"American Sniper" Chris Kyle: Patriot or Psychopath?

nighttimer · Jan 22, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
So, let me be clear. You're telling me that respecting those who are willing to murder their fellow human beings because some guy in the White House told them to, is necessary for trans people to be respected?

I will not respect violence, nor those willing to engage in it, for any reason. Y'all want hate on trans people because I feel that way? Seems harsh, but have at it.

Please take a moment here because what you are responding to is not what I wrote.

"Hate on trans people" are your words, not mine. No one has ever mentioned trans people until you did and no one has disparaged them.

You seemingly have a poor grasp on what a soldier does. Yes, they are given training on how to use weapons and yes, they may have to kill someone with those weapons.

But soldiers also patrol the streets after a riot and provide stability and order as they did in post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans. Soldiers bring in food and medical supplies to devastated countries after natural disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti that left over 300,000 dead and much of the country devastated.

Every soldier started as a civilian and they come hardwired with the same DNA as everyone else. I do not believe most soldiers get off on killing other people. Whether you accept it or reject it, the fact remains the freedom you enjoy that gives you the ability to demean and express your disgust toward the military is bought and paid for by their blood.

The sum of the parts that make up a soldier is far more than the amoral killing machines you have created them to be.

I implore you to consider for a moment while your moral beliefs and principles are sacred to you they come from the sacrifices made by others.

That's all I got. You can accept it or reject it.

Lillith1991 · Jan 22, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
So, let me be clear. You're telling me that respecting those who are willing to murder their fellow human beings because some guy in the White House told them to, is necessary for trans people to be respected?

I will not respect violence, nor those willing to engage in it, for any reason. Y'all want hate on trans people because I feel that way? Seems harsh, but have at it.

This is a strawman. You refuse to acknowledge the good and the help that soldiers provide both for us in times of crisis and in other places when we send them to help, making it seem like they're only about death and destruction when they're not. Point is that you're condeming them for one part of their job, just as people can condem you for being trans, me and nighttimer for being Black, or me for being a lesbian without having to even recognise that those things are only a part of us. And that is disrespectful, whether it is something unable to be changed like being trans, Black, or lesbian. Or whether it is something that is a choice.

In order to demand respect we need to give it as well. A person is not just one thing, but the sum of their parts. And many people have given their lives for you to have the right to disparage them.

backslashbaby · Jan 22, 2015

I'm also curious about the complete pacifism when it comes to cases where most people would try to defend themselves. Diana, if someone were running at you with a knife to kill you, wouldn't you want to stop them? Even if that meant their death?

That example is one from my teen years, believe it or not. I just ran like hell (and I had no weapons), but I would have killed the guy if I could have -- no question. Self-preservation that way is pretty hard-wired and I also believe it's quite reasonable and even moral. It turns out the guy was insane, so I would have felt bad, I'm sure. But that still wouldn't change the self-preservation aspect. I'm glad to not be dead, and that's what it boils down to sometimes, like it or not, imho.

MacAllister · Jan 22, 2015

I've known a lot of people who served in the armed forces, over the years. Almost unanimously, they joined up because they wanted to save lives and protect a way of life they cherish, and they deemed those goals important enough to possibly lay down their own lives -- not because they wanted to kill anyone.

It seems to me we've been down this rabbit hole before, and it never comes out anywhere good. As Diana has apologized for the "goon" comment, let's all try to move on, okay?

asroc · Jan 22, 2015

cornflake said:
I don't quite understand what Kyle being good at his job (theoretically, as he lied like a rug) [...]

I don't think there's much doubt that Kyle really was an excellent military sniper. Many of his kills were confirmed, including his 2,100 yards-shot. What he did after the Navy is what's questionable.

Diana Hignutt said:
So, let me be clear. You're telling me that respecting those who are willing to murder their fellow human beings because some guy in the White House told them to, is necessary for trans people to be respected?

I will not respect violence, nor those willing to engage in it, for any reason. Y'all want hate on trans people because I feel that way? Seems harsh, but have at it.

I'm curious. My father was a medical specialist, what's commonly called a combat medic. To the best of my knowledge he's never shot or hurt anyone in combat. Is he worthy of respect? What about cooks, mechanics, engineers, vets, nurses and so on? They're all military and they're all doing what they're doing because the guy in the White House said so, but are they more worthy of respect than infantrymen?

