Michael Moore Refers To Chris Kyle As Coward

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Smacks**

LordofHats wrote:
It was just kind of unclear what you meant XD Imperial Japan already was capitalist in any meaningful sense. Granted even Isolationism wasn't just 'won over' unless we ignore Mathew Perry and good old gun boat diplomacy XD

Oh wait! Sorry. no I wasn't talking about the 19th century. I meant the 20th century shift from Japan in the 1940s to being a modern economic powerhouse in the 1970s. A war with Japan seems unthinkable now, while other countries in the region are still suspicious of the west.

**Mr Morden**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Anything other than a engagment from the front with equal weapons and equal numbers is a cowardly tactic.

I'm impressed. You just called Alexander, Hannibal, Runstedt, Patton, Eisenhower, Gavin, Zhukov, Lee, Jackson, Thomas, Schwarzkopf, Yamamoto, Yamashita, and Custer all cowards in one handy little sentence.

My hat is off to you sir.

I think he just called everyone who was any good at war a coward.

It's so absurd it's amazing.

Its strange logic - and I doubt there was ever an occasion when the parity between opposing sides was like this?

You can argue whether specific ways of fighting war, weapons etc are likely to cause collateral damage and / or target civilians but to use the term cowardly just seems overly emotive and provocative which maybe was the point............

But just to be sure you are saying these two are exactly the same:

You are a soldier during a war, targeting combatants with a rifle, from range.

Strapping explosives to a child and getting her to detonate in the middle of a shopping mall whilst you watch from safety.

I meant the 20th century shift from Japan in the 1940s to being a modern economic powerhouse in the 1970s

Japan did the same in the early parts of the 20th century as it became a major economic and military power in the region- there is also some disquiet in the region about their continued rebuilding of their military. Many are looking at China as much more of a threat but some are also not happy about Japan.

I think the post war situation with Japan and Germany was very unique

**skyth**

Mr Morden wrote:

But just to be sure you are saying these two are exactly the same:

You are a soldier during a war, targeting combatants with a rifle, from range.

Strapping explosives to a child and getting her to detonate in the middle of a shopping mall whilst you watch from safety.

No one is claiming that.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Personally the real threat to Western freedom is the remaining monarchies in the West. While crowns still rest on heads we are slaves.

**Iron_Captain**

Tsk... All this talk about honourable combat and people still don't get it. All ranged weapons are cowardly, because it allows an untrained, weak coward to kill highly trained, strong honourable warriors with ease. The only honourable combat is between two skilled warriors, man to man, with nothing but their fists or simple weapons.
Anyone using ranged weapons is a coward not manly enough to run up to his enemy and kick him in the face.

Spoiler:

**Wolfstan**

What saddens me is that he allegedly is the fact that he had to build himself up with stuff that never happened. The fact that he was a sniper doing a difficult job is enough for me to respect him. Adding BS into the mix (allegedly) turns him in to some sort of Steven Seagal clone.

**Grey Templar**

LordofHats wrote:
Oh man. This reminds me of this guy back when I played Chrome Hounds. He was always spewing off about this "Art of Combat" stuff where he demanded players duel 1v1 and announce themselves Battletech Clans style or you were a coward. He'd go onto the forums and whine and complain for hours about how everyone was fighting unfair

I got to play against him once. Feed him a couple volleys of howitzer and "announced myself" after he exploded

I hope the announcement was something to the effect "I am Lord of Hats, owner of your very dead posterior!"

**skyth**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Tsk... All this talk about honourable combat and people still don't get it. All ranged weapons are cowardly, because it allows an untrained, weak coward to kill highly trained, strong honourable warriors with ease. The only honourable combat is between two skilled warriors, man to man, with nothing but their fists or simple weapons.
Anyone using ranged weapons is a coward not manly enough to run up to his enemy and kick him in the face.

