will strongly correlate to fighting genocide, I'm still by the stance the reason it even exists in the first place is their political involvement.
Like look at this, you can check out the list but first one says.


> *1. Prevent armed conflict*
> 
> As genocide is most likely to occur during war, one of the best ways to reduce the chances of genocide is to address the root causes of violence and conflict: hatred, intolerance, racism, discrimination, tyranny, and the dehumanizing public discourse that denies whole groups of people their dignity and their rights. Addressing inequalities in access to resources constitutes a critical prevention strategy. The primary responsibility for conflict prevention rests with national governments. The UN supports national efforts, including through political, diplomatic, humanitarian, human rights, and institutional activities. Economic and social development and alleviating poverty also make a substantial contribution to preventing conflict.


So I'm kind of leaning towards that starting wars to prevent genocide ain't such a hot idea, like mentioned earlier if there are humanitarian intentions, military conflict is a really bad way to go about it and I think such force often inflames the situation and gives rise to extremism more than it does to fight it.
I would even say that a large problem in the middle east is one of economical concerns which relates to international interference that caused such instability in itself, not the only factor but a big one. 



> Yeah, dehumanizing makes it easier to hate, and practically necessary to kill. Agree.


Thanks for talking Johnny, I enjoyed this, I was mostly curious to what you thought and i'm satisfied, feel free to respond once more though as i'll certainly read it.
I'm sure Clint Eastwood has some decent directing skills by now and it seems to many it's a well received film.

EDIT: For fun will add just how fucked up US policies are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
For some fun reading material, also:
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20080424.htm


----------



## Apolo

Patrick_1 said:


> That is what I'm talking about, it's not written as a review. My opinion on the Iraq war wouldn't even be valid because there's no way to know everything.


This is what people are blatantly ignoring when criticizing this movie. I expect the same people who are criticizing American Sniper, to also have criticized Rambo, The Interview, etc.... BUUUUT, they are looking for any little, irrelevant thing they can latch on to to demonize the movie... *It is a MOVIE!! Not a DOCUMENTARY!*

Some people just need to get a life. 




conscius said:


> Clint Eastwood *Made a movie based on a book*
> 
> huffingtonpost.co.uk
> 
> Guardian
> 
> LA Weekly


I fixed the top portion of your post for you.

And

Huffington, the guardian, and la weekly, lmao.... You have lost all credibility.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Apolo said:


> This is what people are blatantly ignoring when criticizing this movie. I expect the same people who are criticizing American Sniper, to also have criticized Rambo, The Interview, etc.... BUUUUT, they are looking for any little, irrelevant thing they can latch on to to demonize the movie... *It is a MOVIE!! Not a DOCUMENTARY!*
> 
> Some people just need to get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fixed the top portion of your post for you.
> 
> And
> 
> Huffington, the guardian, and la weekly, lmao.... You have lost all credibility.


I really don't know who you think you are. Everyone is having a civil conversation here.

Which sources do you think are legitimate? Fox News? lol


----------



## Apolo

Snakecharmer said:


> I really don't know who you think you are. Everyone is having a civil conversation here.
> 
> Which sources do you think are legitimate? Fox News? lol


Because I said that.. Right? 

And what about the rest of my post, feel free to answer.


Also, this is not a debate about whether invading Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do... The political reasoning behind invading Iraq has nothing to do with this movie, again, this MOVIE. 

The movie is about a man, who used his extraordinary talent to provide overwatch for soldiers on the ground, who were engaging insurgents. Regardless of why the US was there, he was protecting Americans, in the best way that he could, in order to help them return home safely. 

Of course while there he grew to despises the insurgents... If you watched them slaughter THEIR OWN PEOPLE, would you not grow to hate the insurgents as well?! If you think being exposed to the evil that was present among the Iraqi Insurgents would not make you loathe them, think again. 

For those who are making ignorant claims that he "murdered", innocent women and children... Do you think that those who were actually innocent did not also want to be saved from the likes of "The Butcher" an actual Iraqi Insurgent who tortured and slaughtered his own people with power drills? Or the men that operated the Slaughter Houses, where they would gut and hang their own people?

Give me a break, and open your eyes. I feel like a number of those in this thread demonizing Kyle, are Grade Schoolers, with 0 idea of what the world is actually like, living in their protected little bubbles, thinking that the only real evil that exists, only does so in Disney movies.


----------



## Shahada

Patrick_1 said:


> I've read that he lied about a few of his kills. But why is he a openly racist Nazi who enjoyed killing innocent people?


He literally said in his book he loved murdering people, all Iraqis were "guilty," and all Iraqis are savages.


----------



## Resolution

Shahada said:


> Care to explain the nuance that makes sealing off a city and indiscriminately slaughtering anyone who steps outside past a certain curfew, which is exactly what happened in Fallujah among other things, acceptable? Especially in the context of an aggressive invasion? Would really be interested in hearing that.


Care to read up on any war ever waged? Ever? 



> A human look, huh? Where does it show the side of him we see in that book, about how he loved murdering? About how all Iraqis are savages? Where do we see the side of him that loved to brag (probably falsely) about slaughtering looters during Katrina? Is that in there too? Or is he a grand American hero who makes great sacrifices for his country and is kinda weepy about maybe killing innocent people? Aw, what a poor little baby. When you think about it, the marauding rapists, thieves and murderers who destroyed Iraq are the _real_ victims in this.


You simply do not understand. Nor could you hope to, your viewpoint is simply divorced too far and your ideological biases are too strong. 

To someone who takes life, there is a line. When an enemy crosses that line, their identity becomes _that which is now to be killed._ That's it. You cannot hesitate. If you hesitate for a moment too long, it will be someone else dwelling on the consequences of the fact that they killed you and not the other way around. 

Or no, I suppose the sniper Shahada would simply allow his friends and comrades to die, not if protecting those who you share an obligation to protect means killing some innocent twisted by evil US policy, especially if that innocent is some sacred "woman" or "child" (your victim-worship ideology shines through even now). 

When some fucker crosses that red line and killing them protects and serves your comrades from being slaughtered themselves, your damn right it feels good to anyone with a soul.

If we ever serve in an army together, I hope to God that I am not deployed anywhere near you.


----------



## Resolution

Shahada said:


> It's not, and I don't care about your major. Imperialism in the 21st century takes a different shape. Also, care to back up your statement that "much" of the population "very much" wanted the US to invade and forcefully establish a "democracy?" Where is that democracy, anyway? It's been 11 years now. Are you sure you were a history major? Did you graduate? Because you seem to have a short memory for history.Do you think every Kurd and Shia Muslim in Iraq loves the Americans or something? The fact that Saddam oppressed people makes it okay when we invade and set up our own oppressive state apparatus? You might want to see about the return policy on that degree.


The situation is an extreme mess. Counterinsurgency always is. It was not and never will be pretty. That said, the sovereignty of certain groups was certainly elevated in comparison to their absolute oppression beneath the rule of Hussein. The rise in Kurdish autonomy for example, was very concerning for the Turks. 

Regional governing bodies have replaced the top-down authoritarianism of Saddam, courts based upon law have been established, and voter turnout remains in excess of 60% for the entire population (both genders). Are you sincerely incapable of understanding the difference between this and the rule of Saddam? 

But no, such nuances are lost on you. To you there is only one oppressor and the next, you hate the power itself and thus you are blinded to any nuance within. I sincerely hope you never actually undertook any study in this field, because you are really bad at this.


----------



## conscius

Apolo said:


> It is a MOVIE!! Not a DOCUMENTARY!


It's a movie that misrepresents facts, tries to make a hero out of a people-hating bigot, and glamorizes war and invasion that led to injury of millions people, death of over a million Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers. Tens of thousands of American soldiers are suffering from physical or mental illnesses. How ironic that the person the movie is based on was shot and killed in real life by a war vet who suffered from PTSD. Apparently you don't even have to go to Iraq to get a dose of reality. 

I don't have a problem with the movie if it's rated FT, for Fairy Tale. Or P for propaganda, if they try to _present_ it as reality. It's either fantasy or deception, no way around it.


----------



## Apolo

conscius said:


> It's a movie that misrepresents facts, tries to make a hero out of a people-hating bigot, and glamorizes war and invasion that led to injury of millions people, death of over a million Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers. Tens of thousands of American soldiers are suffering from physical or mental illnesses. How ironic that the person the movie is based on was shot and killed in real life by a war vet who suffered from PTSD. Apparently you don't even have to go to Iraq to get a dose of reality.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the movie if it's rated FT, for Fairy Tale. Or P for propaganda, if they try to _present_ it as reality. It's either fantasy or deception, no way around it.


So, you take all movies as fact, and expect them to play out like a documentary? You must be a blast to watch movies with... 




Btmangan said:


> If we ever serve in an army together, I hope to God that I am not deployed anywhere near you.


I got your back, battle. "A clear conscience is the softest pillow."


----------



## Resolution

Apolo said:


> So, you take all movies as fact, and expect them to play out like a documentary? You must be a blast to watch movies with...
> 
> I got your back, battle. "A clear conscience is the softest pillow."


So many people in this thread, too morally "good" to be soldiers, too "superior" as human beings to be soldiers, even though the societal ground they stand upon where they construct their fanciful moralizing is _paved in the blood of soldiers. 

_This thread is making me ill.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Btmangan said:


> the societal ground they stand upon where they construct their fanciful moralizing is _paved in the blood of soldiers_.


Coming from a military family, I'd like to note that that societal ground is _paved in the __blood, sweat and tears of every individual who helped build that society_.

Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt that military actions taken in the middle east are responsible for the current rights enjoyed by individuals all over the Western world. I personally feel the last time we fought for a just cause was WWII.


----------



## ectomorphine

Btmangan said:


> So many people in this thread, too morally "good" to be soldiers, too "superior" as human beings to be soldiers, even though the societal ground they stand upon where they construct their fanciful moralizing is _paved in the blood of soldiers.
> 
> _This thread is making me ill.