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 22, 2015

Complete pacifism is a solid moral position and attacking someone for having it is not better than attacking someone for believing that people need to be defended by those willing to both kill and die to protect them.

These are two positions that are difficult to mutually respect.

For ages pacifists were deemed to be cowards. The treatment of conscientious objectors in WWI was barbaric. During WWII many were essentially interned.

Respect for pacifism probably grew out of the actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. But still the "what would you do if" questions are routinely asked as they are being asked here. There is still an attitude that pacifism is a suspect philosophy, as if enduring suffering rather than fighting back were a sign of weakness.

The converse difficulty comes in the fact that a pure pacifism does not distinguish different kinds of killing. From this perspective it is difficult to say that a soldier is unlike a hired killer. It is also difficult to say that one country or organization's soldiers are good and another are bad (as people often wish to do).

The hardest part here is acceptance of the humanity of the holders of diametrically opposite views on this deepest of moral issues. But it needs to be done. Life and death matter too much for easy dismissal of other people's lives and views.

Diana Hignutt · Jan 22, 2015

Shadow_Ferret said:
It still stings, Diane. After all these years, I thought we had something special, only to find out your true feelings toward me. It hurts, you know?

I am truly sorry. It was thoughtless to express myself so callously. That message got through. I hope you will all forgive me. I appreciate the intent of our service people's efforts, if I disagree with military actions in general.

It was further wrong of me to besmirch individuals who have made difficult choices for what they believed (wrongly or rightly, let's leave it there) was a noble reason. I will try and be more mindful of others' feelings in the future.

ETA: I arrived at this apology on my own and heeding the words of posters in this forum, no duress was applied to me from hidden sources or modly interventions.

Nighttimer, you once said (not too long ago) that nobody should expect their words to change anyone's minds on this forum. Well, yours did.

c.e.lawson · Jan 22, 2015

RichardGarfinkle said:
Complete pacifism is a solid moral position and attacking someone for having it is not better than attacking someone for believing that people need to be defended by those willing to both kill and die to protect them.

These are two positions that are difficult to mutually respect.

For ages pacifists were deemed to be cowards. The treatment of conscientious objectors in WWI was barbaric. During WWII many were essentially interned.

Respect for pacifism probably grew out of the actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. But still the "what would you do if" questions are routinely asked as they are being asked here. There is still an attitude that pacifism is a suspect philosophy, as if enduring suffering rather than fighting back were a sign of weakness.

The converse difficulty comes in the fact that a pure pacifism does not distinguish different kinds of killing. From this perspective it is difficult to say that a soldier is unlike a hired killer. It is also difficult to say that one country or organization's soldiers are good and another are bad (as people often wish to do).

The hardest part here is acceptance of the humanity of the holders of diametrically opposite views on this deepest of moral issues. But it needs to be done. Life and death matter too much for easy dismissal of other people's lives and views.

Diana and I spoke to each other in reps. She answered my question, which was asked not to argue with her but to understand her position more fully. She is morally consistent in her position, and I told her I respect that. And I told her the world would be a better place if EVERYONE believed and behaved that way. If only we all would.

nighttimer · Jan 22, 2015

Diana has said she's sorry and Mac has said let's squash this and move on.

I'm good with both.

So...Chris Kyle...wild and crazy guy, huh?

emax100 · Jan 22, 2015

All I can say is that if someone is going to call the military actual cowards, I have enough respect for those who serve so that I can let them make their own arguments and not try to do it for them. Why get worked up over what someone as overpaid, overfed and undernourished (and if that's insensitive to non skinny people I'm not sure I care anymore) as Michael Moore says when I can just sit back and let someone whose lived it live tear him apart for me?

http://www.godiplomats.com/sports/m-wrestl/2014-15/bios/conners_jacob_lg3v http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/01/...wesome-letter-crisco-sweating-michael-moore/#

Good afternoon there sweetheart, I hope this finds you alive and well. You can thank our men and women of the armed forces for that, by the way, and that also includes us cowardly snipers. It seems you’ve found time between licking the jelly off your fingers and releasing your grasp of a bear claw to tweet some junk about snipers being cowards.
My buddies and I got a good laugh over the tweet, so I thank you. For a guy worth $50 million dollars, you sure have quite a bit to bitch and cry about. I guess like a moth to flame, you too gravitate towards things that are popular and in the moment — in this case it’s snipers. Too bad for you that your attempt at being relevant via your 70+ year old family experience has failed. It has only made you look dumber than a bag of hammers. Next time you should try something more original than going after snipers for one reason or another…that was so last month.

