American Sniper

[Anonymous]

According to the book “Marine Sniper,” written by retired Marine Chief Warrant Officer Charles Henderson, during Hathcock’s service as a sniper, he took down many targets with incredible precision and an unrelenting, cool calculation. Once he put a round through a Viet Cong’s sniper scope while the two men were looking at each other, several hundred yards apart. The bullet went through the enemy’s scope and into the sniper’s head.

Hathcock also killed a female Viet Cong sniper called “Apache Woman.” She delighted in torturing and slowly killing young Marines wounded in ambush or in traps set for them in the jungle, Henderson wrote. Land confirmed those stories.
....A magazine article by Green Beret veteran Charles W. Sasser details that event. Hathcock finally took the shot in an open field, vulnerable to the enemy amassed at the compound.

“When the general came outside with his aide to get into the car, Hathcock pulled his bubble around him so that nothing could disturb his concentration. He no longer felt hunger or thirst or weariness. The general came out onto the little porch. He yawned and stretched in the morning sunlight. Hathcock lowered his cross hairs to the officer’s heart. He was squeezing the trigger when the general’s aide stepped in front of him,” Sasser wrote.

“As soon as the aide stepped aside, exposing the general’s broad tunic, the rifle jarred against Hathcock’s shoulder. The Marine brought the scope out of recoil and saw immediately that the general was down and not moving, which meant a heart shot. The other NVA officers and aides were scrambling for cover.”....

...Hathcock was never hit by an enemy bullet. The closest he came to being killed was when he was in an armored personnel carrier that struck a mine in the Quang Tri Province of Vietnam. Hathcock pulled several Marines from the burning APC, although he, too, was terribly burned from the blast of the large mine. Suffering from second- and third-degree burns over more than 40 percent of his body, he spent months recovering at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. He had more than a dozen skin grafts. He was injured so badly that his sniper days were at an end.

http://www.modernamericanheroes.com/2010/07/13/the-story-of-legendary-sniper-carlos-hathcock/

The mission to kill the general, he had to move to through a battalion size force unseen, take the shot and escape. I do not know many people who would volunteer for that mission.

[Anonymous]

Can't wait to see the film.
God bless our troops and God bless America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

According to the book “Marine Sniper,” written by retired Marine Chief Warrant Officer Charles Henderson, during Hathcock’s service as a sniper, he took down many targets with incredible precision and an unrelenting, cool calculation. Once he put a round through a Viet Cong’s sniper scope while the two men were looking at each other, several hundred yards apart. The bullet went through the enemy’s scope and into the sniper’s head.

Hathcock also killed a female Viet Cong sniper called “Apache Woman.” She delighted in torturing and slowly killing young Marines wounded in ambush or in traps set for them in the jungle, Henderson wrote. Land confirmed those stories.
....A magazine article by Green Beret veteran Charles W. Sasser details that event. Hathcock finally took the shot in an open field, vulnerable to the enemy amassed at the compound.

“When the general came outside with his aide to get into the car, Hathcock pulled his bubble around him so that nothing could disturb his concentration. He no longer felt hunger or thirst or weariness. The general came out onto the little porch. He yawned and stretched in the morning sunlight. Hathcock lowered his cross hairs to the officer’s heart. He was squeezing the trigger when the general’s aide stepped in front of him,” Sasser wrote.

“As soon as the aide stepped aside, exposing the general’s broad tunic, the rifle jarred against Hathcock’s shoulder. The Marine brought the scope out of recoil and saw immediately that the general was down and not moving, which meant a heart shot. The other NVA officers and aides were scrambling for cover.”....

...Hathcock was never hit by an enemy bullet. The closest he came to being killed was when he was in an armored personnel carrier that struck a mine in the Quang Tri Province of Vietnam. Hathcock pulled several Marines from the burning APC, although he, too, was terribly burned from the blast of the large mine. Suffering from second- and third-degree burns over more than 40 percent of his body, he spent months recovering at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. He had more than a dozen skin grafts. He was injured so badly that his sniper days were at an end.

http://www.modernamericanheroes.com/2010/07/13/the-story-of-legendary-sniper-carlos-hathcock/

The mission to kill the general, he had to move to through a battalion size force unseen, take the shot and escape. I do not know many people who would volunteer for that mission.