 Whoa, nobody is proclaiming these things, calm down..


----------



## Shahada

Btmangan said:


> Care to read up on any war ever waged? Ever?


Yes, I know what war is and what happens in it. Does that mean I should accept it or support it? This is the laziest argument ever.



Btmangan said:


> You simply do not understand. Nor could you hope to, your viewpoint is simply divorced too far and your ideological biases are too strong.




Lol, as if your spirited defense of child murder and imperialist aggression isn't an ideological bias. Give me a fucking break.



Btmangan said:


> Or no, I suppose the sniper Shahada would simply allow his friends and comrades to die, not if protecting those who you share an obligation to protect means killing some innocent twisted by evil US policy, especially if that innocent is some sacred "woman" or "child" (your victim-worship ideology shines through even now).


"Victim-worship ideology?" What does this mean? Also, are you saying innocent women and children don't die in war? Why scare quotes around "women" and "child?" Am I supposed to just accept that?

Also, I wouldn't be a sniper in the US military anyway, because I am not a person who thinks it is an acceptable or moral decision to be a hired murderer.



Btmangan said:


> When some fucker crosses that red line and killing them protects and serves your comrades from being slaughtered themselves, your damn right it feels good to anyone with a soul.


Maybe if you're a dull witted murderer brainwashed by racist, nationalist ideology.



Btmangan said:


> The situation is an extreme mess. Counterinsurgency always is. It was not and never will be pretty. That said, the sovereignty of certain groups was certainly elevated in comparison to their absolute oppression beneath the rule of Hussein. The rise in Kurdish autonomy for example, was very concerning for the Turks.
> 
> Regional governing bodies have replaced the top-down authoritarianism of Saddam, courts based upon law have been established, and voter turnout remains in excess of 60% for the entire population (both genders). Are you sincerely incapable of understanding the difference between this and the rule of Saddam?


No, I just don't look at this in isolation like you do. You know what else is a regional governing body in Iraq? ISIS. Lol. The fact that this is the best you can do to justify an illegal imperialist invasion is revealing of the weakness of your position.



Btmangan said:


> But no, such nuances are lost on you. To you there is only one oppressor and the next, you hate the power itself and thus you are blinded to any nuance within. I sincerely hope you never actually undertook any study in this field, because you are really bad at this.


Sorry I can't meet the incredibly high standards of the undergrad history major who argues earnestly for the necessity of murdering children on the internet.



Btmangan said:


> So many people in this thread, too morally "good" to be soldiers, too "superior" as human beings to be soldiers, even though the societal ground they stand upon where they construct their fanciful moralizing is _paved in the blood of soldiers. _


You're right, I am too moral to be a soldier in the imperialist army of the US, the hired guns of international capitalism. It's sad that you can't say the same.



ectomorphine said:


> Whoa, nobody is proclaiming these things, calm down..


I am, at least as far as the US military in its current form. Obviously militaries have their place, national defense and all, but the US military hasn't primarily served that purpose in over a century.


----------



## Mimic octopus

Btmangan said:


> If we ever serve in an army together, I hope to God that I am not deployed anywhere near you.


Don't worry about that. That would require them making a contribution by putting their life on the line instead of slandering people that do.


----------



## Shahada

Patrick_1 said:


> Don't worry about that. That would require them making a contribution by putting their life on the line instead of slandering people that do.


It's not slander if it's true.


----------



## ectomorphine

Shahada said:


> Yes, I know what war is and what happens in it. Does that mean I should accept it or support it? This is the laziest argument ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, as if your spirited defense of child murder and imperialist aggression isn't an ideological bias. Give me a fucking break.
> 
> 
> 
> "Victim-worship ideology?" What does this mean? Also, are you saying innocent women and children don't die in war? Why scare quotes around "women" and "child?" Am I supposed to just accept that?
> 
> Also, I wouldn't be a sniper in the US military anyway, because I am not a person who thinks it is an acceptable or moral decision to be a hired murderer.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you're a dull witted murderer brainwashed by racist, nationalist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just don't look at this in isolation like you do. You know what else is a regional governing body in Iraq? ISIS. Lol. The fact that this is the best you can do to justify an illegal imperialist invasion is revealing of the weakness of your position.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I can't meet the incredibly high standards of the undergrad history major who argues earnestly for the necessity of murdering children on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I am too moral to be a soldier in the imperialist army of the US, the hired guns of international capitalism. It's sad that you can't say the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I am, at least as far as the US military in its current form. Obviously militaries have their place, national defense and all, but the US military hasn't primarily served that purpose in over a century.


lol.. I just don't understand how a soldier's blood paved the way for the societal grounds I stand in.. I don't owe soldiers respect or the "thank you for your service" nod for murdering for profit.. Respect is earned, and for me it has to be gained on moral grounds.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

ectomorphine said:


> lol.. I just don't understand how a soldier's blood paved the way for the societal grounds I stand in.. I don't owe soldiers respect or the "thank you for your service" nod for murdering for profit.. Respect is earned, and for me it has to be gained on moral grounds.


I don't believe in the concept of respect.


----------



## Resolution

ectomorphine said:


> Whoa, nobody is proclaiming these things, calm down..


People are proclaiming these things. Calm down.


----------



## Shahada

Threads like this really make me depressed at the degree of fascist military worship in the US. You can't quote a guy's own words of being a racist murderer without having a bunch of people screaming at you about how he was a hero because he murdered brown children.




ectomorphine said:


> lol.. I just don't understand how a soldier's blood paved the way for the societal grounds I stand in.. I don't owe soldiers respect or the "thank you for your service" nod for murdering for profit.. Respect is earned, and for me it has to be gained on moral grounds.


Even if there is something to that argument, the US military as it exists in the 21st century is not at all an institution that ensures "freedom" or "liberty" or whatever the fuck for anyone or anything except international capital.


----------



## Shahada

Some more examples of the good work Chris Kyle was doing in Iraq:

PM's comments endangered my life: aid worker - SpecialsWarOnIraq - www.smh.com.au



> Ms Mulhearn, 34, said the situation in Fallujah was reaching the point of an humanitarian crisis.
> 
> Many families were stuck there with few supplies because US soldiers would not allow them to leave, she said.
> 
> 
> "Even during a so-called ceasefire, Fallujah was under siege with bombing, missiles and mortar attacks," she said.
> 
> 
> *"But the worst form of attack was the US snipers hiding on rooftops who kill hundreds of civilians as they tried to move about the city."*


Pacifica.org



> *The official number killed in Fallujah is 600, but the total number of civilian casualties is likely much higher.* The official tally only reflects those deaths reported by the cities mosques and clinics. *But American snipers and bombers have killed many people while they are inside their homes. *
> 
> 
> The doctor says his ambulance was attacked multiple times as it sought to bring aid to residents stranded in their homes. Once when it was trying to retrieve dead bodies for burial and a second time when it was attempting to bring food aid to homes cut off by American snipers
> 
> 
> *"I see people carrying a white flag and yelling for us saying 'We are here' just try to save us but we cannot save them because whenever we open the ambulance they will shoot us. We try to carry food or water by constrainers. As soon as you carry food or water, the snipers shot the containers of food. *


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0423-12.htm



> Abu Muher said US warplanes were bombing the city heavily last Saturday prior to his departure, and that Marine snipers continued to take their toll, shot after shot, on residents of the besieged city. *"There were so many snipers, anyone leaving their house was killed," he recalled.
> 
> 
> Abu Muher, along with two other men from Fallujah who arrived in Baghdad last weekend, said American warplanes had dropped cluster bombs on a road behind their houses in Fallujah.* One of the men was too afraid to permit his name to be used in this article. "My neighbors saw the bomblets," he said, "and I heard the horrible sound that only the cluster bombs make when they are dropped on us. My home was hit by their shrapnel. I was too afraid to leave my home to look for myself because of the snipers."
> 
> 
> *Abdul Aziz, the 15 year-old son of Abu Muher, stated, "I saw two of my neighbors shot by US snipers when I went outside one time. I also saw some of the small cluster bombs on the ground that were dropped by the warplanes of the Americans. Most times, we were too afraid even to look out of our windows."*


U.S. Aims To Lure Insurgents With 'Bait'



> *A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.
> 
> 
> The classified program was described in investigative documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers who are accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed. *
> 
> 
> "Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. "Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces."
> 
> 
> In documents obtained by The Washington Post from family members of the accused soldiers, Didier said members of the U.S. military's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later passed along ammunition boxes filled with the "drop items" to be used "to disrupt the AIF attempts at harming Coalition Forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."
> 
> 
> Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a baiting program should be examined "quite meticulously" because it raises troubling possibilities, such as what happens when civilians pick up the items.
> 
> 
> *"In a country that is awash in armaments and magazines and implements of war, if every time somebody picked up something that was potentially useful as a weapon, you might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back," Fidell said.*


http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=04/04/15/5024786



> LG: Yeah, I mean, indeed. My colleague and I and some international volunteers from the United Kingdom and the US had to take over the responsibility for getting patients out of bomb damaged hospitals to one of the remaining make-shift hospitals, which is actually a converted doctors surgery effectively – because the ambulances were being shot at by the US forces. *In fact, my colleague who is not very far away from me at the moment, was in one of the last functioning ambulances in Fallujah when he was sniped driving. I think they fired four or five rounds at it, just missing him, I think the ambulance was destroyed. When we left, that was this morning, that was the last ambulance – more or less – in Fallujah.*





> *About a half an hour after cease-fire had been called I was standing outside the hospital and I saw an Iraqi man of 28 years old who was an Iraqi nurse come from another city to try and help people in Fallujah, shot through the liver by a sniper as he was unloading an ambulance. *


Fallujah Residents Report U.S. Forces Engaged in Collective Punishment - The NewStandard



> Abu Muher said US warplanes were bombing the city heavily last Saturday prior to his departure, and that Marine snipers continued to take their toll, shot after shot, on residents of the besieged city. *“There were so many snipers, anyone leaving their house was killed,” he recalled.*
> […]
> *Abdul Aziz, the 15 year-old son of Abu Muher, stated, “I saw two of my neighbors shot by US snipers when I went outside one time. *I also saw some of the small cluster bombs on the ground that were dropped by the warplanes of the Americans. Most times, we were too afraid even to look out of our windows” (New Standard, 23 April 2004).