Spoiler:

Cowards are smart

Agreed

**Jihadin**

Grey Templar wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Oh man. This reminds me of this guy back when I played Chrome Hounds. He was always spewing off about this "Art of Combat" stuff where he demanded players duel 1v1 and announce themselves Battletech Clans style or you were a coward. He'd go onto the forums and whine and complain for hours about how everyone was fighting unfair

I got to play against him once. Feed him a couple volleys of howitzer and "announced myself" after he exploded

I hope the announcement was something to the effect "I am Lord of Hats, owner of your very dead posterior!"

I've done the same as Hats being that Safcon was not offered from either side. Sounds like Natasha Kerensky was leading Hats forces

**gasdg**

The faculty beginner having a "Che Guevara" clothing maybe, however i don't know any "lefties" that they like the man.

**Da Boss**

I am actually a bit more than normally annoyed by the lack of reading comprehension here. I mean, I shouldn't be, I know whatever I post is being read through an emotional filter that makes you take it as badly as possible, but good god.

If I say "A comparison can be made" between two things, I am not saying they are "exactly the same". What a total lack of intellectual honesty. At least, I hope that is what it is, because if it isn't, it's sheer stupidity.

**Grey Templar**

I don't think they compare at all, except on a very very generic and broad level. But then you might as well compare a Suicide Bomber with a bunch of other things, like a demolition derby driver.

At a point where the points of comparison are too broad then the comparison just falls apart.

**Da Boss**

Both are methods of attack which are considered by some (or even many) to be morally dubious. Both are effective, both cause a large amount of fear, and both require bravery.

One is precision, the other is indiscriminate.

There, I've compared them!

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
Both are methods of attack which are considered by some (or even many) to be morally dubious. Both are effective, both cause a large amount of fear, and both require bravery.

!

You could say the same for used car salesmen.

**Jihadin**

Yet majority here do not have experience to compare them both in a broad stroke

Its like Warrior Ethos over numerous points of history is being applied here

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
Yet majority here do not have experience to compare them both in a broad stroke

Its like Warrior Ethos over numerous points of history is being applied here

oh contraire I think most people have dealt with used car salesmen, and they definitely suicide bomb my wallet!

**whembly**

nkelsch wrote:
whembly wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
My problem with the movie is Chris Kyle lied. A lot. A lot of his lies have been proven. The problem is so much of the rest of it is based upon 'plausible deniability' that we really have no idea what else is lies. To assume everything he wrote that hasn't been proved a demonstrable lie is fully 'true' is naive and ignorant especially since he has shown himself to be a soulless liar and fraud for money when he was on his book tour.

The danger is people who want those lies to be true are eating this movie up, lies and all...

I understand that 6 year olds need to be shot in the face sometimes in unconventional war for the sake of peace. We shouldn't celebrate it, we shouldn't glamorize it and we shouldn't lie about the ugliness of war. If you are going to spotlight it then do it truthfully. This movie whitewashes Chris Kyle's psychopathic existence as heroism. He is not a hero, he is a psychopathic liar and everything in his book and this movie is suspect.

Which lie was it specifically?

If you're talking about the Jesse Ventura defamation case, that was very much in dispute.

He claimed he shot looters in Katrina, Claimed he killed carjackers in Texas, the Jesse Ventura case wasn't in dispute as much as you think. not a single one of the actual claimed witnesses saw jesse ventura there, or even saw the fight at all. The testimony was damning. Not only was Jesse Ventura not there, but mr scruff face didn't even exist. The altercation didn't exist, or if it did, no one witnessed it, which is back to the 'plausible deniability' aspect.

He is a fraud and an embarrassment to servicemen that I know. Serving in the military can't be used as a shield for boldface lies.