It’s typical of “men” like you to criticize the intestinal fortitude, focus, discipline and patriotism of a sniper. It must stem from an inferiority complex or something. But hey, it’s okay cupcake. We snipers are thick skinned and the efforts of world class turds such as yourself to portray us in a negative light only makes us laugh. If you and I were in the same room, I’d throw you a smile and gently pat you on the head knowing you’re nothing more than a mouth breathing, Crisco sweating waste of space not even worthy of being in the presence of a sniper. It’s almost funny how people like you preach things like ‘acceptance’ and ‘not passing judgement’ or ‘labeling people’, but then are the first to do so when a person is in some way dissimilar from you.
So tenderfoot, I leave you with this final thought: what if you found yourself in some sort of hostage situation where you were held at knife-point by some crazed person and they were dead set on making an example of you by bleeding you out on Hollywood Blvd in front of the world, and the only way out was with the precision aimed fire of a sniper? Would you want that coward to take the shot? Because knowing how you feel about snipers such as myself and your hatred of firearms, I’d probably drop the mag, roll the bolt and go get a Jack & Coke before helping you out.

Amadan · Jan 22, 2015

Meh. If you want to take apart Michael Moore's stupidity, there are more incisive ways to do it than by calling him a fat girly-man.

backslashbaby · Jan 22, 2015

c.e.lawson said:
Diana and I spoke to each other in reps. She answered my question, which was asked not to argue with her but to understand her position more fully. She is morally consistent in her position, and I told her I respect that. And I told her the world would be a better place if EVERYONE believed and behaved that way. If only we all would.

I wasn't asking my questions to be disrespectful or skeptical, either. I was just wondering what the answers were to better understand her position.

Diana Hignutt · Jan 22, 2015

backslashbaby said:
I wasn't asking my questions to be disrespectful or skeptical, either. I was just wondering what the answers were to better understand her position.

Check your rep points...

backslashbaby · Jan 22, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
Check your rep points...

Thank you! I couldn't be that pacifistic myself, thus the questions is all

I don't mean to sound like I condemn it (but I obviously don't condemn self-defense or defense of others, either).

mccardey · Jan 22, 2015

"American Sniper" Chris Kyle: Patriot or Psychopath?

If this quote is accurate and those are the only two choices

“I like war.” http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/death_of_an_american_sniper/

- psychopath.

Amadan · Jan 23, 2015

mccardey said:
If this quote is accurate and those are the only two choices

- psychopath.

That article loses me right here:

Chances are, though, that Kyle never heard of Clausewitz; certainly there’s nothing in “American Sniper” to suggest that he ever thought very deeply about his service, or wanted to.

Most anyone who's ever been anywhere near the military has at least heard of Clausewitz, even if they don't read 19th century military theory texbooks. Now, it's possible that Chris Kyle was indeed the stupid, semi-literate redneck Laura Miller seems to assume he was, but she leads with just that - an assumption, and proceeds to support her thesis based on how she thinks a sniper should think.

Chris Kyle may have been a psychopath. He was probably not a man of deep reflection or complex morality, and he was certainly a self-aggrandizing bullshit artist. But considering the source here, I wouldn't be so quick to judge him a psychopath because Laura Miller is repulsed that he didn't have any feelbads about shooting the enemy and didn't like Muslims.

Routh was not just an American, but an American soldier, a person who was by definition incapable of doing anything evil.

Golly, Laura Miller, are you being a wee bit sarcastic here?

cutecontinent · Jan 23, 2015

robeiae said:
Consider Simo Häyhä--the famed "White Death" of Finland. He killed 500+ people in less than 100 days with his sniper rifle.

actually, from what i remember, he used two weapons, a carbine and an SMG. the carbine was considered to be a piece of crap, too. the guy was a master. unconfirmed death count was 800+, guess the russians were really freaking out over him

or maybe my memory sucks, time to wiki

edit: hmm. was a rifle apparently. my memory does suck

sorry for derail, carry on

Xelebes · Jan 23, 2015

One does tend to snipe with a rifle, save for the rocket-snipers out there.

Liosse de Velishaf · Jan 23, 2015

That wasn't a particularly clever or good take-down of Moore. Playing the gender performance card or the physical ability card is not only intellectually lazy, but says a fair number of negative things about anyone who would stoop to that level.