IRAQ: Ramadi Becomes Another Fallujah | Inter Press Service



> “On the side of the main street you will find destroyed buildings, and military tents on the buildings for snipers. *Be careful, if you hear any sound of fighting, hide in the side roads, park your car there and get in any house and hide, because snipers will kill anyone who moves, even if the fighting is in another area.”*
> 
> 
> Sheikh Majeed al-Ga’oud is from Wahaj al-Iraq village just outside Ramadi, and visits the city regularly. He also described snipers killing without discretion.
> 
> 
> *“The American snipers don’t make any distinction between civilians or fighters, anything that moves, he shoots immediately. This is a very dirty thing, they are killing lots of civilians who are not fighters.”*
> 
> 
> According to the Iraqi friend, many people have been killed in Ramadi because they simply do not know which parts of the city are now no-go zones.
> 
> 
> One such area is the main street through Ramadi. After the first traffic light you are not allowed to proceed forward, only to the right or left.
> 
> 
> *“The way is blocked, not by concrete, but by snipers. Anyone who goes ahead in the street will be killed. There’s no sign that it’s not allowed, but it’s known to the local people. Many people came to visit us from Baghdad. They didn’t know this and they went ahead a few metres and were killed.'*



Sources gathered from here

This is what the people in this thread are defending with tired arguments about "nuance" and "war is hell." Just keep this in mind every time you see one of these people trying to rationalize Chris Kyle's racist murder spree.


----------



## Snakecharmer

This will be a two-part post. 

Yesterday, this article was was posted on this website. Today, the writer posted a follow-up (I will post that separately).

This might help shed some light on why so many people are upset about the movie.

The Real American Sniper: Why Chris Kyle Wasn't A Hero

The following words are not meant to spit on the grave of Chris Kyle, but rather address a reality that may be unpleasant for many to hear. Chris Kyle was not a hero. He did not protect America or keep it safe. He killed a lot. He also, apparently, lied a lot as well. Sometimes truth lies beyond the lens of star-spangled glasses and once you have the courage to look beyond a constructed work of fiction, you may realize that the facts do not align with your belief system. It may not be easy, but sometimes the truth is harsh. If we, as a people are genuinely in pursuit of truth and the justice that follows, we must distance ourselves from the warm feelings that certain narratives provide and search objectively without the blinders that provide us comfort.

Kyle’s story takes place in Iraq, his weapon and astute aim followed along with him. The former Navy SEAL and bronco rider was responsible for 160 confirmed deaths – 255 if you include unconfirmed kills – while he was stationed in the land that was once ancient Babylon. How can it be said that a single person he killed was on behalf of protecting the American way of life or its freedoms when Iraq nor its people were ever a threat to either? Kyle was a member of an invading force. To protect someone or something, an outside threat must first be made, otherwise what is labeled as protector is actually an aggressor.

No matter your thoughts surrounding the events on 9/11, one thing that is for certain is that Iraq was not involved. Saddam Hussein never attacked the United States, nor did it appear that he ever had plans to do so. Hussein’s regime, although not innocent of crimes in its own country, was not a threat to the United States or its citizens. And despite the Bush administration’s assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they didn’t.

It may be brutal to hear, but the facts dictate that none of the people that Chris Kyle killed were a threat to America, its freedoms, or its way of life.

So who or what was the Texan protecting?

It can be said that Kyle was protecting lives by making the argument that he was providing cover for his fellow soldiers; soldiers that should have never been in harm’s way to begin with. The cover provided to US soldiers should have come in the form of not sending them into a country that posed zero threat to the United States. If the US government actually cared about protecting its citizens, instead of providing snipers to serve as their protectors, it should have shielded them by not sending them onto a battlefield constructed of lies. Thousands of Americans who were sent back to their families with a flag draped over their maimed and lifeless bodies would still be alive today if not for the actions and needless meddling of the US government. While it is very true that Chief Kyle was not to blame for the foreign policy of his employer, he was a cog in its wheel, and more importantly he took pleasure in his duty of senseless death.

American Sniper, the movie based on his words, makes Kyle appear as if he was conflicted by the scores who were killed by his marksmanship. Unfortunately for his legacy, his actual words tell a different story.

“I wondered, how would I feel about killing someone? Now I know. It’s no big deal”

Another quote from Kyle’s book describes his thoughts on the Iraqi people,
“Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy ‘savages’…. I only wish I had killed more.”

The sniper also described his chosen profession of killing by saying,
“You do it until there’s no one left to kill. That’s what war is. I loved what I did… I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun.”

Kyle also relays his lack of regret by saying,
“There’s another question people ask a lot: Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq? I tell them ‘No.’ And I mean it.”

As far as the moral ambiguity that he dealt with, Kyle said
“I have a strong sense of justice. It’s pretty much black-and-white. I don’t see too much gray.”

The last passage from American Sniper that I will list truly demonstrates Kyle’s lack of heroism:
“A teenager, I’d guess about fifteen, sixteen, appeared on the street and squared up with an AK-47 to fire at them. I dropped him. A minute or two later, an Iraqi woman came running up, saw him on the ground, and tore off her clothes. She was obviously his mother. I’d see the families of the insurgents display their grief, tear off clothes, even rub the blood on themselves. If you loved them, I thought, you should have kept them away from the war. You should have kept them from joining the insurgency.”

The insurgency that the sniper is referring to is the local Iraqi insurgency that would have never existed if the United States hadn’t invaded Iraq to begin with. These “insurgents” weren’t making their way overseas to hurt Kyle’s family, so where does his malice towards the child he killed in cold blood come from?

Maybe you’ll choose not to trust that Kyle really believed the words he wrote in his own book, I couldn’t blame you, after all Kyle was caught in multiple lies while he was still alive.

Regardless of whether you approve of Jesse Ventura famously pursuing his lawsuit against Kyle after his death, Ventura did prove in court that Kyle lied about punching him at a Navy SEAL reunion in 2006. The former governor of Minnesota was awarded 1.8 million dollars for Kyle’s tall tale despite being told he would never prove in a court of law that the ghost of an American hero had lied. He did. HarperCollins, the publisher of American Sniper also had to remove the story from future printings of the book.

Another lie that Kyle was caught in was a story he told to D Magazine regarding a supposed run in with two car jackers in 2009. The incident supposedly took place at a gas station somewhere along Highway 67 just south of Dallas, Tx. Kyle claimed that he shot the two men each twice in the chest, killing them both. He never claimed that either man fired a shot at him. The former military man said that he waited on local law enforcement to arrive and once on the scene he gave them a phone number that directed the officers to the Department of Defense. The person on the other end vouched for him and he was sent on his way, according to Kyle. The problem with this story is that despite various publications having attempted to verify Kyle’s account multiple times, there is still not a single shred of evidence that it ever happened.

The real life American Sniper also told a tale about him and a comrade being ordered to New Orleans in the direct aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The story goes that the two were stationed atop the Superdome. Kyle then proceeded to pick off and kill 30 looters dead in the streets from atop the home of the New Orleans Saints. There is absolutely no evidence to corroborate this narrative either.

Either Chris Kyle was a cold-blooded killer who took it upon himself to be judge, jury, and executioner while killing Americans dead in its streets or he was a liar. Whichever story you choose to believe, one thing is for certain, the real American Sniper was no hero.

Hollywood is a business, and as with the goal of any business, their objective is to generate profit. The movie industry does so through visual story telling. A studio produces films to make you feel a certain way which in turn allows the studios to recoup their expenses and ideally generate a profit. The story of Chris Kyle is no different.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying a film, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that the heroic Chris Kyle portrayed on the silver screen is the same as the real life Chris Kyle. One of them was payed to sway your emotions while the real one was paid to kill those that never ever threatened the rights which allow these type of films to be made in the first place.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Shahada said:


> Threads like this really make me depressed at the degree of fascist military worship in the US.


Militarism is potentially the biggest threat to freedom that has ever existed. And it's part of the reason why the USA is widely loathed in and outside of the western world.

At the same time, your moral judgement seems rather heavy handed. Yes, Chris Kyle or whatever his name is, was a racist and a jingoist. Yet special forces troopers and snipers are often put in situations which required tough choices, and I think one of the worst things to do is be overly judgemental from an armchair. If it wasn't your intention to attack all military personnel, then I withdraw my criticism.


----------



## Snakecharmer

The writer of that post got so much hate that he wrote a response:

The Real American Sniper: A Response to the Critics

An article which I authored, entitled The Real American Sniper: Why Chris Kyle Wasn’t A Hero, was published by this website yesterday. The reader’s response was not only overwhelming but also damning.

As I sift through the 2,000+ comments and messages we received in reply to the column, which you can read for yourself here, I notice a common thread among those disputing its content. Propaganda works. My words were met by a multitude of enraged Americans spewing verbal venom and vitriol in my direction, but the collective outrage never actually addresses or disputes the facts within the text. The public’s hysterical response has only proven that American Sniper is a piece of propaganda which is being used by the state to incite mass and blind patriotism. Ironically, it’s the very people who refuse to believe that the ghost of Chris Kyle is being used as a tool of propaganda, who are the very ones that have, although unintentionally, confirmed the opposite.

