Anonymous wrote:

The reason we are talking about him though are for his worthy actions as a vet.

To put a finer point on it, the reason we are talking about him is because he wrote a book about his worthy actions as a vet. And that book also included some not-so-worthy actions and some outright lies. The trouble is that apparently we're not allowed to talk about the latter because of the former. Imperfect people are more interesting and make better books, and films. Blind hero-worship should not preclude a discussion of someone's bad points. There are lots of people upthread who seem to think it should.

Regarding the film - is there really a film with scene including a fake baby in the running for best picture?

The reason we are talking about him though are for his worthy actions as a vet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These posts are disgusting. I hope all of you who can sit here and spend time trashing a deceased veteran who fought in 4 tours to defend this very country you live in, NEVER have a love one die in the hands of a terrorist.

But I wish we could lift you out of your comfy chair and throw you in the middle of Iraq. You would all be begging for help from a vet like him.

Honestly shocked. Repulsed. Amazed how crappy our vets are treated.

You should really, really read that National Review article I linked above. And I have never, ever suggested that anyone read anything in the National Review before. Wherein a conservative writer and lawyer wonders:

"More important, however, it demonstrates a worrisome level of blind hero worship. The idea that, because Kyle served his country bravely and honorably, he was therefore always honorable in all aspects of his life, and can do no wrong, ever, is preposterous. As Pocket Full of Liberty’s editor Skyler Mann wondered: 'Not about Chris Kyle in particular but the hullaboo makes me wonder: if a veteran does something super sh**** is it OK because s/he’s a vet?'"

Anonymous wrote:These posts are disgusting. I hope all of you who can sit here and spend time trashing a deceased veteran who fought in 4 tours to defend this very country you live in, NEVER have a love one die in the hands of a terrorist.

But I wish we could lift you out of your comfy chair and throw you in the middle of Iraq. You would all be begging for help from a vet like him.

Honestly shocked. Repulsed. Amazed how crappy our vets are treated.

Anonymous wrote:

Then I trust that you read Obama's book before forming an opinion about him.

Different poster. I read O's book. I think if more people had really read it, they would not have voted for him. He has a different way of looking at things that is different from most people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladies and Gentlemen,

Your hero:

He drove cars at them at high speed to see them get scared: “Their high-pitched screams, coupled with sprints in the opposite direction, had me doubled over. Cheap thrills in Iraq were priceless,” he wrote in his memoir. He bragged about stealing from their homes against orders. He compared them to American welfare recipients in their dependency and inability to handle freedom.

“On the front of my arm, I had a crusader cross inked in,” he wrote. “I wanted everyone to know I was a Christian. I had it put in in red, for blood. I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting. I always will. They’ve taken so much from me.”

“I don’t shoot people with Korans — I’d like to, but I don’t.”

Can you please show me Chris Kyle saying this? If in writing, the context is needed. If on video, the whole interview.

His autobiography (if this link works, it's to the autobiography on Google Books):

http://tinyurl.com/l9ubwvx

The PP typed a paragraph to diminish Kyle. I'm asking for the context surrounding it. I know it's in the biography, but it means nothing without the context. Since the PP gave us a snippet with intent to defile the man's name,

Given Kyle spoke of zones that had been already cleared and thus, only the enemy remained (and given Kyle's last line in the PPs quoted statement, I believe that to be the context) I see nothing wrong with his statements PP posted.

The part about not shooting people with Korans - now why do you suppose Kyle could have shot them but refrained? That doesn't sound like a man unhinged.

I'm asking the PP to provide context. If that individual hadn't used the statements Kyle made specifically to diminish him, I would not care.

Click on the link. It would have saved you a lot of typing.

No it would not. Those are the words. Without reading the book, I would not know the context, nor would I know Kyle's frame of mind. Neither does the PP. Who is judging Kyle. My guess is PP has not read the autobiography. Have you?

I've seen enough of Kyle's interviews to know that the picture of Kyle liberals like PP paint is completely inconsistent with the man I heard speaking. That is the reasons for my questions.

The link is to the book. The actual book. It is to the page of the book on which the quote is printed. You cannot get more in context than that. Again, simply clicking on the link would save you -- and me -- a lot of typing.

Context, meaning what he was referring to, where he specifically was, etc. when he was speaking those words. Was he referring to a mother with her little children? Old Iraqi men? Or those that were trying to kill him and those he was hired to protect? Words on a page are simply that. They only mean something when they are context:

con·text
?käntekst/
noun
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
"the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending"
synonyms: circumstances, conditions, factors, state of affairs, situation, background, scene, setting More
the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
"word processing is affected by the context in which words appear"

I don't know how to explain more simply. Imagine there is a book here: [-]

Now imagine this is a link to that book: --->[-]

Now imagine you clicked on the link to that book: --->[-]

You would then see the quote in context in the book. What else could you possibly want? You can move to the previous page, the next page, whatever.