Certainly not Michael Moore, Seth Rogan or these liberal DC clowns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:many of you justify his actions off the battlefield because of what he had to see/do on the battlefield. But you also think that Ventura deserved to be punched for expressing his views. Ventura is a vietnam-era vet of the Underwater Demolition Team. So, if being a vet gives Kyle the right to beat and kill off the battlefield, doesn't it give Ventura the right to make some snarky comments?

He definitely has the right. I would advise people who acy on their rights to take a look around them and determine if their actions will have repercussions. If If a skinhead 'expressed his views' in a room full of black people and got decked for it, y'all would be all about the punch. Look at how many of you defended Martin's physical attack on Zimmerman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its amazing to me that this many people can quibble with a very straightforward account of someone who served through multiple deployments, distinguished themselves greatly in the very service they were recruited and asked to do, and then fought to.come home - a fight through ptsd that very few understand, that is clearly horrible on the person and family,.and that is gaining growing recognition as a real condition, not something u just 'shake off'. He then died helping others in this state. Not just the killer, but others whom you probably would walk by/look away not knowing what to do or say. He found something to do that they appreciated.
As to being simple.or a meathead- my spouse is in the military, has higher degrees, speaks a foreign language. I certainly hope in a biopic he's be depicted that way. Chris Kyle was depicted as a straightforward person with his own skills set,.one of which was sense of purpose, a sense of humor which to.me speaks of intelligence. If he was like that great, but I'm glad they didn't dress him up and have him.play the violin if thats not who he was.
What's your ax? Would you like the military to get rid of snipers? Would you like them to stop hiring Texans whom you seem to look down on? Only people with philosophy degrees ( and there are plenty in the military btw).
The bigotry I am seeing in reactions to the film.is phenomenal. You may not have supported the war, but to kick the people we sent for doing the job we asked of them?

+1

I am embarrassed to live in a country that trashes this man and defends a "man" like Michael Brown.

Count me in here. PP, that was beautifully said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for anyone who had a father, mother, uncle, aunt, son, daughter, nephew, niece, cousin, grandchild in the military. You know, the ones who actually walk the walk instead of talking the talk.

Would you want Kyle watching their back or no?

They won't answer this because liberals don't have anyone in the military. They are too busy taking advantage of their freedom by complaining about military and police instead of actually helping out themselves.

Liberals get everybody oppressed or killed in the end. They are like the crying baby in the sound of music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liberal and I do not hate the men and women in the military at all. I'm related to a Colonel in the US Army who is a highly intelligent and dedicated man, and I have tremendous respect for him.

But if the way Kyle is being portrayed is at all true, then I do not care for who that man was.

The 'if' is the problem. Any chance you plan to read his book, study up on the man, and make your own decision?

I'll give you that it's problematic. And I'll answer you honestly that I will probably never read the work of a man who told numerous stories that are likely not true.

I love words like "if" and "likely". Essentially, you won't read the book because you might learn something that goes against your liberal viewpoint. You might find out *gasp* terrorists are BAD PEOPLE!

Kyle's estate is on its second appeal of a $1.8M judgment against it for libel and slander. Multiple judges have ruled him a liar; there is nothing "likely" about it.

While he certainly was good a telling "sea stories" in interviews and to friends, his work in combat as a SEAL is not in question. The confirmed count of sniper kills is Pentagon confirmed. His own colleagues suggest the count his higher. He has multiple Bronze/Silver stars. How about you read the book or see the movie instead of passing judgement based on articles you've read?