Propaganda is meant to cloud logic in order to get a large group of people to follow an idea. Chris Kyle has been turned into an idea, not by me but by publishers, Hollywood producers, and Washington. They have attached his likeness to an internal belief system that has been engrained into all Americans since they were born. This in turn causes the public to perceive a criticism of him as a personal attack on their own values. It causes people to ignore facts and resort to emotion. It causes the critique of one to be viewed as slander to all.

Although the rhetorical opinions solicited by some do suggest otherwise, nowhere did I state in the previously mentioned article a negative word, much less an assault, towards the military. I never called Kyle a coward. Is everyone you know a hero? If not, does that in turn make everyone you know who isn’t a hero a coward? Life isn’t black and white and Chris Kyle isn’t a deity. While my words were perceived as an attack on Kyle as a person, they were meant as an attack on those who bought this current swill of propaganda being promoted in his name.
Kyle described killing as “fun”, stated that he “wished” he had killed more, said that killing was “no big deal” and that he “loved it”. Those are not my words, they are his. The average American may consider those phrases heroic, but I consider them barbaric. Not subscribing to his callous view of death is not a condemnation of any other person who serves in the military.

I view all men and women as individuals and critique them accordingly of their own personal standing and merit. I refuse to endorse the notion that “all of this group is this or that”. Multiple people have sent me messages stating that “anyone in a uniform is a hero.” Really? Was David Berkowitz (AKA Son Of Sam) a hero just because he served in the military? Should we disregard the 6 people he murdered and call him a hero just because he became an expert marksman while in the US Army? In fact, if you would like an extensive list of United States veterans who became murderers click here. None of those people’s actions should reflect on any other service member though, just like Kyle’s actions shouldn’t reflect on the entire military or the conduct of each individual soldier. View a man for who he is, not for the clothes he wears.

Among the plethora of threats, curses, names, and blanketing opinions that I have recently had the good fortune to receive, not one of those messages has refuted the stories that Kyle told which painted him to be a liar. Jesse Ventura was in fact awarded $1.8 million dollars over one of Kyle’s claims. You may not like Ventura, nor do you have to, but don’t hide from fact because it isn’t what you want to hear. Chris Kyle did also say that he killed two men in Texas without repercussion. There is zero evidence to support that this event took place. The former Navy SEAL did repeat that he sat on top of the Superdome and killed 30 Americans dead in the streets of New Orleans. Do you actually believe he killed multiple Americans on American soil? If so, do those actions make him a hero?

You can be in love with the idea of Chris Kyle, but do not mistake that idea as anything more than a story meant to make you feel a certain way. Calling an individual narrative a work of propaganda is not an attack on freedom, your beliefs, a way of life, your husband who served overseas or you. It’s an attack on propaganda and lies. Be aware that you are the target of the propaganda, but you don’t have to allow yourself to become a victim of it.


----------



## Shahada

The_Wanderer said:


> At the same time, your moral judgement seems rather heavy handed. Yes, Chris Kyle or whatever his name is, was a racist, a jingoist and a murderer. Yet special forces troopers and snipers are often put in situations which required tough choices, and I think one of the worst things to do is be overly judgemental from an armchair. If it wasn't your intention to attack all military personnel, then I withdraw my criticism.


I don't really care a lot for individualistic moral judgement myself, but I'm given to hyperbole in this case to drive home the point that the US military in and of itself is a fundamentally imperialist, belligerent, even racist institution, and by becoming a member of it you become complicit in its imperialist agenda, even if you yourself try your best to be a good soldier, not hurt innocent people and whatnot. The very existence of the institution you are a part of, and that you willingly joined, is an act of violence against the majority of the world oppressed by the US and other imperialist powers. I see cops similarly, I'm sure some police as individuals are not particularly evil people and try their best to do good in their daily lives, but whatever personal moral strengths they may have are completely undermined by their service to a fundamentally corrupt, unjust, violent and oppressive institution. On top of this, there is the fanatical worship of the military that exists in American culture, and I think this sort of rhetoric is a needed counterweight.


----------



## StranGaaa Danjjja

You all fuckin depress me 

unplug your fuckin internetz for like 1 day and shit please


----------



## Mee2

Some people here remind me of how I used to think back in high school. "Saddam is evil so it's OK if the US goes in and gets rid of him. Everyone lives happily ever after." If it were that simple I'd totally support it, and I don't think the fact that the US lied to get there or killed a bunch of civilians in the process would've made me question it. I wasn't very smart back then. 

Turns out I had a rather exaggerated conception of just how bad Saddam was, but more importantly, I missed that what problems Iraq had extended far beyond a single man being "evil" (surprise, surprise). Removing him alone would have been both practically impossible and futile. A large system supported him and his place would have been taken by a supporter (who would likely have been even more hostile, given the circumstances). The only choice, both practically and in order to accomplish whatever the fuck they were doing there, was to remove the entire system. Trouble is, that system provided a lot of stability and if you're going to remove it, you also have to give some thought to what you're going to do once it's gone. If the US thought about this at all, they clearly didn't think about it enough because Iraq's current state (which I'd argue is clearly worse than it was back in 2003) and the rise of a group like ISIL should have been entirely predictable. Even if they want to Iraq with good intentions, they were also wildly incompetent and in this thread I'm seeing a disgusting lack of care for just how much Iraq suffered for this incompetence. And this attitude allows it to continue (or get worse). 

While I'm not completely anti-violence I think a lot of people enormously overestimate the range of problems that it has a chance to solve. In Iraq, a war led by the US was never going to accomplish anything. Even a best case scenario creates an environment where terrorist organisations thrive and every war crime (of which there were many) only made it worse. I'm not denying people's autonomy, I'm just aware of what autonomous people are likely to do that context. 

As for the Kyle and the film in general, Kyle sounds like a racist murderer and the film sounds like an obvious propaganda film. Are people really blind to the fact that even fictional stories have political messages? I challenge anyone to draw a meaningful line between a story that's political and one that's apolitical. I'll also challenge anyone to draw a meaningful line between a documentary and a film based on a true story.


----------



## aendern

So I read every single page of this thread (unfortunately)

but no one addressed something that seemed immediately obvious to me

Wasn't he suffering from PTSD _as he was writing the book_?

So why are we taking his words literally? He was fucking mentally ill.


----------



## michaelthemessiah

emberfly said:


> So I read every single page of this thread (unfortunately)
> 
> but no one addressed something that seemed immediately obvious to me
> 
> Wasn't he suffering from PTSD _as he was writing the book_?
> 
> So why are we taking his words literally? He was fucking mentally ill.


holy cow, this never hit me! I also read every page and it never occurred to me! although most of this thread has diverged from chris kyle and American sniper to the war as a whole


----------



## johnnyyukon

emberfly said:


> *So I read every single page of this thread (unfortunately)*
> 
> but no one addressed something that seemed immediately obvious to me
> 
> Wasn't he suffering from PTSD _as he was writing the book_?



Wow. 


No he was not. I'll assume you kind of, made that up.



------------------------



On another note, I'd like to ask,

Can we all agree that the biggest critics of this movie in here HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT??

Ok thanks, just clearing that up.


Bye now, my feelings on this thread,


----------



## Apolo

johnnyyukon said:


> Wow.
> 
> 
> No he was not. I'll assume you kind of, made that up.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I'd like to ask,
> 
> Can we all agree that the biggest critics of this movie in here HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT??
> 
> Ok thanks, just clearing that up.
> 
> 
> Bye now, my feelings on this thread,


Haha! Score 1 for pointing out the hilariously obvious, yet very sad fact of the matter.


----------



## Snakecharmer

I'm glad @Shahada has the patience to post facts in this thread, because I sure don't.

I'm not even sure what to say, aside from this









and possibly this


----------



## aendern

Snakecharmer said:


> I'm glad @Shahada has the patience to post facts in this thread, because I sure don't.


Ikr the patience there is enviable. I wish I had it.

Unfortunately, though, it seems to be for naught. These people don't want facts. :sad:

They remind me of this:










It's the same response when you try to be logical with _some _Christians. They just shut you out and hate you.

I don't get it. Their objective clearly isn't to find the truth. What is their motivation or goal? I don't comprehend.

Maybe they're so rarely right that they just need this to be right for them in order to keep their sanity.


----------



## Snakecharmer

HOW CLINT EASTWOOD IGNORES HISTORY IN ‘AMERICAN SNIPER’

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/08/clint-eastwood-ignores-history-american-sniper/


----------



## Mimic octopus

Snakecharmer said:


> HOW CLINT EASTWOOD IGNORES HISTORY IN ‘AMERICAN SNIPER’
> 
> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/08/clint-eastwood-ignores-history-american-sniper/


According to the article American Sniper is a character study and not propaganda.

"The problem is that the film makes no attempt to tell us anything beyond Kyle’s limited comprehension of what was happening." The author wants the movie to address the Iraq war instead of simply telling the story of a soldier (counter to this thread's AS critics who claim it focuses on and distorts the story of the Iraq war).


----------



## ectomorphine

Patrick_1 said:


> According to the article American Sniper is a character study and not propaganda.
> 
> "The problem is that the film makes no attempt to tell us anything beyond Kyle’s limited comprehension of what was happening." The author wants the movie to address the Iraq war instead of simply telling the story of a soldier (counter to this thread's AS critics who claim it focuses on and distorts the story of the Iraq war).


Hey! Welcome back


----------



## koalaroo

The rise of ISIL/ISIS is pretty much a direct result of the power vacuum the U.S. created by unseating Saddam Hussein. The new Iraqi government is incredibly weak. There were pros and cons to removing Saddam Hussein; the rise of ISIS is definitely one of the cons in this situation. Personally, I think the entire region would be more stable had Saddam Hussein been left in power.