A good description of his texas carjacking lie (which can't be proved it never existed so it must be true)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs

Supporting veterans was only one way that Kyle tried to establish a new identity off the battlefield; it was hard to let go of being a hero. In January, 2010, Kyle later told friends, he was once again put to the test: two men tried to carjack his truck. He was parked at a gas station, southwest of Dallas. “He told the robbers that he just needed to reach back into the truck to get the keys,” Michael J. Mooney wrote in a recent article about Kyle, in D Magazine. Mooney, who had worked on the piece with Kyle’s coöperation, wrote that Kyle “turned around and reached under his winter coat instead, into his waistband. With his right hand, he grabbed his Colt 1911”—a sidearm that is popular with military personnel. “He fired two shots under his left armpit, hitting the first man twice in the chest. Then he turned slightly and fired two more times, hitting the second man twice in the chest. Both men fell dead.”

Police officers arrived at the scene. When they ran Kyle’s license, Mooney wrote, something unusual occurred: “Instead of his name, address, and date of birth, what came up was a phone number at the Department of Defense. At the other end of the line was someone who explained that the police were in the presence of one of the most skilled fighters in U.S. military history.” According to Kyle, security cameras documented the episode.

Like Mooney, I also heard many of Kyle’s friends and associates tell this story. Details varied, but the ending was the same: Kyle drove away without being charged and, as Mooney put it in a related blog post, later received “e-mails from police officers all over the country, thanking him for ‘cleaning up the streets.’ ” Mooney never saw the security tape or found other corroborating evidence, such as police files or a coroner’s report for the dead carjackers. “Consider this story confirmed by the man himself,” he wrote in the blog post, in which he described Kyle as a “true American badass” and a “real-life action hero.”

There is cause to be skeptical. The counties of Erath, Somervell, and Johnson cover the stretch of highway where the incident supposedly happened. Tommy Bryant, the sheriff of Erath County, told me that he could “guar-an-damn-tee it didn’t happen here.” Greg Doyle, the sheriff of Somervell County, said that he had “never heard” the story, which he found “kinda shocking,” and added, “It did not occur here.” Bob Alford, the sheriff of Johnson County, told a local reporter, “If something like that happened here I would have heard of it, and I’m sure you all at the newspaper would have heard of it.” These denials do not automatically disprove the story, of course. And it’s true that certain operatives, from certain government offices and agencies, drive government-registered vehicles whose license plates prompt civilian authorities to contact a call center in the event of an accident or a traffic stop. But a SEAL with extensive experience in special-mission units told me that the notion of such a provision being in place for a former SEAL driving a private vehicle was “bs.”

It was events like this which got publishers interested in him writing a book in the first place... Basically his murders on the home front when he claimed to play punisher, and almost all of those stories are highly questionable. He could literally say anything and people take it as the truth simply because it came from him.

Look up where he claimed to have shot 30 men during Katrina as part of government sniper programs. It is based upon feeding crackpots who would say 'of course the government wouldn't admit it!' when it was confirmed no such thing happened.

I'm just about finished with the book and my research...

But do you have links that shows Kyle personally affirmed those stories? Because it seems like it's used by every anti-war, anti-American Sniper crowd to pile on a dead man.

I think the more relevant point is this:

1. Robbery incident - according to several sites I've seen, that incident was mentioned in Mark Luttrell's book, wherein Mark states that Chris told him that story. Some other guy wrote an article 5 days after Chris was murdered saying that Chris confirmed it.

Hearsay. And I'm not even trying to knock Luttrell. I haven't even read the book and so I don't know if it's even in there or not (it's downloaded on my kindle). Point is - it's hearsay.

2. Katrina - I have seen no direct evidence that Chris ever told this story. Only hearsay from some guy on http://sofrep.com/ who said Chris told him that story, which was roundly called out by other special forces folks as BS.

Without unbiased confirmation and direct evidence, there is no reason to believe that Chris told either story.

Unless you have a better source?

That said, he did like to tell tall tales and admitted as much in his book (bar stories). I think it's believable that he told these stories in a drunken bar shindig, than to actually seek out glory where ever he could.

I do have major issues with the Ventura case... and since Taya is appealing, I'd bet a sizable amount that it'll be overturned with prejudice.