I've read the book. I understand war is necessary, and that he was doing a job. But I don't find that glorifying "confirmed kills" has a lot of honor in it. You don't see a ton of other veterans coming home to get rich off writing books. The people I know who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam don't wax poetic about finding satisfaction in killing. The only reason he is getting attention is because of his "confirmed kills" and the sickos who get off on glorifying that. I think it's disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone mentioning the incident with Jesse Ventura is propagating a known lie. I think Ventura is an idiot but no one should be helping Kyle's estate spread lies about him.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/01/american_sniper_lawsuit_chris_kyle_told_lies_about_jesse_ventura.html

+1 His widow sure stands to profit off of him now that he's a "legend," doesn't she? She has a cold, hard financial reason to defend his lies as the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone mentioning the incident with Jesse Ventura is propagating a known lie. I think Ventura is an idiot but no one should be helping Kyle's estate spread lies about him.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/01/american_sniper_lawsuit_chris_kyle_told_lies_about_jesse_ventura.html

+1 His widow sure stands to profit off of him now that he's a "legend," doesn't she? She has a cold, hard financial reason to defend his lies as the truth.

I am pretty sure his widow and his kids would want him alive, asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone mentioning the incident with Jesse Ventura is propagating a known lie. I think Ventura is an idiot but no one should be helping Kyle's estate spread lies about him.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/01/american_sniper_lawsuit_chris_kyle_told_lies_about_jesse_ventura.html

+1 His widow sure stands to profit off of him now that he's a "legend," doesn't she? She has a cold, hard financial reason to defend his lies as the truth.

I am pretty sure his widow and his kids would want him alive, asshole.

I'm sure she would too. But now that he's not, she has even more of a reason to propagate the aura of "hero" around her husband and defend against his lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liberal and I do not hate the men and women in the military at all. I'm related to a Colonel in the US Army who is a highly intelligent and dedicated man, and I have tremendous respect for him.

But if the way Kyle is being portrayed is at all true, then I do not care for who that man was.

The 'if' is the problem. Any chance you plan to read his book, study up on the man, and make your own decision?

I'll give you that it's problematic. And I'll answer you honestly that I will probably never read the work of a man who told numerous stories that are likely not true.

I love words like "if" and "likely". Essentially, you won't read the book because you might learn something that goes against your liberal viewpoint. You might find out *gasp* terrorists are BAD PEOPLE!

Kyle's estate is on its second appeal of a $1.8M judgment against it for libel and slander. Multiple judges have ruled him a liar; there is nothing "likely" about it.

While he certainly was good a telling "sea stories" in interviews and to friends, his work in combat as a SEAL is not in question. The confirmed count of sniper kills is Pentagon confirmed. His own colleagues suggest the count his higher. He has multiple Bronze/Silver stars. How about you read the book or see the movie instead of passing judgement based on articles you've read?

I've read the book. I understand war is necessary, and that he was doing a job. But I don't find that glorifying "confirmed kills" has a lot of honor in it. You don't see a ton of other veterans coming home to get rich off writing books. The people I know who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam don't wax poetic about finding satisfaction in killing. The only reason he is getting attention is because of his "confirmed kills" and the sickos who get off on glorifying that. I think it's disgusting.

What is disgusting is the amount of soldiers that would have been killed if he was not there. That is why people call him the legend, that is why he was honored. He saved many American soldiers. How do you not understand that? When they were on the ground walking around, they felt secure he was up there helping to take out anyone throwing grenades or coming in to bomb an entire tanker and so forth. What soldier in their right mind would want to do ground patrol without an eye in the sky? Would you? If your family was over there you would want a Chris Kyle with them. Do you get that?

And I am pretty sure the people you know from other wars don't talk about stuff with your whiny liberal ass. They don't have time to defend what they did to people who just complain and don't understand what truly happens overseas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone mentioning the incident with Jesse Ventura is propagating a known lie. I think Ventura is an idiot but no one should be helping Kyle's estate spread lies about him.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/01/american_sniper_lawsuit_chris_kyle_told_lies_about_jesse_ventura.html

+1 His widow sure stands to profit off of him now that he's a "legend," doesn't she? She has a cold, hard financial reason to defend his lies as the truth.