----------



## Mimic octopus

koalaroo said:


> The rise of ISIL/ISIS is pretty much a direct result of the power vacuum the U.S. created by unseating Saddam Hussein. The new Iraqi government is incredibly weak. There were pros and cons to removing Saddam Hussein; the rise of ISIS is definitely one of the cons in this situation. Personally, I think the entire region would be more stable had Saddam Hussein been left in power. Despots have their uses.


This is an unbiased and multifaceted opinion. You mustn't have been aware of the tone of this thread.


----------



## Mimic octopus

You're supposed to aggressively pick a side and argue with memes.


----------



## aef8234

Patrick_1 said:


> You're supposed to aggressively pick a side and argue with memes.


Hey, if we're going to have a dick fighting contest in the internet, might as well make it short, simple, and entertaining with an underlying moral.

Instead of overly worded replies by college student wannabes <WHY THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO BE PEOPLE LIKE ME SICK PEOPLE?!>, unecessarily complex for the point, and as boring as a five second lobotomy with a power drill with so little information or knowledge to gain from the ordeal.

I mean, GOOD GOD imagine having to say all those words those two people espousing political bullshit <does that mean it's bullshit from bullshit?> in front of a crowd?


----------



## VinnieBob

it does pose the question when does sniper and mass murder cross the line?
160 confirmed kills in the name of America does seem perverse
yet he has no problem with this


----------



## Shahada

Patrick_1 said:


> According to the article American Sniper is a character study and not propaganda.
> 
> "The problem is that the film makes no attempt to tell us anything beyond Kyle’s limited comprehension of what was happening." The author wants the movie to address the Iraq war instead of simply telling the story of a soldier (counter to this thread's AS critics who claim it focuses on and distorts the story of the Iraq war).


The fact that its ostensibly a "character study" doesn't mean its apolitical. What if I did a "character study" about Adolf Hitler that generally portrayed him as a kind humanitarian? If I said this was my own personal vision and conception of Hitler and it was a character study and not at all political, and its not important or political that I glossed over and ignored things like the Holocaust, would you buy that?


----------



## Mimic octopus

Shahada said:


> The fact that its ostensibly a "character study" doesn't mean its apolitical. What if I did a "character study" about Adolf Hitler that generally portrayed him as a kind humanitarian? If I said this was my own personal vision and conception of Hitler and it was a character study and not at all political, and its not important or political that I glossed over and ignored things like the Holocaust, would you buy that?


No, just like I wouldn't watch a character study about how bad hygiene Rosa Parks had. All 3 cases are focusing on a relatively insignificant aspect of their character. You've already played the Hitler card, what else do you have?


----------



## Shahada

Patrick_1 said:


> No, just like I wouldn't watch a character study about how bad hygiene Rosa Parks had. All 3 cases are focusing on a relatively insignificant aspect of their character. You've already played the Hitler card, what else do you have?


What if I portrayed Hitler in my "character study" as a well meaning but heroic leader who did his best to save his country and just had to crack a few eggs to make the omelette? Is that not political? If Hitler offends you so much, what if I made the same movie about Stalin? Franco? Mao? Mussolini? Pol Pot? George Bush? They're all political. Really, _all_ art and media is political and ideological to a certain extent, but to look at a film portraying a very specific historical perspective on a major historical event like the Iraq War as "apolitical" is just totally ignorant, not just socially but also in the realm of media literacy and criticism.


----------



## Nyanpichu

guys guys! were missing the whole point! THERE WAS A FAKE BABY


----------



## Mimic octopus

Shahada said:


> What if I portrayed Hitler in my "character study" as a well meaning but heroic leader who did his best to save his country and just had to crack a few eggs to make the omelette? Is that not political? If Hitler offends you so much, what if I made the same movie about Stalin? Franco? Mao? Mussolini? Pol Pot? George Bush? They're all political. Really, _all_ art and media is political and ideological to a certain extent, but to look at a film portraying a very specific historical perspective on a major historical event like the Iraq War as "apolitical" is just totally ignorant, not just socially but also in the realm of media literacy and criticism.


Yeah the effects might be political. By the way, Clint Eastwood was against the Iraq war and the US acting as global police in general. He describes himself as neither left or right wing (probably his attitude when making the movie).


----------



## ectomorphine

A few questions to all of the people debating here.. Are you debating to win? Are you debating to promote your ego? Are you debating to reach truth? Or are you debating only for mental stimulation?..


----------



## johnnyyukon

ectomorphine said:


> A few questions to all of the people debating here.. Are you debating to win? Are you debating to promote your ego? Are you debating to reach truth? Or are you debating only for mental stimulation?..



My ego is big enough already, so not that. Truth yes. Mental stimulation, sure. But the main reason is I have too much time on my hands.



I suppose I also have great appreciation for what our country's troops do. Risk their lives for their country and its people and ideals. Many are recruited from regions with poor economies, but regardless, it seems like very hard work. People are free to bad mouth soldiers, but I'm also free to defend them, and what they do. I'm involved in several activities that attract military folk, and they're generally nice, genuine people that have seen hell or almost been killed or been shot or had a limb blown off. I scuba dove with a guy that lost a leg in Afghanistan. Nice as hell, kind of had to swim like a dolphin, ha. But had a good sense of humor about it.


----------



## Shahada

johnnyyukon said:


> As far as him killing innocents, I haven't seen a single person in here give any evidence of that. But they sure like to say it.





johnnyyukon said:


> I suppose I also have great appreciation for what our country's troops do. Risk their lives for their country and its people and ideals. Many are recruited from regions with poor economies, but regardless, it seems like very hard work. People are free to bad mouth soldiers, but I'm also free to defend them, and what they do. I'm involved in several activities that attract military folk, and they're generally nice, genuine people that have seen hell or almost been killed or been shot or had a limb blown off. I scuba dove with a guy that lost a leg in Afghanistan. Nice as hell, kind of had to swim like a dolphin, ha. But had a good sense of humor about it.


lol


----------



## johnnyyukon

[No message]


----------



## Shahada

johnnyyukon said:


> Uuuummmm, Shahada, the Great Communicator responds with an "lol." Apparently making some some point so grand, that no one but her even knows what it is.
> 
> Good Job!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I salute you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I think I know a little bit more where you're coming from now:
> 
> shahada
> [shah-*hah*-d_uh_]
> 
> 
> noun
> 1.
> _Islam. _the Islamic profession of faith, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”: the first of the Pillars of Islam.


Intredasting...


----------



## Shahada

To post actual content, what was funny was both your denial of his killing of innocents, which considering his mission in Iraq is exceedingly unlikely, and also your Hallmark-fascist soldier worship.


----------



## johnnyyukon

Shahada said:


> To post actual content, what was funny was both your denial of his killing of innocents, which considering his mission in Iraq is exceedingly unlikely, and also your Hallmark-fascist soldier worship.



Even funnier is your "evidence" that he didn't kill innocents is "it's unlikely."

And yes, I have an American soldier shrine in my prayer room with a cardboard cutout of a soldier. I light incense and candles and prostrate myself before his Holy visage 3 times a day.



*fascism
*
noun 

1.any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.

yeah, totally fascist too. George Bush and Barack Obama both adopted Mussolini's government model. But you must understand I have to support my government online/publicly, otherwise they will put me in a concentration camp like Italy's Rab concentration camp, along with anyone else that disagrees with American politics. And I just really don't want me and my entire family to be massacred like the 30,000 ethiopians in the Yekatit 12 atrocity.


----------



## aef8234

ectomorphine said:


> A few questions to all of the people debating here.. Are you debating to win? Are you debating to promote your ego? Are you debating to reach truth? Or are you debating only for mental stimulation?..


I was bored, your thread idea has no potential for new information by default, and it has no big cultural impact - it's a frigging movie <and I got swept up by the hypetrain, eugh>.


----------



## ectomorphine

hehehe...


----------



## Snakecharmer




----------



## Snakecharmer

ectomorphine said:


> A few questions to all of the people debating here.. Are you debating to win? Are you debating to promote your ego? Are you debating to reach truth? Or are you debating only for mental stimulation?..


I'm here because I think it is important for people to realize the real reasons the US goes to war and to express concern over people glorifying mass killings.


----------



## Snakecharmer




----------



## Roland Khan

Isn't that Congress without all the CGI?


----------



## johnnyyukon

Snakecharmer said:


>



Oh man, that guy asked some good questions, but he was also a DICK. And a bully. "Don't you think....?" "Doesn't that mean....?"

That's not an interview, that's a man with an agenda. He veered so far from the actual movie, into "should we be in Iraq, mother fucker???" he must have said "Iraq" 100 times. Not the movie's focus.

And then that one shy girl. You shouldn't pick on uneducated people so much : P

I'm all for some political debate about being in Iraq. FROM WHAT LITTLE I KNOW that country seems fucked to hell now.

Ha, but Chris Kyle didn't invade Iraq. He was following orders, and way beyond that, he was protecting his friends and soldiers. The comparison to Nazis "just following orders" to slaughter defenseless people packed into trains, and shipped off to concentration camps, given a crust of bread every other day is ludicrous. 

Kyle wasn't ordered to round up millions of civilians, systematically break their spirits through slave labor, then gas them with Zyklon-B in the shower room.

Even if Kyle came back and said (he didn't as far as I know) "Iraq was wrong" he was still killing guys with rocket launchers aimed at his friends.

Harassing uneducated people aside, the guy did have some tough questions.

War's fucked up, and I've never even been.



Oh, I'll also add that even veterans of WWII (which I consider a more clear cut and justifiable fight) in interviews said they began to wonder why they were over there, but when they saw the concentration camps, over and over and over, they all said that that's when they realized they were fighting true evil. A worthy cause. But even before that, they had no problem killing people that were killing their friends. They all got put in the meat grinder, trained to kill.

I think Bill O'Reily sucks, but I watched this interview with Chris Kyle, here's the transcript:


------------------

O'Reily: You considered the people you were killing, the Iraqis you were killing, savages?