**Smacks**

Da Boss wrote:
If I say "A comparison can be made" between two things, I am not saying they are "exactly the same". What a total lack of intellectual honesty.

You have been to the OT before right? I find it easier just to assume that everything I write here will be immediately taken out of context in the most mocking and derogatory fashion possible. A few pages ago it was insinuated that I might condone child murder. Yes, it's dishonest. A sympathetic reader would assume that (regardless of the subject) child murder is automatically outside the scope of what someone would condone, unless there is no other possible explanation. So there is never any need to interpret things that way. Even if the subject was criminal execution, it would be ridiculous to work under the assumption that proponents of execution would also be in favour of executing minors. But what can you do? People like picking holes in other people's arguments, and if they can't find a hole they'll just try to make one, otherwise there's nothing to argue about. Clarify and move on.

**Dreadclaw69**

Da Boss wrote:
I am actually a bit more than normally annoyed by the lack of reading comprehension here. I mean, I shouldn't be, I know whatever I post is being read through an emotional filter that makes you take it as badly as possible, but good god.

If I say "A comparison can be made" between two things, I am not saying they are "exactly the same". What a total lack of intellectual honesty. At least, I hope that is what it is, because if it isn't, it's sheer stupidity.

And if you make a claim others may rebut it, or point out the flaws in it.

**r_squared**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Personally the real threat to Western freedom is the remaining monarchies in the West. While crowns still rest on heads we are slaves.

Total Horlicks. How does my Queen make you, an American, a slave?
I'm British, and I am not a slave. For you to say that because we enjoy a Monarchy in the UK it some how removes your freedoms, as a member of a foreign nation, is just some ill conceived, sound bite, student rubbish.

**d-usa**

That's what a monarch would want you to think...

**Supertony51**

djones520 wrote:
Yeah, that doesn't help his case at all.

If anything, it just goes to show how little he really knows.

His explanation doesn't do anything but make him attacking more and more of the military.

Artillery soldiers are cowards then. Fighter pilots are cowards then.

feth this guy, seriously.

Intresting, I hadn't thought of it like that. I guess all soldiers minus line infantry are cowards in his eyes...why am I not shocked.

**CptJake**

Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.

(that was sarcasm by the way)

**Supertony51**

CptJake wrote:
Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.

Damn, we are bad. Guess we should just start fixing bayonets lol

**Jihadin**

CptJake wrote:
Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.

(that was sarcasm by the way)

Tankers to.....being in a armored....well.....tank...
Apache pilots
Kiowa Warrior pilots

Wait everyone in the US military are cowards because we wear body armor

**Iron_Captain**

Supertony51 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.

Damn, we are bad. Guess we should just start fixing bayonets lol

Leave the guns at home entirely. Why carry weapon of cowards when you can have glorious swords instead? US infantry would be much heroic with swords.

**Jihadin**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Supertony51 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Line infantry are cowards too. Especially US line infantry. They use night optics and shoot poor bastards at distances at night where the poor bastards have no idea they are about to be engaged until they are dead. They call in arty and air support when in contact rather than charging head on into machine guns.

Damn, we are bad. Guess we should just start fixing bayonets lol
Leave the guns at home entirely. Why carry weapon of cowards when you can have glorious swords instead? US infantry would be much heroic with swords.

Pfftttt we're go even more ballsyer. We take 9mm Berreta's and throw them at you

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:

Pfftttt we're go even more ballsyer. We take 9mm Berreta's and throw them at you

**Jihadin**

CptJake wrote:
Jihadin wrote:

Pfftttt we're go even more ballsyer. We take 9mm Berreta's and throw them at you

Nice

I can only counter with

Spoiler:

**CptJake**

I used to have one of the old white ones on a piece of paracord around my neck so when we field stripped our MREs to pack for a mission I always had a spoon (or an insulator when we had to rig an antenna to reach back to report).