I am pretty sure his widow and his kids would want him alive, asshole.

I'm sure she would too. But now that he's not, she has even more of a reason to propagate the aura of "hero" around her husband and defend against his lies.

Wow - lets make sure we not only crush the reputation of Chris but let's bring his wife down with him. Classy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liberal and I do not hate the men and women in the military at all. I'm related to a Colonel in the US Army who is a highly intelligent and dedicated man, and I have tremendous respect for him.

But if the way Kyle is being portrayed is at all true, then I do not care for who that man was.

The 'if' is the problem. Any chance you plan to read his book, study up on the man, and make your own decision?

I'll give you that it's problematic. And I'll answer you honestly that I will probably never read the work of a man who told numerous stories that are likely not true.

I love words like "if" and "likely". Essentially, you won't read the book because you might learn something that goes against your liberal viewpoint. You might find out *gasp* terrorists are BAD PEOPLE!

Kyle's estate is on its second appeal of a $1.8M judgment against it for libel and slander. Multiple judges have ruled him a liar; there is nothing "likely" about it.

While he certainly was good a telling "sea stories" in interviews and to friends, his work in combat as a SEAL is not in question. The confirmed count of sniper kills is Pentagon confirmed. His own colleagues suggest the count his higher. He has multiple Bronze/Silver stars. How about you read the book or see the movie instead of passing judgement based on articles you've read?

I've read the book. I understand war is necessary, and that he was doing a job. But I don't find that glorifying "confirmed kills" has a lot of honor in it. You don't see a ton of other veterans coming home to get rich off writing books. The people I know who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam don't wax poetic about finding satisfaction in killing. The only reason he is getting attention is because of his "confirmed kills" and the sickos who get off on glorifying that. I think it's disgusting.

What is disgusting is the amount of soldiers that would have been killed if he was not there. That is why people call him the legend, that is why he was honored. He saved many American soldiers. How do you not understand that? When they were on the ground walking around, they felt secure he was up there helping to take out anyone throwing grenades or coming in to bomb an entire tanker and so forth. What soldier in their right mind would want to do ground patrol without an eye in the sky? Would you? If your family was over there you would want a Chris Kyle with them. Do you get that?

And I am pretty sure the people you know from other wars don't talk about stuff with your whiny liberal ass. They don't have time to defend what they did to people who just complain and don't understand what truly happens overseas.

It's not about "defending what they did." It's about having the class to realize that crowing about killing - regardless of whether it is "justified" by war - is morally repugnant, and the brains to realize that the world is not all black and white, and that war, violence and death is not a fucking game to come home and gain notoriety and riches from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liberal and I do not hate the men and women in the military at all. I'm related to a Colonel in the US Army who is a highly intelligent and dedicated man, and I have tremendous respect for him.

But if the way Kyle is being portrayed is at all true, then I do not care for who that man was.

The 'if' is the problem. Any chance you plan to read his book, study up on the man, and make your own decision?

I'll give you that it's problematic. And I'll answer you honestly that I will probably never read the work of a man who told numerous stories that are likely not true.

I love words like "if" and "likely". Essentially, you won't read the book because you might learn something that goes against your liberal viewpoint. You might find out *gasp* terrorists are BAD PEOPLE!

Kyle's estate is on its second appeal of a $1.8M judgment against it for libel and slander. Multiple judges have ruled him a liar; there is nothing "likely" about it.

While he certainly was good a telling "sea stories" in interviews and to friends, his work in combat as a SEAL is not in question. The confirmed count of sniper kills is Pentagon confirmed. His own colleagues suggest the count his higher. He has multiple Bronze/Silver stars. How about you read the book or see the movie instead of passing judgement based on articles you've read?

