Chris Kyle American Sniper

Brilliant Movie. Very well written I thought. Bradley Cooper does a top job. Pretty amazing Story

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

He shot looters, criminals and rapists who were running amok because the city was in chaos. Thousands of people taking refuge in the city's sports stadium needed to be protected.

Except that's total bull**** and he has been shown to have lied or embellished incidents on numerous occasions.

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

He shot looters, criminals and rapists who were running amok because the city was in chaos. Thousands of people taking refuge in the city's sports stadium needed to be protected.

Haha, sure he did. He also claims he once punched the governor of Minnesota in a bar - except the governor wasn't even in the bar that night. Oh, and he also claimed to have shot two car jackers who ambushed him at a service station in Texas. Oh, and that the government hushed it up as a favor to him.

The man was a serial fantasist, as well as being an out and out racist thug. I don't know what is more pathetic - his ridiculous lies or those credulous enough to believe him.

A lot of it doesn't make sense at all , if he boasted about killing civilians while in the states he should have been investigated and indited,

Had the book since it came out watched ,all of his tv appearances at first first I respected him but the more you hear the more he sounds like a self inflated ego .

The same kinda applied to Marcus luttrell from lone survivor fame now I hated what he did during operation red wings but what's he's done to honor his team mates and other fallen warriors since ,
Completely turned my opinion on him .

Kyle seemed to have the world owes me attitude.

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Christ there is SOME amount of horse****e been put up here. Those people who have put up their "information" about Chris Kyle, can you tell us WHERE you gleamed these gems or WHO are your sources of information???? All of the Teams guys have VERY tight circles in the huge majority of cases, hang out with and talk with THEIR guys and families ONLY so I would be very interested to hear where you heard these fantasies.

Marcus Luttrell speaks very highly of Chris Kyle and he was regarded as ANYTHING BUT a bull****ter!!!!

His book and various interviews by given by the man himself.
And never said luttrell was a bull****ter at all

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Christ there is SOME amount of horse****e been put up here. Those people who have put up their "information" about Chris Kyle, can you tell us WHERE you gleamed these gems or WHO are your sources of information???? All of the Teams guys have VERY tight circles in the huge majority of cases, hang out with and talk with THEIR guys and families ONLY so I would be very interested to hear where you heard these fantasies.

Marcus Luttrell speaks very highly of Chris Kyle and he was regarded as ANYTHING BUT a bull****ter!!!!

Yeah, Chris Kyle only talked with his family and close inner circle, he certainly did not write books and give numerous interviews on air bragging about nonsense that has now been shown to be false, right?

There's a "source" for my information in a previous post, and five seconds on google would have provided you with numerous more such as:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384176/justice-jesse-ventura-was-right-his-lawsuit-j-delgado
http://www.startribune.com/local/266448121.html
http://www.vulture.com/2015/01/real-american-snipers-5-alleged-lies.html
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/kyleclaims.asp

Do you really believe Chris Kyle's claim that he killed "dozens" of looters from his perch atop the Superdome during hurrican Katerina? Sorry, but anyone dumb enough to believe that shouldn't be allowed out of the house unescorted in my opinion.

Kyle describes how after Fallujah was retaken at the end of 2004, that jihadists were still trying to infiltrate the city.
He was in a hide in a building overlooking the bridge where the contractor were roasted to death in their vehicle and then hung like meat and a marsh at the other side of the river.
He saw a group of guys who later turned out to be Tunisians wearing vests and armed with automatic weapons using bright colored beach balls as floats.
Of course he shot the balls and they guys drowned!
I laughed out loud when I read that one!

Getting back to the film...
Not bad, a bit dull, the pacing was a bit slow or something. I found the domestic scenes very tedious. Enjoyable, but as recent war films go I much preferred Fury. That's my view of the film, just on its own.

But looking at the political and historical context, some of it left me little uncomfortable. This wasn't just trying to tell a story about a man and his experiences. The facts as we know them were different to some portrayed on screen - e.g. the sniper, and the driller killer.

Also, some of the impressions the film gives - that the Iraq invasion was some sort if revenge for 9/11. When a colleague mutters some vague thoughts about the war being wrong or pointless, the Kyle character shuts him up and answers his doubts by asking if you want to have to fight these people in "New York" or "San Diego". This reaffirms a strange belief that some Americans still hold. It ignores the fact the most came out to fight American in Iraq, because America was in Iraq. And it was America's toppling of Saddam Hussein which unleashed the Jihadis and the sectarian frenzy. And so on...
Leaving aside all the Iraqi dead of the actual wars, mostly civilians: The Kyle character says a fellow soldier got killed because he had doubts and started asking questions. The big unasked question of the film is that if in the world's major superpower no-one really knows why wars start and why they are fought, and is afraid to ask, where does this lead?

