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.

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.

Just a little Samba wrote: »

One man served his country with honour, fought foreign invaders with basic equipment and retired to a quite life afterwards.

The other was a sociopath with a tendency to not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

They both served their country imo. However Hayha was a bigger hero in my eyes. Fought with basic weaponry against a much bigger enemy and didn't bullsh*t about his story.

Kyle was a great shooter and was courageous in what he did. But he also milked a lot of his fame and made up a lot of things too.

true567 wrote: »

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.

Wow, more pathetic ad hominem bile. You're not a very happy person, are you? It seems that pointing out that the object of your man crush was a comically idiotic liar has gotten under your skin.

I made the simple point that people have personal responsibility - nobody is forced to join the US armed forces. His amazing subsequent "achievements" were to take part in an illegal invasion where he boasted about how he was happy to kill any male of military age because all Muslims and Arabs are "savages" and how anybody who isn't Christian deserves what's coming to them.

But none of that matters, right? All that matters is that your love object was in the army instead of the navy. Do you really think your impressing anyone by resorting to this nonsense?

I suggest you go ahead and call me a ****face again or blather on about the
section of the gene pool I come from, because it's clearly all your capable of.


Go ahead and delude yourself that none of that amounts to me saying "anything of substance" if it makes you feel better about the fact that you have fallen in love with this pathetic little loon.

true567 wrote: »

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.

This was originally a thread about the film, more so than the actual man. If Chris Kyle in the film said he was just doing his duty, or "just following orders", I think that's more understandable than the view actually presented in the film. The film creates the impression that Iraq was invaded to avenge terrorist attacks and to remove a terrorist threat there. That's its better to fight them there than in "new york or san diego". Do you need a refresh on where Al Qaeda came from, where they were based, and what Iraq was like pre-2003?

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

So, just for the record. You believe his claims that:

1. He shot "dozens" of looters while perched atop the roof of the Superdome after Hurrican Katerina?
2. That he killed two carjackers at a service station in Texas in 2009 and that the government hushed it up?
3. That he punched Jesse Ventura in the face in a bar after Ventura demeaned the US military? (HINT: after a full trial a US jury found this was a total lie and awarded Ventural $1.8 million from Kyle's estate.

But you believe all of the above, yeah?

Good for you man.

I haven't read his book but as far as I'm aware, none of these claims are in it and his claims about Jesse Ventura are the only one's with any evidence that he actually made these claims.

I haven't seen anywhere that directly quotes Kyle making these claims but I have read an article (which I can't find now but will link to if I do find it) that claimed Kyle said he was aware of snipers going to New Orleans to shoot looters but that he did not condone this. And his words were then twisted and repeated to the point where it is just accepted that he did claim to shoot looters.

Topper Harley wrote: »

I haven't seen anywhere that directly quotes Kyle making these claims but I have read an article (which I can't find now but will link to if I do find it) that claimed Kyle said he was aware of snipers going to New Orleans to shoot looters but that he did not condone this. And his words were then twisted and repeated to the point where it is just accepted that he did claim to shoot looters.

Maybe you should educate yourself a little before making sweeping claims that this tool never lied: I just gave you links to three article in national newspapers and magazines which quoted MULTIPLE friends of Kyle stating he made those claims. Did all those people just make those up? And as you admit, the BS about Ventura is in hos book.
Above is from a detailed article in a little magazine known as The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs

I haven't read his book but as far as I'm aware, none of these claims are in it and his claims about Jesse Ventura are the only one's with any evidence that he actually made these claims.

So we've established he lied about the entire incident with Ventura, yes? That was certainly the finding of the jury in his slander trial, the one where actual evidence was evaluated. Oh, and how come you have nothing to say about his claims to have killed two car jackers? He made this claim to multiple people on multiple occasions.