*Kyle: The people I was killing, not JUST Iraqis.*


O'Reily: Why did you consider them savages?


*Kyle: The way they behaved, the beheadings, the rape of innocent villagers, the townspeople, just to intimidate them, they live by putting fear into other people's hearts and civilized people just don't act that way.*


O'Reily: Do you believe they considered you a savage?


*Kyle: I'm sure they did....honestly, I don't know and I really don't care. *


O'Reily: so you were committed to killing these people because you believed in you heart they deserved to die?


*Kyle: I wasn't so committed to killing them as I was making sure every service member over there whether american or allied, came home.*


O'Reily: But you LIKED killing these people?


*Kyle: It's not a problem taking out someone who wants your people dead. That's not a problem at all.*


O'Reily: Regrets?


*Kyle: Yes, the people I couldn't save*


O'Reily: The Americans you couldn't save?


*Kyle: Americans, the local Iraqis, anyone I witnessed violence coming down on them and I could not save them.*


O'Reily: Good book, people should read it to understand war.


*Kyle: I mean, war is hell. It's definitely..Hollywood fantasizes about it, makes it look good, it's...war sucks. *

--------------------------

Sorry, but I didn't see the movie thinking "Yeah War is radical!!!!" half of it is about the trauma that happens to soldiers and their family members and friends. It's not pretty, and sad as hell. But of course, you've seen it right? ; )


----------



## Snakecharmer

I won't pay to see it, and I honestly don't know if I can handle watching it.

Yeah, I did feel bad for that dumb girl Kokesh was grilling. It made me cringe a few times. I was thinking "Come on man, let her off the hook!" lol

He was a Marine, though, and was over there...so his perspective is important, I think.

I think the point of this video was to show that a lot of Americans don't really know why the US went to Iraq. They just say, "Well, it's retaliation for 911" line, etc.

I just really don't like the government overall or most politicians (I'm a voluntaryist, fwiw) and I see the bigger picture here...and I'm just not okay with violence unless it is self-defense...which this war is not.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Oh - and his points about the Iraqis defending their homeland is so, so spot-on.


----------



## Thalassa

Clint Eastwood in my observation is a rigidly conservative black and white thinker, so I'm not surprised if it has a simplistic good versus bad narrative. I wasn't planning on watching it at all for that reason. However, I kind of balk at the suggestion that this man was nothing more than a ruthless murderer. Please don't let us be pulled over in to the rigidly liberal black and white thinking, either, which is just as dangerous and absurd. There was really danger, there still is danger, and it has to be addressed. A friend of mine who did several tours saw such lovely incidents with his own eyes as a seventeen year old girl being publicly stoned to death for speaking to a man who wasnt her fiancee.


----------



## Shahada

johnnyyukon said:


> Even funnier is your "evidence" that he didn't kill innocents is "it's unlikely."


No, my evidence are the myriad of links and sources I posted in this thread attesting to what Chris Kyle's mission in places like Fallujah was. You have to ignore what actually happened in the war and believe in a fairy tale to think otherwise.



johnnyyukon said:


> And yes, I have an American soldier shrine in my prayer room with a cardboard cutout of a soldier. I light incense and candles and prostrate myself before his Holy visage 3 times a day.


I know. Most people call that altar a TV.





johnnyyukon said:


> *fascism
> *
> noun




That isn't how a dictionary works.



johnnyyukon said:


> Kyle wasn't ordered to round up millions of civilians, systematically break their spirits through slave labor, then gas them with Zyklon-B in the shower room.


No, he was just ordered the vaporize the head of anyone out past curfew. A true humanitarian. Can we cut the shit and give the guy a posthumous Nobel yet?



johnnyyukon said:


> Sorry, but I didn't see the movie thinking "Yeah War is radical!!!!" half of it is about the trauma that happens to soldiers and their family members and friends. It's not pretty, and sad as hell.


Hannah Arendt quoting Himmler again:



> _“What stuck in the minds of these men who had become murderers was simply the notion of being involved in something historic, grandiose, unique (`a great task that occurs once in two thousand years’), which must therefore be difficult to bear. This was important, because the murderers were not sadists or killers by nature; on the contrary, a systematic effort was made to weed out all those who derived physical pleasure from what they did....” _
> 
> _This was true even of those who belonged to the SS: Even those in the Reich’s killer elite were not able to suppress their conscience entirely. _*Thus the “trick used by Himmler — who apparently was rather strongly afflicted by these instinctive reactions himself — was very simple and probably very effective; it consisted in turning these instincts around, as it were, in directing them toward the self. So that instead of saying: `What horrible things I did to people!,’ the murderers would be able to say: `What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!’"*


----------



## tanstaafl28

ectomorphine said:


> Agree or disagree? Why?


Disagree. If you haven't been in the military, you simply can't understand. All these nice comfortable trappings you call "civilization" don't exist in a war zone. All you have is the people with you, everyone else is a potential enemy trying to hurt, maim, or kill, you, any way they can.


----------



## ectomorphine

Shahada said:


> No, my evidence are the myriad of links and sources I posted in this thread attesting to what Chris Kyle's mission in places like Fallujah was. You have to ignore what actually happened in the war and believe in a fairy tale to think otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I know. Most people call that altar a TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how a dictionary works.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he was just ordered the vaporize the head of anyone out past curfew. A true humanitarian. Can we cut the shit and give the guy a posthumous Nobel yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Hannah Arendt quoting Himmler again:


I think he's trolling...


----------



## ectomorphine

tanstaafl28 said:


> Disagree. If you haven't been in the military, you simply can't understand. All these nice comfortable trappings you call "civilization" don't exist in a war zone. All you have is the people with you, everyone else is a potential enemy trying to hurt, maim, or kill, you, any way they can.


I don't think I need to be in the military to know what propaganda is...


----------



## tanstaafl28

ectomorphine said:


> I don't think I need to be in the military to know what propaganda is...


Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

I served in the military; I did not support the second war in Iraq, but that wasn't the point of the movie. It was intended to be an anti-war movie; even the director, Clint Eastwood said so. 

So what is the propaganda of the movie? What about it was biased or misleading? What about it was used to publicize a particular political cause or point of view?

I thought it showed just how shitty war really is. You're going to have to make horrible choices; choices no sane human being should _ever have to make_, in order to save your buddies and survive; even possibly kill women and children. You're going to see your best friend's blood, brains, and guts, spread all over you and you're left to wonder how it wasn't you that got killed instead of them.

I think they intentionally played up the 9/11-->Iraq bullshit, because that was what was being spouted at the time. People wanted to believe it because they wanted someone to blame. It isn't the fault of the movie. It's the fault of the Bush Administration. They are simply showing what motivated this guy to join the military, even if it turned out to be for all the wrong reasons. He still joins the SEALS, becomes a sniper, is so good at his job that he feels it is his duty to do 4 tours, comes home with PTSD, nearly falls apart; and just as he starts to get his shit together with his family, one of the war veterans he's trying to help goes batshit crazy and kills him. That really doesn't make a great case for war, in my opinion. 

So where's the shit propaganda?


----------



## ectomorphine

tanstaafl28 said:


> Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
> 
> I served in the military; I did not support the second war in Iraq, but that wasn't the point of the movie. It was intended to be an anti-war movie; even the director, Clint Eastwood said so.
> 
> So what is the propaganda of the movie? What about it was biased or misleading? What about it was used to publicize a particular political cause or point of view?
> 
> I thought it showed just how shitty war really is. You're going to have to make horrible choices; choices no sane human being should _ever have to make_, in order to save your buddies and survive; even possibly kill women and children. You're going to see your best friend's blood, brains, and guts, spread all over you and you're left to wonder how it wasn't you that got killed instead of them.
> 
> I think they intentionally played up the 9/11-->Iraq bullshit, because that was what was being spouted at the time. People wanted to believe it because they wanted someone to blame. It isn't the fault of the movie. It's the fault of the Bush Administration. They are simply showing what motivated this guy to join the military, even if it turned out to be for all the wrong reasons. He still joins the SEALS, becomes a sniper, is so good at his job that he feels it is his duty to do 4 tours, comes home with PTSD, nearly falls apart; and just as he starts to get his shit together with his family, one of the war veterans he's trying to help goes batshit crazy and kills him. That really doesn't make a great case for war, in my opinion.
> 
> So where's the shit propaganda?


Many of the posts here answer your question.. Please take your time to read some of them..


----------



## tanstaafl28

ectomorphine said:


> Many of the posts here answer your question.. Please take your time to read some of them..


Sorry, 280 posts is a bit much. I made my point.


----------



## ectomorphine

tanstaafl28 said:


> Sorry, 280 posts is a bit much. I made my point.


... lol


----------



## Mimic octopus

Sometimes liberals can be very earnest, humorless and literal. If a movie depicts violence and a toxic environment it MUST be a celebration of it. Eastwood has even said he did not support the Iraq war, what the movie is supposedly trying to propagate, in 29 pages of comments I don’t think anyone has answered yet.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Patrick_1 said:


> Sometimes liberals can be very earnest, humorless and literal. If a movie depicts violence and a toxic environment it MUST be a celebration of it. Eastwood has even said he did not support the Iraq war, what the movie is supposedly trying to propagate, in 29 pages of comments I don’t think anyone has answered yet.


What do liberals have to do with this?


----------



## lackofmops

Shahada said:


> I agree, the person the film is based off of was an open racist who talked at length about how much he enjoyed murdering innocent people and the film wants to turn him into a tortured war hero. The guy was a Nazi.


Yeah but I just enjoyed it as a fictional story... Clearly, I don't think this guy is all he was made to be in the movie, but that doesn't mean I can't think the story is awesome.


----------



## Mimic octopus

Snakecharmer said:


> What do liberals have to do with this?


Maybe not true liberals, but people who see themselves as opposition to the status quo.