The "I would dump your ass instead of doing my job because you said mean things about me" game is also not a particularly clever or effective response.

I would love to see an actually impressive dissection of Moore's comment and the implications thereof, but that quote was not it.

Xelebes · Jan 24, 2015

A more tactful takedown of the movie and the myth-making: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxIeHJCl2l8

The shorten it: psychopathy? no, it's cowardice

Diana Hignutt · Jan 24, 2015

Seth Rogan for the Godwin!

Seth Rogan Tweet:

American Sniper kind of reminds me of the movie that's showing in the third act of Inglorious Basterds.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2...to-nazism/

rugcat · Jan 24, 2015

Matt Taibi's interesting take in Rolling Stone:

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. . .

. . .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.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-almost-too-dumb-to-criticize-20150121?page=3

Gregg · Jan 24, 2015

Just saw the movie and thought it was excellent. Very well done with good acting and great action scenes. Some horrifying.
No question that war is a dirty, terrible thing. But it is there.

I can't understand volunteering to do 4 tours in a war zone - but I'm not good soldier material.

c.e.lawson · Jan 25, 2015

rugcat said:
Matt Taibi's interesting take in Rolling Stone:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-almost-too-dumb-to-criticize-20150121?page=3

rugcat, rugcat, rugcat...

I got up today to enjoy a leisurely and relaxing Sunday morning after spending the first part of the weekend planning and prepping and throwing my daughter a birthday dinner. And I made the mistake of reading this article first thing.

It annoyed the hell out of me.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't comment from that knowledge, but I just wanted to say a few things:

1)A director (or writer or artist) can make an artistic choice for whatever reason they wish. There is no obligation to make a movie explore a deeper political context. Sometimes fluff is fluff and that's okay. (And very marketable in a world-weary population) I'm not saying America Sniper is fluff - I will judge that when I see the movie and I doubt it - but even if it is, so what?

2) The movie was about Kyle, and was based on his autobiography, so again, I don't see where Eastwood should have put anything significant about Bush/Cheney et al in the context. Once a soldier is sent to battle, they are in that world and they do what they must (we hope, with honor) to stay alive and make sure their comrades stay alive.

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.

Again, so what? There is nothing wrong with examining a soldier's experience within the context of that soldier's personal, immediate world. (Actually, the average lay-person has been fascinated by this for millennia.) Apparently this movie does show Kyle's personal psychological/emotional response to his work and how it evolves over time. That can certainly be sufficient focus for a movie. I'm not commenting on whether or not that was done well since I haven't seen it - I'm just saying it is enough for a certain artistic choice.

3) As we've said before in other discussions on this board, at the time America entered into the Iraq war, there was a consensus that crossed party lines that it was necessary. To then fault this movie (and Kyle) for not making a deeper, critical investigation into why it was a mistake, strikes me as pseudo-intellectual, illogical, pretentious political bias.

4) I hope this movie keeps raking in the box office profits, so that Matt Taibbi can be annoyed in return. :evil

Did I mention I'm annoyed?

rugcat · Jan 25, 2015

c.e.lawson said:
rugcat, rugcat, rugcat . . .

I didn't say I agreed with him; I just said it was interesting. I haven't seen the movie either, so I have no opinion on it.

Taibi is simply saying that the movie is dangerous because it portrays the warrior in such a way as to implicitly present a narrative of the Iraq war that is totally false. That is, in simplest terms, that we were the good guys and the enemy were the bad guys and we had no choice but to be there.

But I certainly think the same could be said about almost all war movies.

And BTW, I would agree that the Iraq war at the beginning had bipartisan support – but that support was garnered not only by misinformation, but from active lying and distortions to whip up that support. To me, the real tragedy and crime of the Iraq war was not that we bungled into it, but that we were led into it by the nose by some deeply cynical people who believed their objectives were so important that lying to achieve them was a patriotic act.

"American Sniper" Chris Kyle: Patriot or Psychopath?

No Gods No Masters

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

~~~~*~~~~

'Twas but a dream of thee

Alex

Nurture Phoenixes

Very Tired

No Gods No Masters

~~~~*~~~~

Very Tired

~~~~*~~~~

Delerium ex Ennui

Delerium ex Ennui

Very Tired

Lost in the Fog

Life is good

Lost in the Fog

*

*

*