Have you even clicked on the link once? It's not that hard. Really, just put your mouse over it and click. No pain at all.

Typical "Jeffism". Sure I clicked on the link. And saw the quote. I even moved back a page and forward a page. But it did not explain to me why PP thought that Kyle was a bloodthirsty killer.

I posted a youtube video of an interview Kyle did with O'Reilly, which helps to provide the context I was looking for, without having to read the whole book.

Interestingly enough, PP resorted to name calling and insults instead of defending his position.

Ok, so you couldn't find context for a quote in the actual book, but you managed to find it in an entirely separate interview? I think you're confused. You weren't searching for context. You were searching for something to support your position.

Are you indicating that nobody should have an opinion about a public figure until they read their book? Then I trust that you read Obama's book before forming an opinion about him.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then I trust that you read Obama's book before forming an opinion about him.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ladies and Gentlemen,

Your hero:

He drove cars at them at high speed to see them get scared: “Their high-pitched screams, coupled with sprints in the opposite direction, had me doubled over. Cheap thrills in Iraq were priceless,” he wrote in his memoir. He bragged about stealing from their homes against orders. He compared them to American welfare recipients in their dependency and inability to handle freedom.

“On the front of my arm, I had a crusader cross inked in,” he wrote. “I wanted everyone to know I was a Christian. I had it put in in red, for blood. I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting. I always will. They’ve taken so much from me.”

“I don’t shoot people with Korans — I’d like to, but I don’t.”

Can you please show me Chris Kyle saying this? If in writing, the context is needed. If on video, the whole interview.

His autobiography (if this link works, it's to the autobiography on Google Books):

http://tinyurl.com/l9ubwvx

The PP typed a paragraph to diminish Kyle. I'm asking for the context surrounding it. I know it's in the biography, but it means nothing without the context. Since the PP gave us a snippet with intent to defile the man's name,

Given Kyle spoke of zones that had been already cleared and thus, only the enemy remained (and given Kyle's last line in the PPs quoted statement, I believe that to be the context) I see nothing wrong with his statements PP posted.

The part about not shooting people with Korans - now why do you suppose Kyle could have shot them but refrained? That doesn't sound like a man unhinged.

I'm asking the PP to provide context. If that individual hadn't used the statements Kyle made specifically to diminish him, I would not care.

Click on the link. It would have saved you a lot of typing.

No it would not. Those are the words. Without reading the book, I would not know the context, nor would I know Kyle's frame of mind. Neither does the PP. Who is judging Kyle. My guess is PP has not read the autobiography. Have you?

I've seen enough of Kyle's interviews to know that the picture of Kyle liberals like PP paint is completely inconsistent with the man I heard speaking. That is the reasons for my questions.

The link is to the book. The actual book. It is to the page of the book on which the quote is printed. You cannot get more in context than that. Again, simply clicking on the link would save you -- and me -- a lot of typing.

Context, meaning what he was referring to, where he specifically was, etc. when he was speaking those words. Was he referring to a mother with her little children? Old Iraqi men? Or those that were trying to kill him and those he was hired to protect? Words on a page are simply that. They only mean something when they are context:

con·text
?käntekst/
noun
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
"the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending"
synonyms: circumstances, conditions, factors, state of affairs, situation, background, scene, setting More
the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
"word processing is affected by the context in which words appear"

I don't know how to explain more simply. Imagine there is a book here: [-]

Now imagine this is a link to that book: --->[-]

Now imagine you clicked on the link to that book: --->[-]

You would then see the quote in context in the book. What else could you possibly want? You can move to the previous page, the next page, whatever.

Have you even clicked on the link once? It's not that hard. Really, just put your mouse over it and click. No pain at all.

Typical "Jeffism". Sure I clicked on the link. And saw the quote. I even moved back a page and forward a page. But it did not explain to me why PP thought that Kyle was a bloodthirsty killer.

I posted a youtube video of an interview Kyle did with O'Reilly, which helps to provide the context I was looking for, without having to read the whole book.

Interestingly enough, PP resorted to name calling and insults instead of defending his position.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Typical "Jeffism". Sure I clicked on the link. And saw the quote. I even moved back a page and forward a page. But it did not explain to me why PP thought that Kyle was a bloodthirsty killer.

I posted a youtube video of an interview Kyle did with O'Reilly, which helps to provide the context I was looking for, without having to read the whole book.

Interestingly enough, PP resorted to name calling and insults instead of defending his position.

The PP didn't say that he thought Kyle was a bloodthirsty killer. The PP merely presented some quotes for which you wanted context.