----------



## Snakecharmer

Patrick_1 said:


> Maybe not true liberals, but people who see themselves as opposition to the status quo.


I can only speak for myself, but I'm a voluntaryist (anarchist) and there is usually one principle I form my opinions around: is violence involved (outside of self-defense)?


----------



## Brian1

Patrick_1 said:


> Maybe not true liberals, but people who see themselves as opposition to the status quo.


Clint is known to be a libertarian, not a liberal. A libertarian may have liberal views, but, they don't adhere to every liberal tenet. For instance, Clint was comfortable speaking at the 2012 Republican convention, and to defend him, the chair thing is an old actor speakers trick, it's not something he invented, but, he is for gay marriage, a big Republican no no. "I don't see myself as conservative, but I'm not ultra-leftist. ... I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live." from Wikipedia So, the buck stops with the director, and, the director is a former Republican, now Libertarian.


----------



## Mimic octopus

Brian1 said:


> Clint is known to be a libertarian, not a liberal. A libertarian may have liberal views, but, they don't adhere to every liberal tenet. For instance, Clint was comfortable speaking at the 2012 Republican convention, and to defend him, the chair thing is an old actor speakers trick, it's not something he invented, but, he is for gay marriage, a big Republican no no. "I don't see myself as conservative, but I'm not ultra-leftist. ... I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. Even as a kid, I was annoyed by people who wanted to tell everyone how to live." from Wikipedia So, the buck stops with the director, and, the director is a former Republican, now Libertarian.


And?


----------



## Brian1

Well, you're attacking liberals, so you have the wrong argument. Michael Moore didn't direct the movie, Stephen Speilberg didn't different the movie. Clint Eastwood directed the movie. So, your whole attack on "the liberals", is wrong.


----------



## koalaroo

Patrick_1 said:


> Sometimes liberals can be very earnest, humorless and literal. If a movie depicts violence and a toxic environment it MUST be a celebration of it. Eastwood has even said he did not support the Iraq war, what the movie is supposedly trying to propagate, in 29 pages of comments I don’t think anyone has answered yet.


This sentiment makes no sense.


----------



## koalaroo

TBH, the purpose of the movie according to people like Bradley Cooper is to bring light to the problems with PTSD that men and women in the military face. However, I think it does a pretty shoddy job at that.


----------



## Mimic octopus

koalaroo said:


> This sentiment makes no sense.


Why?


----------



## aef8234

koalaroo said:


> TBH, the purpose of the movie according to people like Bradley Cooper is to bring light to the problems with PTSD that men and women in the military face. However, I think it does a pretty shoddy job at that.


Wait.
They said it portrayed PTSD?
...
Seriously? That's like saying the world is color potato.
Wait.
Technically the world *is *color potato.
Goddammit, you get my point.


----------



## koalaroo

Patrick_1 said:


> Why?


Have you ever seen the painting "American Gothic"? That's how I view conservatives.


----------



## ectomorphine

I was an American sniper, and Chris Kyle’s war was not my war - Salon.com


----------



## Shahada

lackofmops said:


> Yeah but I just enjoyed it as a fictional story... Clearly, I don't think this guy is all he was made to be in the movie, but that doesn't mean I can't think the story is awesome.


I don't really have a problem with an opinion like "I found the experience of watching this film enjoyable." I mean I thought Zero Dark Thirty was a fun watch at times even though its obviously vulgar propaganda too. I'm much more annoyed by people thinking this is some kind of serious art film about The Horrors Of War or some shit because it shows a pampered middle class American baby going on a Murder Vacation and then later being kind of fucked up about it because, huh, it turns out maybe invading a country and killing a lot of innocent people makes you feel sorta sad, oh our poor brave heroes, how they have suffered in their noble endeavor to bring democracy to these savages!


----------



## Mimic octopus

koalaroo said:


> Have you ever seen the painting "American Gothic"? That's how I view conservatives.


"Sometimes..." 

The image of conservatives is very reactionary and boring but it would be a mistake see things in stereotypes.


----------



## koalaroo

Patrick_1 said:


> "Sometimes..."
> 
> The image of conservatives is very reactionary and boring but it would be a mistake see things in stereotypes.


Then why are you defining liberals in terms of the way you view the stereotypes?


----------



## Mimic octopus

koalaroo said:


> Then why are you defining liberals in terms of the way you view the stereotypes?


Not defining anything, not speaking in stereotypes.


----------



## Shahada

Patrick_1 said:


> The image of conservatives is very reactionary and boring but it would be a mistake see things in stereotypes.


That's not what "reactionary" means.


----------



## lackofmops

Shahada said:


> I don't really have a problem with an opinion like "I found the experience of watching this film enjoyable." I mean I thought Zero Dark Thirty was a fun watch at times even though its obviously vulgar propaganda too. I'm much more annoyed by people thinking this is some kind of serious art film about The Horrors Of War or some shit because it shows a pampered middle class American baby going on a Murder Vacation and then later being kind of fucked up about it because, huh, it turns out maybe invading a country and killing a lot of innocent people makes you feel sorta sad, oh our poor brave heroes, how they have suffered in their noble endeavor to bring democracy to these savages!


Oh for sure... I hate people who take their favorite movies/shows so seriously.

If I may quote Mystery Science Theater 3000:
"Repeat to yourself, it's just a show, I should really just relax."


----------



## Mimic octopus

Shahada said:


> That's not what "reactionary" means.


I didn't try to define reactionary so how the fuck would you know how I used that word?


----------



## aef8234

lackofmops said:


> Oh for sure... I hate people who take their favorite movies/shows so seriously.
> 
> If I may quote Mystery Science Theater 3000:
> "Repeat to yourself, it's just a show, I should really just relax."


Main/MST3K Mantra - Television Tropes & Idioms

Bookmark it, throw it at people.
I prefer hitting them in the face with sarcasm.


----------



## Mee2

Patrick_1 said:


> I didn't try to define reactionary so how the fuck would you know how I used that word?


So your defence is that no one could have understood what you were saying? LOL


----------



## ectomorphine

Marine Corps Veteran Opens Eyes, Hearts, and Minds of "American Sniper" Movie-goers


----------



## jayyy

Btmangan said:


> So? I'm sorry but I really don't care what international law says.





Btmangan said:


> Iraq was not a *sovereign* democracy. The majority of its population was living within conditions of extreme repression as multiple revolts previously indicated.





Btmangan said:


> Iraq was already under occupation. It was under occupation by Saddam.





Btmangan said:


> Iraq had already been invaded more or less, by Saddam.





> recognize the moral imperative to restore law to lawless zones


state sovereignty is a fundamental principle of international law, the outcome of international treaties and agreements, and its preconditions and stipulations derived therein. any question arguing the rejection or assertion of a particular state's sovereignty remains a recognition of the concept of sovereignty; the question is thus a resort to international law as your frame of reference and can only be contextualised and analysed within said frame of reference, as the modern concept of sovereignty exists strictly within the groundwork of international law. we're not going by your personal value system and made-up moral gray areas here. evil this and evil that tells us nothing of substance nor gives us any kind of framework to work with. no, "western ethical standards" doesn't come anything close to an objective framework, whatever "western ethical standards" means anyway, which is the point. as long as you reject international law, what, for instance, does iraq's sovereignty or lack thereof matter to your argument? you dismiss international law in one convenient aspect of your argument, and invoke it in another. 

don't get me wrong, i don't defend international law. leftist critique of international law generally goes beyond its deficiency and emphasizes its historical relationship to imperialism, a view i personally agree with. its not your rejection of international law i take issue with, just the mess of contradictions. you manipulate legal concepts by ascribing to them your own fanciful definitions and removing them from their legal contexts of which without they make no literal sense. "iraq was already under occupation by saddam" – 'occupation' is not some arbitrary, empty concept open to your own metaphorical interpretations but a subject grounded within legal texts bearing objective implications. do even neoconservatives talk like this? you treat the term as if it were no more than a figure of speech, all in the eye of the beholder or something. _"but who's really occupying who?"_ quit making shit up as you go along.


----------



## jayyy

i initially planned on ignoring the movie, thinking it was just hollywood delivering some war porn once a year as per tradition. never thought this would actually make it to the oscars. tarantino created a piece in inglorious basterds mocking war propaganda and the viewers who fell for it; eastwood creates the same film and its up for an oscar. only the insanity of american nationalism would turn mass slaughter into a blockbuster. i ended up watching the movie, and the reviews didn't lie. one-dimensional. no context. brave, heroic americans vs. evil brown people. your typical jingoistic circle jerk. watching the movie, you'd think the iraqis were the illegal invaders of sacred american territory here. if you'd been in a coma since the year 2000 and woke up just in time to see the film, you'd be convinced that the war was conducted in direct response to 9/11, and that every iraqi was committed to killing americans out of a cartoonish hatred of all things american rather than a justified opposition to a criminal occupation. i'm not sure why people are still waxing poetic about this movie taking any deep look into the enigmatic, oh so complex mind and character of chris kyle, a story that will turn your emotions inside out. pfft. its hard to depict any complexity or depth when the character was so shallow and uncritical in his thinking and worldviews. kyle's moral universe was as complex as a comic book's. 

the movie doesn't out and out glorify war. it does something else. it does show that war is cruel. cruel to american soldiers. not the iraqis. the soldiers are not presented as pawns of their politicians' wars, but solely as victims of iraqi bullying and violence, the ultimate threat to world peace. if the movie is indeed 'anti-war', it is anti-war in the common, self-absorbed way most american 'anti-war' films are: because of what war does to american soldiers fighting in them, never because of what it does to the civilians under american aggression. bombing campaigns are okay until they start affecting the soldiers. the suffering of the iraqis is not even an afterthought. their grievances are not just erased, its decontextualised and twisted as irrational, inexplicable hatred inherent in arab culture that continues to victimize the soldiers. but forget even their suffering, iraqis, throughout the film, are faceless, nameless brown people, constantly pestering americans with their opposition to the peaceful occupation of their country. meh, the usual way hollywood depicts the non-white, third world Other.