I've read the book. I understand war is necessary, and that he was doing a job. But I don't find that glorifying "confirmed kills" has a lot of honor in it. You don't see a ton of other veterans coming home to get rich off writing books. The people I know who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam don't wax poetic about finding satisfaction in killing. The only reason he is getting attention is because of his "confirmed kills" and the sickos who get off on glorifying that. I think it's disgusting.

What is disgusting is the amount of soldiers that would have been killed if he was not there. That is why people call him the legend, that is why he was honored. He saved many American soldiers. How do you not understand that? When they were on the ground walking around, they felt secure he was up there helping to take out anyone throwing grenades or coming in to bomb an entire tanker and so forth. What soldier in their right mind would want to do ground patrol without an eye in the sky? Would you? If your family was over there you would want a Chris Kyle with them. Do you get that?

And I am pretty sure the people you know from other wars don't talk about stuff with your whiny liberal ass. They don't have time to defend what they did to people who just complain and don't understand what truly happens overseas.

It's not about "defending what they did." It's about having the class to realize that crowing about killing - regardless of whether it is "justified" by war - is morally repugnant, and the brains to realize that the world is not all black and white, and that war, violence and death is not a fucking game to come home and gain notoriety and riches from.

You obviously have zero family that is in the military. To make claims what soldiers should and shouldn't do when they come home? He never tried to gain notoriety and he remained very humble and fought thru alcoholism and PTSD to come out somewhat sane. He didn't leave out his medals but tucked them away. He helped many veterans with PTSD and started a non-profit charity. 2/3 of the 1.5 million profit of book sales went back to his friend's families killed in combat and 1/3 went to his charity. But yes, he is repugnant and was only trying gain notoriety.

How about this. Go down to Walter Reed and sit with some of those soldiers. Explain your side of the story and see how they feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm liberal and I do not hate the men and women in the military at all. I'm related to a Colonel in the US Army who is a highly intelligent and dedicated man, and I have tremendous respect for him.

But if the way Kyle is being portrayed is at all true, then I do not care for who that man was.

The 'if' is the problem. Any chance you plan to read his book, study up on the man, and make your own decision?

I'll give you that it's problematic. And I'll answer you honestly that I will probably never read the work of a man who told numerous stories that are likely not true.

I love words like "if" and "likely". Essentially, you won't read the book because you might learn something that goes against your liberal viewpoint. You might find out *gasp* terrorists are BAD PEOPLE!

Kyle's estate is on its second appeal of a $1.8M judgment against it for libel and slander. Multiple judges have ruled him a liar; there is nothing "likely" about it.

While he certainly was good a telling "sea stories" in interviews and to friends, his work in combat as a SEAL is not in question. The confirmed count of sniper kills is Pentagon confirmed. His own colleagues suggest the count his higher. He has multiple Bronze/Silver stars. How about you read the book or see the movie instead of passing judgement based on articles you've read?

I've read the book. I understand war is necessary, and that he was doing a job. But I don't find that glorifying "confirmed kills" has a lot of honor in it. You don't see a ton of other veterans coming home to get rich off writing books. The people I know who served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam don't wax poetic about finding satisfaction in killing. The only reason he is getting attention is because of his "confirmed kills" and the sickos who get off on glorifying that. I think it's disgusting.

What is disgusting is the amount of soldiers that would have been killed if he was not there. That is why people call him the legend, that is why he was honored. He saved many American soldiers. How do you not understand that? When they were on the ground walking around, they felt secure he was up there helping to take out anyone throwing grenades or coming in to bomb an entire tanker and so forth. What soldier in their right mind would want to do ground patrol without an eye in the sky? Would you? If your family was over there you would want a Chris Kyle with them. Do you get that?

And I am pretty sure the people you know from other wars don't talk about stuff with your whiny liberal ass. They don't have time to defend what they did to people who just complain and don't understand what truly happens overseas.

Knock it off. This idea that brave conservatives protect cowering liberals is a lie you tell yourself to feel good.

1. You haven't protected anyone but yourself.
2. Plenty of liberals have.
3. Liberals aren't cowering. But conservatives seem to panic at the first sign of danger.