Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493479)

Why do you have such a boner for Chris Kyle? The article doesn't even mention him -- just the movie, and the two things are not the same (if you had seen the movie you would known it is plainly fictionalized.)

A few days ago you said Chris Kyle was a "liar" -- noting that he had lost a defamation suit. The defamation suit was brought by Jesse Ventura, who alleged that Kyle's story about an encounter with Ventura was false. It went to trial after Chris Kyle was dead. Do you think there is any chance that a jury, that had to decide who was telling the truth about a conversation -- the oh-so-popular plaintiff Jesse Ventura, or the dead defendant -- might have gotten that wrong?

I saw American Sniper today (and was going to post about it, then saw your post). I cannot understand why anyone, right or left, is making such a fuss. The movie does not depict Kyle simply as a hero; it depicts him as an ass to his family, unable to leave the war, and a few other negative things -- and also as a guy who was very, very good at his particular job, and who (as a sniper) felt responsible for watching over American soldiers.

If the movie depiction of him was accurate (either as a reflection of the man or a reflection of the book, or both), then the guy clearly had difficulty with some of the things he did. His first kill (in the movie) was of a young boy who was carrying a bomb towards US soldiers. He didn't celebrate it, he wasn't happy, but he shot the kid to prevent the killing of US soldiers. Could you have done that? Could you say that he should not have? He also did not hate Iraqis; he referred to al Qaeda et al as "savages" but he also put his life at risk to try and save Iraqis from them.

I also cannot understand the fuss on the right. The movie itself is critical of the war, and of Kyle's attitude and what happened to him.

btw, the movie isn't great -- the script is a little silly. Though Cooper is pretty damn good.

If you are going to tell me that your problem with Kyle is that he hates Iraqis or takes joy in killing or anything else, then let me know if you are basing that on what his book actually said or just on what people have said about his book (often, as I've seen, after admitting that they hadn't read it but were just basing it on what they were told).

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493482)

Does he make those claims in his book?

For example -- a quick Google search pulls an article saying that his family -- not him, but his family after he died -- made the claim that all proceeds from the book went to charity. (But you're a capable lawyer, I'm sure you could find a way to pin that lie on him.)


The story about the Katrina killings also smells a bit fishy. Snopes reports on it -- they are debunking Kyle's claim, but to me they end up casting doubt on whether he ever made that claim:



So, what really seems to have happened is that three people said that they were talking with Kyle; one remembers that Kyle claimed to have shot thirty men; another remembers that Kyle claimed that he and another sniper shot thirty men; and a third doesn't remember anything at all. This suggests that he didn't make a public claim about it, but at most was in a shit-talking session with some SEALS who were talking tough and who all remember different things.


The carjacking story appears to be one he actually told, and probably false. So, yes, he was a screwed-up guy (which the movie captures fairly well), and he was a pro-gun guy and those people tend to hump each other over their self-defense stories. Dumb thing to do? Sure.


So, yeah -- a guy who spends many days lying on rooftops waiting to kill people, which includes having to figure out which man (or woman, or child) in street-clothes is a threat that should be killed and which isn't, is a little fucked-up by the experience. But you and Ty are awfully quick to condemn him, to suggest that there was nothing positive about him, and to act as if he was evil rather than acknowledge that maybe what he was put through was part of that. And, of course, to suggest that a movie you haven't seen is designed to create a cult around him -- it's creating that cult, but that's because of people who think in a mirror-image to your black-and-white view.


I guess acknowledging that I have difficulty judging a person who went through something I cannot imagine means I'm just a "clever lawyer." At least, in your eyes. What's life like up on that mountain-top, oh great one?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493484)

Why are you so keen on defending him?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493485)

Ah, the mountain top. A fine trope. Sorry to insult you by calling you a clever lawyer. I take it back.

I'm going to confess, my views of his behavior have a lot to do with thinking about the people who deal with the fall out from crap like this. I really think, more than anything else, he smacks of a wartime mental health case, as I've noted before, not a friend of the devil who was born to kill. I think you're mushing up what I've said and what Ty has said about various elements of him, and we have two very different (if both negative) views. I think Ty is also much more invested in hating the guy, while I just find this a more interesting subject than Brady's Balls and a less interesting one than Netanyahu's campaign for the 2016 GOP nomination.

Maybe some of his lies, even the ones told point blank and carefully in interviews, were the product of drunken exaggerations, an overactive imagination, difficulty processing -- there are such a range of them, and they go from the mindbogglingly outrageous to the merely stupid, they probably fit along a wide spectrum from little fib to intentional aggrandizement to substance-induced hallucination (though I've seen a couple interviews where he denies drinking much). Old war stories from retired soldiers are not a new thing.

But all of that goes toward his credibility. You say the movie is clearly fictionalized - I say it's likely much of the book is fictionalized, too, even parts he claimed are true. A lot of his interviews are fictionalized. It's really pretty pitiful in a lot of ways, but I am just not sure how you do much of anything with his stories, how you separate fact from fiction. Sure, some of it's not made up. But how do you tell what?

But besides all these rather sad and disturbing mental health issues, there is a very real military problem created by the guy - a special ops guy bragging about his kills in public and publishing a book of the braggadocio is a real bad thing from the perspective of the military and other soldiers. That puts other soliders at risk, that sets up all kinds of opportunity for ISIS or aQ propaganda. That's bad.

Luckily, there's some snow coming though, and this mountain is going to be great for skiing.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493488)

He is not a stand-in for the Iraq war, and I really have difficult when people cast judgments about a person -- judgments that largely appear based on what people say that person has said or done, filtered through various levels -- without recognizing what he went through and was put through by and for his country.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 493491)

If this is a discussion about what's is acceptable/understandable result of the horrors of war, I get what you're saying. If you're asserting that there is no line, which at times it feels like you are, then I don't get it at all.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493489)

Thank you -- I appreciate the rational response. I expect that some of the book is fictionalized (haven't read it). And the mental health issues are really at the core of this -- which, honestly, the movie brings out pretty well, but are getting drowned in the noise. After all, the guy was murdered by another vet who he was trying to help.

I'm not recommending the movie -- I went because my 14-yo wanted to see it. I just don't understand the craziness about it, and I think condemning someone as a pathological liar (which you seem to have done), or a war criminal (as Ty seems to have done) based on drunken stories and machoness, or even based on overstatements about what he did in the war, is just too much.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493492)

I will add that I'm very glad I saw the movie in a place like SF. I would guess that, in a number of theaters, people cheer and shout when Kyle shoots people, including the woman and kid he shoots in the beginning of the movie. (Sort of the way I heard soldiers cheering, in the theater where I saw Platoon, when a US soldier beat a Vietnamese teenager to death.)

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493495)

I think a lot of the lies were on national television, in print, and in other places that go a bit beyond a drunken story with some pals.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493479)

Why do you have such a boner for Chris Kyle?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493499)

Without seeing the movie (which I haven't), one can think there is something wrong with choosing to celebrate and airbrush the real Kyle. I was reacting to this piece. I suspect you agree completely with the last paragraph:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 493485)

I think Ty is also much more invested in hating the guy.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 493501)

Not really. While I agree with those sentiments, they don't seem to be about this movie.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 493503)

It's not like this is unique to Eastwood. Zero Dark Thirty showed torture producing valuable information. No one wants to see a movie where Americans torture people for no useful purpose.