Go ahead and post some refutations to the evidence posted in the multiple links throughout this thread if you have any. Otherwise I think we can take it that you are have fallen for heaping servings of obvious nonsense spun by a racist little redneck with a gun.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

Maybe you should educate yourself a little before making sweeping claims that this tool never lied:

Kyle was contacted by Brandon Webb, a veteran who had served with him on SEAL Team Three. Webb, now the editor of SOFREP, a Web site covering special-operations forces, invited Kyle and another former SEAL to participate in a taped discussion about life as a special operator. Webb asked Pat Kilbane, an actor, to moderate the discussion. Kyle met them at a bar in San Diego to tape the program.

The session went well. Kilbane told me that he was struck by Kyle’s “aura,” noting that whenever “he walked in the room the dynamic would change, the energy in the room would shift.” Afterward, a larger group went out for dinner, closed the hotel bar, and hung out in Kyle’s suite, drinking until late. The SEALs began telling stories, and Kyle offered a shocking one. In the days after Hurricane Katrina, he said, the law-and-order situation was dire. He and another sniper travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceeded to shoot dozens of armed residents who were contributing to the chaos. Three people shared with me varied recollections of that evening: the first said that Kyle claimed to have shot thirty men on his own; according to the second, the story was that Kyle and the other sniper had shot thirty men between them; the third said that she couldn’t recall specific details.
I just gave you links to three article in national newspapers and magazines which quoted MULTIPLE friends of Kyle stating he made those claims. Did all those people just make those up? And as you admit, the BS about Ventura is in hos book.

Above is from a detailed article in a little magazine known as The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs


Previously you were absolutely certain that Kyle never lied about anything (who was this guy - the first man on earth who never told a lie?). Now you're admitting that yup the fantasies about Ventura was in his book, kind of a contradition there, yeah?

Oh, and how come you have nothing to say about his claims to have killed two car jackers? He made this claim to multiple people on multiple occasions.

Go ahead and post some refutations to the evidence posted in the multiple links throughout this thread if you have any. Otherwise I think we can take it that you are have fallen for heaping servings of obvious nonsense spun by a racist little redneck with a gun.

You must think I'm someone else, I'm not one of the Chris Kyle fanboys. :pac:

I've just yet to see anywhere which has a quote from Kyle saying "I shot 30 looters in New Orleans." Instead it's always, he said Kyle claimed this and that.

Here's what Brandon Webb said:

In early 2012, I had an unexpected conversation with my friend Chris Kyle (author of American Sniper) about the Katrina debacle. I had heard rumblings about Special Operations (mainly SEALs) snipers being deployed to New Orleans to support the effort to restore order. He confirmed the rumors and shared his own intimate knowledge that close contacts of his, many who were apparently still serving on active duty, took leave to work for the controversial PMC (Private Military Company),Blackwater.

Chris went on to tell me that the bulk of the guys he knew directly had racked up over thirty kills between them near and around the Super Dome. I asked him about Rules of Engagement, and asked, “Who were they shooting at,” and he just gave me a big Texas shrug and smile. I figured out really quick that it was 180 grains of due process (usually to the head at 200M).

Again, this is a secondary source but it claims that Kyle knew of people going to New Orleans rather than that he himself was there.

The carjacking shooting story also only ever appears as a secondary source.

Whether or not he actually made these claims, I'm just trying to be objective and until I see definitive evidence that he did, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of using them to discredit him.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

The car jacking story was told directly to a journalist who was sympathetic to Kyle and told to him on multiple occasions. It was also told to multiple other people and has been widely documented. All of that is documented at the links above as well as here, a magazine story which was written with Kyle's full co-operation and over numerous interviews.

So just to clarify, you find no credibility in Kyle having said this despite the fact that multiple people who were sympathetic to him report him having made this claim? Which is more likely - that he actually said it or that all of these people are making it up?

That article tells "a story about Chris Kyle" which contains no quotes from Kyle making these claims but does say:

...I asked him about that story during an interview in his office last year ... He didn’t want to get into specifics about the gas station shooting, but I left that day believing it had happened.