I find it very odd that outspoken anti-gun movie stars - Liam Neeson, Daniel Craig, Bradley Cooper, Seán Connery and others, are happy to make millions portraying gun-users of one kind or another, but don't like the idea of ordinary folks like me - and you - having guns for sporting use.

tac

tac foley wrote: »

I find it very odd that outspoken anti-gun movie stars - Liam Neeson, Daniel Craig, Bradley Cooper, Seán Connery and others, are happy to make millions portraying gun-users of one kind or another, but don't like the idea of ordinary folks like me - and you - having guns for sporting use.

tac

It's a fair point. But there is also a difference I think between shooting at a firing range, or even having a handgun for home protection - and having a small arsenal at home.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJZP-uejaBA

I don't support alot (most) of U.S. foreign policy, but at the end of the day you must remember an important fact. Chris Kyle, and other soldiers, don't pick where they go, the time, or what they do- they are told by commanders who are told by politicans voted in by the people. If the government wanted Chris Kyle to provide sniper support at a domestic port- he would've. It is just that they put him in a position to do a job and he did, did it well too. Anyone who uses an online forum to anonymously attack a fallen husband and father who served his country (knowing his country told him to kill insurgents) are pathetic.

It seems like people such as Michael Moore forget they don't pick the conflict- he joined in 1999 before the war even started- but he saw that many had lost their life and fought for fallen soldiers and the people he loved.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Sorry, but this is flat wrong on a number of levels. I believe in personal responsibility and Chris Kyle chose to enrole in the US army when its foreign policy vis-a-vis the middle east was a matter of well established knowledge. Therefore he carries moral responsibility for his action, just as the volunteers for any immoral enterprise do.

For the past 30 years the US has chosen to invade and bludgeon one country after another in the Middle East and Chris Kyle's contempt towards the region and its inhabitants, who he termed "savages" are abundantly clear from his autobiography.

In the same book he openly boasted about his pleasure in killing as many Muslims as possible and his acknowledgement that he didn't really care whether or not they were involved in "terrorist" activities.

He was, quite simply, a paid killer for an invasion force which destabilized the entire region. He was also a fantasist, a proven absurd liar and just an insufferable braggart.

Not my kind of person obviously, but if you choose to fan-worship a knuckle dragger who revelled in killing anyone he felt like just because they weren't white christians then good for you. We will reap what we sow.

Firstly, get your facts straight- he served in the U.S. Navy, not Army. LOL.

More importantly, HE DOESN'T SET POLICY. NO SOLDIERS SET POLICY.He wrote his name on the contract saying they could use him however necessary- he could've been in Hawaii.

Also, he enlisted before 9-11 which is when the U.S. sent many troops to the middle east- in 1999 it was a much different theatre. Also, back then the Army Rangers & Delta Force were popular and the SEALs were essentially unheard of by everyday people. The only people who have blood on their hands are the special interest groups. He called them savages because they were blowing themselves up to kill marines- yeah, I'm sorry but anyone who voluntarily blows themself up is a savage.

A paid killer? LOL, he would've made more money (considerably more) as a police officer back in the States. They are paid peanuts for the work/hours/risk they contribute.

I don't fan worship- I read up on him back in 2011 and was intrigued by his story. Which you clearly are unaware of, army cough cough.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Yes, troops don't set policy, however the policy of brutalizing this region for no good reason was firmly established before he chose to join. Do you think that any of the tens of thousands of people who had their lives ruined in Iraq because of this invasion care whether the racist christian-fudamentalist who invaded their country and is now shooting at them is in the army, navy or whatever?

Oh, and by the way, he was actually in the marines. So who exactly is the ignorant one here? *Cough *cough.

My point is simple and may be a little mind-blowing to you. I think that anyone who chose to join the US military in recent times has chosen to join an enterprise that capriciously kills innocent people for no good reason. You don't have to be a student of political science to see the overwhelming misery that US armed forces have meted out to hundreds of thousands of people world wide. People who joint he US military are not conscripted and are not "heroes", they are co-conspirators in war crimes.

Oh, and the guy you are "intrigued" by was a walking liar. Or do you believe his claims to have assasinated "dozens" of looters while stationed atop the Super Dome in New Orleans? Gullible much?

What? He was not in the Marines. What the **** are you talking about? You clearly have no idea about anything regarding the U.S. military.

You just confirmed your ignorance on this topic. You first said Army, then Marines- no ****face he was in the U.S. Navy.

Re-read what you just wrote to yourself, and try telling yourself that you aren't retarded. I bet you won't be able to. No facts, just random, unorganized thoughts.

I'm not going to respond because I stopped reading after you said he was a Marine.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You're right, he was in the navy, he only applied to join the marines. My mistake. But you showed a lot of class in response by calling someone who disagrees with your viewpoint ****face. Got some anger issues? Methinks that's why you've only been on these forums a couple of months. Get banned much do you?

Your inability to argue the facts of this fantasist's career beyond the level of being a pedant about which branch of the armed services he killed innocent people for says it all. Good luck with your fan worship of people who have been shown in open court to have been ridiculous liars.

You attack my post by saying I'm wrong on all levels- and they state he was in the Army, and then attempt to "correct" me by saying he was in the Marines when he was only in the Navy. You are the definition of a ****face- I'll say that with no hesitation. Look at your posts where you try to one up me with wrong information- you are a complete ****face. You stated the wrong branch twice because you are a ****face. I don't have anger issues, you have intelligence issues.

That last paragraph didn't say anything of substance. But, it was your inability to argue the facts as it is well-documented. You lose all credibility when you argue with wrong information. How can one take your viewpoint seriously when you don't even know what branch he served in?

You're views aren't even your own either as they are clearly regurgitated from some looney like Michael Moore.

One last thing: this man accomplished more in his career than you or anyone in your gene pool ever will. Just want you to know that.