(i don't personally accept the message of the movie as anti-war for a second, despite eastwood's words, considering the movie rode on the premise of a legitimate war and righteous cause to the very end.)


----------



## Shahada

jayyy said:


> state sovereignty is a fundamental principle of international law, the outcome of international treaties and agreements, and its preconditions and stipulations derived therein. any question arguing the rejection or assertion of a particular state's sovereignty remains a recognition of the concept of sovereignty; the question is thus a resort to international law as your frame of reference and can only be contextualised and analysed within said frame of reference, as the modern concept of sovereignty exists strictly within the groundwork of international law. we're not going by your personal value system and made-up moral gray areas here. evil this and evil that tells us nothing of substance nor gives us any kind of framework to work with. no, "western ethical standards" doesn't come anything close to an objective framework, whatever "western ethical standards" means anyway, which is the point. as long as you reject international law, what, for instance, does iraq's sovereignty or lack thereof matter to your argument? you dismiss international law in one convenient aspect of your argument, and invoke it in another.
> 
> don't get me wrong, i don't defend international law. leftist critique of international law generally goes beyond its deficiency and emphasizes its historical relationship to imperialism, a view i personally agree with. its not your rejection of international law i take issue with, just the mess of contradictions. you manipulate legal concepts by ascribing to them your own fanciful definitions and removing them from their legal contexts of which without they make no literal sense. "iraq was already under occupation by saddam" – 'occupation' is not some arbitrary, empty concept open to your own metaphorical interpretations but a subject grounded within legal texts bearing objective implications. do even neoconservatives talk like this? you treat the term as if it were no more than a figure of speech, all in the eye of the beholder or something. _"but who's really occupying who?"_ quit making shit up as you go along.


I don't usually like to just cosign posts but you much more eloquently laid out the incoherence and moral bankruptcy of his position on international law than I did here, great post.


----------



## Resolution

jayyy said:


> state sovereignty is a fundamental principle of international law, the outcome of international treaties and agreements, and its preconditions and stipulations derived therein. any question arguing the rejection or assertion of a particular state's sovereignty remains a recognition of the concept of sovereignty; the question is thus a resort to international law as your frame of reference and can only be contextualised and analysed within said frame of reference, as the modern concept of sovereignty exists strictly within the groundwork of international law. we're not going by your personal value system and made-up moral gray areas here. evil this and evil that tells us nothing of substance nor gives us any kind of framework to work with. no, "western ethical standards" doesn't come anything close to an objective framework, whatever "western ethical standards" means anyway, which is the point. as long as you reject international law, what, for instance, does iraq's sovereignty or lack thereof matter to your argument? you dismiss international law in one convenient aspect of your argument, and invoke it in another.
> 
> don't get me wrong, i don't defend international law. leftist critique of international law generally goes beyond its deficiency and emphasizes its historical relationship to imperialism, a view i personally agree with. its not your rejection of international law i take issue with, just the mess of contradictions. you manipulate legal concepts by ascribing to them your own fanciful definitions and removing them from their legal contexts of which without they make no literal sense. "iraq was already under occupation by saddam" – 'occupation' is not some arbitrary, empty concept open to your own metaphorical interpretations but a subject grounded within legal texts bearing objective implications. do even neoconservatives talk like this? you treat the term as if it were no more than a figure of speech, all in the eye of the beholder or something. _"but who's really occupying who?"_ quit making shit up as you go along.


You write up an essay about how America disrespected the sovereignty of Iraq and I'll make sure to try to send your essay to the families of all those killed in the nerve gas attacks upon the Kurdish areas and try to get the message to the Shia majority within Iraq that was intimidated through use of rape, torture, and deathsquad repression for decades. DONT WORRY GUYS, REMEMBER WHEN YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY DIED BECAUSE THEY LOST CONTROL OF THEIR RESPIRATORY SYSTEMS AND SLOWLY ASPHYXIATED WHILE SHITTING AND PISSING THEMSELVES? YA, WELL U GUYS WERE SOVEREIGN SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT IM SURE FROM MY COMFORTABLE PEACEFUL HOME IN THE WEST THAT IT'S COOL. 

Oh, you're telling me that you never even agreed to be part of Iraq and that armed men come through your areas raping the daughters and wives of dissidents, shooting people and burying them in mass graves, and torturing them to death and that if you were able to put it to a vote, you would create your own government with the vast consent of its citizens? 

OH WELL THE LINE ON THIS WORLDMAP DICTATED BY AN ARBITRARY POLICY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE SAYS THAT UR NATION OF KURDISTAN IS IN IRAQ, SO ITS SOVERIEGN BRO DON'T WORRY LOL. DON'T LOOK AT US! IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR US TO TELL YOUR SOVEREIGN NATION HOW TO BEHAVE! IF WE TOLD SADDAM NOT TO RAPE WE'D BE NO BETTER THAN HIM ANYHOW, RIGHT? LOL! 

Oh, so you had armed groups of Saddam loyalists patrolling your neighborhoods, torturing and raping at a whim, and filling mass graves with anyone who disagreed? 

WELL ITS NO DIFFERENT THAN ABU GHRAIB, REALLY LOL. BUT ITS NOT LIKE THEY WERE A FOREIGN POLITICAL ENTITY THAT YOU HATED AND WERE BEING OPPRESSED BY WAS OCCUPYING YOUR AREAS, THOUGH. ITS SOVEREIGN MAN UR COOL DON'T WORRY THAT UR DAUGHTER GOT RAPED ITS ALL GOOD.


----------



## koalaroo

If anyone wants to watch a decent documentary on how Hollywood continues to vilify Arabs, please watch "Reel Bad Arabs".


----------



## stargazing grasshopper

I wouldn't be opposed to the US withdrawing our financial & military resources from other nations around the globe.

No more playing the role of global police or babysitter, let everybody else either cry to the UN or sink/swim without US intervention. We can focus our efforts upon paying down national debt, improving our national defense & bettering life for Americans.
I'd like to tell the UN that we're done with them within 1 year, time to find another sucker to replace us.


----------



## Mee2

Nothing shows that you know what you're writing about like posting in all caps.


----------



## Apolo

stargazing grasshopper said:


> I wouldn't be opposed to the US withdrawing our financial & military resources from other nations around the globe.
> 
> No more playing the role of global police or babysitter, let everybody else either cry to the UN or sink/swim without US intervention. We can focus our efforts upon paying down national debt, improving our national defense & bettering life for Americans.
> I'd like to tell the UN that we're done with them within 1 year, time to find another sucker to replace us.


That would be fantastic... We would have hundreds of millions we could then out to better use.


----------



## Mee2

Maybe then they could stop supplying you with cheap labour. That'd be interesting. Pretty hilarious that people think poorer countries are a burden for the developed nations lol. The amount you pay in foreign aid is a pittance compared to how much you gain from them being subjugated, forced to work for nothing and doing the jobs that you think you're too good for.


----------



## Shahada

Btmangan said:


> You write up an essay about how America disrespected the sovereignty of Iraq and I'll make sure to try to send your essay to the families of all those killed in the nerve gas attacks upon the Kurdish areas and try to get the message to the Shia majority within Iraq that was intimidated through use of rape, torture, and deathsquad repression for decades. DONT WORRY GUYS, REMEMBER WHEN YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY DIED BECAUSE THEY LOST CONTROL OF THEIR RESPIRATORY SYSTEMS AND SLOWLY ASPHYXIATED WHILE SHITTING AND PISSING THEMSELVES? YA, WELL U GUYS WERE SOVEREIGN SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT IM SURE FROM MY COMFORTABLE PEACEFUL HOME IN THE WEST THAT IT'S COOL.
> 
> Oh, you're telling me that you never even agreed to be part of Iraq and that armed men come through your areas raping the daughters and wives of dissidents, shooting people and burying them in mass graves, and torturing them to death and that if you were able to put it to a vote, you would create your own government with the vast consent of its citizens?
> 
> OH WELL THE LINE ON THIS WORLDMAP DICTATED BY AN ARBITRARY POLICY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE SAYS THAT UR NATION OF KURDISTAN IS IN IRAQ, SO ITS SOVERIEGN BRO DON'T WORRY LOL. DON'T LOOK AT US! IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR US TO TELL YOUR SOVEREIGN NATION HOW TO BEHAVE! IF WE TOLD SADDAM NOT TO RAPE WE'D BE NO BETTER THAN HIM ANYHOW, RIGHT? LOL!
> 
> Oh, so you had armed groups of Saddam loyalists patrolling your neighborhoods, torturing and raping at a whim, and filling mass graves with anyone who disagreed?
> 
> WELL ITS NO DIFFERENT THAN ABU GHRAIB, REALLY LOL. BUT ITS NOT LIKE THEY WERE A FOREIGN POLITICAL ENTITY THAT YOU HATED AND WERE BEING OPPRESSED BY WAS OCCUPYING YOUR AREAS, THOUGH. ITS SOVEREIGN MAN UR COOL DON'T WORRY THAT UR DAUGHTER GOT RAPED ITS ALL GOOD.


He's right, you're wrong, and you're having a childish meltdown about it.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper

Mee2 said:


> The amount you pay in foreign aid is a pittance compared to how much you gain from them being subjugated, forced to work for nothing and doing the jobs that you think you're too good for.


We (USA) need to rebuild our self reliance by eliminating our dependence upon cheap Arab oil & significantly reducing our trade deficit.
We're going to increase American oil/gas production while simultaneously developing clean alternative energy & increasing trade with Canada.
We recently imported an additional 5 million cheap laborers (courtesy Prog Libs) that'll be exploited while we rebuild the American manufacturing industry to begin reducing trade with China, Mexico.


----------