The reporter later highlights the huge amount of evidence that the incident never took place yet still himself believes it happened. Or perhaps, the reporter wants it to have happened because "He was one of the few men in the entire world capable of such a feat." I think the reporter is a bit of a Chris Kyle fanboy.

That same reporter, in another article, claims that when he asked Kyle about the incident he said this:

“You mean the time I shot two guys trying to steal my truck?”...“It’s true,” he said. He proceeded to tell me about that day.

One of the articles claims it happened in 2009 and the other says 2010. It's also worth noting that those articles or any other I have found regarding the incident were written after Kyle's death. I find it hard to take those articles seriously and I get the feeling that the reporter is in fact the one who is a bit of a fantasist.

So which do I think is more likely - that he actually said it or that all of these people are making it up? Honestly, I can't say either way, neither would surprise me.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

He made the New Orelans claim in the presensce of two people, one of whom was a journalist, both were also ex-Seals and sympathetic to Kyle. He also told the tale numerous other times to other Seals. Why exactly are all of these comrades of Kyle's lying?

Again, the main source of this claim comes from what Brandon Webb, the journalist and ex-SEAL, wrote:

In early 2012, I had an unexpected conversation with my friend Chris Kyle (author of American Sniper) about the Katrina debacle. I had heard rumblings about Special Operations (mainly SEALs) snipers being deployed to New Orleans to support the effort to restore order. He confirmed the rumors and shared his own intimate knowledge that close contacts of his, many who were apparently still serving on active duty, took leave to work for the controversial PMC (Private Military Company),Blackwater.

Chris went on to tell me that the bulk of the guys he knew directly had racked up over thirty kills between them near and around the Super Dome. I asked him about Rules of Engagement, and asked, “Who were they shooting at,” and he just gave me a big Texas shrug and smile. I figured out really quick that it was 180 grains of due process (usually to the head at 200M).

If you read it carefully, Webb says that Kyle claimed to have known about what happened but didn't actually claim to be there. From that, there is more anecdotal evidence that he claimed he personally killed 30 looters.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

And the Ventura incident is a matter of court record.

I don't question that one at all, after all it has compelling evidence to support it unlike the others.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

You're claim not to be a Kyle "fanboy", so why are you showing a contrarian's degree of scepticism in regard to the mountain of negative evidence about Kyle's absurd claims?

Because, regarding that mountain of evidence, I value quality over quantity. I didn't set out to defend Chris Kyle, but after reading so many claims that he claimed to have done this and that based purely on anecdotal evidence, it just didn't add up to me.

I see the die-hard Kyle fanboys, and I can see you've noticed them to, as they lose all semblance of reasoning trying to defend him for whatever reason. And then there's the other side, who seem to be more reasonable, yet surprisingly when they see any shred of evidence to support their claims that Kyle wasn't quite the 'hero' and nice guy he is portrayed as, they jump on it without first questioning and verifying it beyond doubt.

I don't claim to know exactly what Kyle actually claimed to have done but based on the huge amount of anecdotal evidence and lack of concrete evidence, I have my doubts.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

But of course, you're not a fanboy.

Have you even read any of my posts? I'm not saying that he definitely didn't make any of the claims. I'm specifically saying I don't know due to the fact that the mountains of evidence are based on hearsay.

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

When multiple journalists say that he made his claims directly to them it is no longer hearsay.

Which is more likely - that numerous people who are otherwise sympathetic to him are all lying and making up the same stories for some bizarre reason? Or that the guy who has been shown in a court of law to be a ridiculous fantasist did actually make these claims? There's a point where giving someone the benefit of the doubt becomes absurd.

So you admit that there is doubt?

And that New Yorker article you mentioned took its information from the article previously refered to. It's just recycling the same inconclusive anecdotal evidence that he apparently told friends.

I'm just trying to look at it objectively. If some conclusive evidence comes to light, I'll fully accept that he made the claims but in the absence of such evidence, I'll reserve judgement.