Crablezworth wrote:
Ok so sure he's a murderer but it's not his fault, the politicians made him do it. Great.

What's your impression of Chris Kyle?

“I never really believed the Iraqis would turn the country into a truly functioning democracy, but I thought at one point that there was a chance. I don’t know that I believe that now. It’s a pretty corrupt place. But I didn’t risk my life to bring democracy to Iraq. I risked my life for my buddies, to protect my friends and fellow countrymen. I went to war for my country, not Iraq. My country sent me out there so that bs wouldn’t make its way back to our shores. I never once fought for the Iraqis. I could give a flying [fu**] about them.” - Chris Kyle

 Crablezworth wrote:
So I can't dislike the man because soldiers and or murderers are sacrosanct or something, can I dislike him because of his general idocy/douchebaggery/record setting narcissism/being full of gak about bar fights/teaching his two year old to use a firearm? Is any of that a good enough reason to think the man is a tool and probably deserving of a firearm related death?

 Crablezworth wrote:
So I can't dislike the man because soldiers and or murderers are sacrosanct or something,

can I dislike him because of his general idocy/douchebaggery/record setting narcissism/being full of gak about bar fights/teaching his two year old to use a firearm? Is any of that a good enough reason to think the man is a tool and probably deserving of a firearm related death?

 Hordini wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So I can't dislike the man because soldiers and or murderers are sacrosanct or something, can I dislike him because of his general idocy/douchebaggery/record setting narcissism/being full of gak about bar fights/teaching his two year old to use a firearm? Is any of that a good enough reason to think the man is a tool and probably deserving of a firearm related death?

Do you really think being a tool makes someone worthy of a firearm related death?

 Crablezworth wrote:
I guess it depends on if that specific tool's greatest accomplishment was how many people they murdered, that and thinking firearm education for toddlers is a rational endeavour worthy of attempting.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So I can't dislike the man

 Monster Rain wrote:
Crablezworth and Ron Paul are both trolling Kyle's death for attention.

I hold their opinions in equal regard: pants on head ridiculous.

 d-usa wrote:
Having worked with a lot of vets who suffer from PTSD I also have to say that I find the idea of treatment at a gun range weird. Gun fire can be a trigger for sudden episodes of gunfire is related to the event that caused the PTSD and these episodes can get violent and out of hand pretty quickly.

Now maybe he is approaching PTSD in a similar manner than some phobias and thinks that incremental exposure therapy to an object or behavior that is causing the PTSD could assist with overcoming it. I don't know if that was his approach or if there is more to his "therapy".

But if you treat PTSD by handing somebody a loaded weapon, then if that person snaps you have an unpredictable person that is in possession of a loaded weapon. Other than not giving that person a loaded weapon your other option might be to have an armed range officer ready to drop the client at any time. But having somebody aim a weapon at you "just in case" probably wouldn't help PTSD very much either.

There is a place in the discussion about his approach. Just not in a stupid way like Ron Paul's.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I really didn't mean it to come across like that. I deal with the intake for the really severe cases of PTSD who come in for self harm or harming others, so that has me a little jaded. So while I have seen PTSD cases go mental I honestly didn't mean to imply that all or even the majority of PTSD cases are that extreme and likely to go off at any time. Sorry if I came across that way.

I just gotta remember that "my" normal PTSD patient that I experience is not the average PTSD patient.

 Hordini wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right, sorry, only positive opinions of mass murderers allowed my bad. I guess I didn’t catch on that the topic was how big a doo doo head Ron Paul is. Ron Paul is probably a bit racist and homophobic, I don't think he's ever killed anyone.

Maybe we can talk about how awesome Mr. Kyle was at fighting other people while drunk in various bars or how firing ranges are fantastically therapeutic for veterans suffering from PTSD.

While not particularly tasteful, that would be a lot more reasonable discussion than the digital diarrhea that is currently erupting from the inflamed anuses of your fingertips and splashing onto the seat of the gas station toilet that is the internet.

 Crablezworth wrote:

The description of him being a hired killer is accurate, I also said he was talented at murder. No question there.

So you're saying soldiers who kill enemy combatants who are also trying to kill them, their companions, or civilians are murderers. Cool story bro.

Relapse wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Right, sorry, only positive opinions of mass murderers allowed my bad. I guess I didn’t catch on that the topic was how big a doo doo head Ron Paul is. Ron Paul is probably a bit racist and homophobic, I don't think he's ever killed anyone.

Maybe we can talk about how awesome Mr. Kyle was at fighting other people while drunk in various bars or how firing ranges are fantastically therapeutic for veterans suffering from PTSD.

While not particularly tasteful, that would be a lot more reasonable discussion than the digital diarrhea that is currently erupting from the inflamed anuses of your fingertips and splashing onto the seat of the gas station toilet that is the internet.

 Crablezworth wrote:

The description of him being a hired killer is accurate, I also said he was talented at murder. No question there.

So you're saying soldiers who kill enemy combatants who are also trying to kill them, their companions, or civilians are murderers. Cool story bro.

Hordini, you word smith, you. Goodun.

 d-usa wrote:
At the very least it would be insensitive I think.

“I never really believed the Iraqis would turn the country into a truly functioning democracy, but I thought at one point that there was a chance. I don’t know that I believe that now. It’s a pretty corrupt place. But I didn’t risk my life to bring democracy to Iraq. I risked my life for my buddies, to protect my friends and fellow countrymen. I went to war for my country, not Iraq. My country sent me out there so that bs wouldn’t make its way back to our shores. I never once fought for the Iraqis. I could give a flying [fu**] about them.” - Chris Kyle

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah, one of the reasons people do a job is for money, shocking I know. And to some people their job is just a job. You can romanticize any profession all you want; the fact of the matter is you can be both A. a soldier and B. a douchebag. These things are not mutually exclusive.

I just find all this talk of being insensitive patently absurd, like I'm sending this stuff to his widow or standing outside his funeral with signs that says "Chris Kyle was tool", I'm talking about a man on an internet forum, a now dead man who himself murdered hundreds of poor brown people then went on to write a book about how awesome that makes him. He was the embodiment of american stupidity and he was proud of how ignorant he was.

His whole "these people are savages so it's ok to wholesale murder their asses" mentality is everything that’s wrong american foreign policy and if you want to romanticize brothers in arms and soldiery in general, may i recommend say, World War 2 as a better place to start.

There's a reason band of brothers feels a little more apple pie than generation kill. The war in Iraq is a stain and not a point of pride and plenty of people have gone the route of trying to explain away the difference between a soldier and a hired killer or why politicians are always to blame while giving soldiers a free pass and all of that is great but doesn't replace the fact that Chris Kyle the person was a total douchebag.

He was the embodiment of american stupidity and he was proud of how ignorant he was.

The war in Iraq is a stain and not a point of pride and plenty of people have gone the route of trying to explain away the difference between a soldier and a hired killer or why politicians are always to blame while giving soldiers a free pass and all of that is great but doesn't replace the fact that Chris Kyle the person was a total douchebag.

 Crablezworth wrote:
There's a reason band of brothers feels a little more apple pie than generation kill.

skyfi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:



“Savage, despicable evil,” writes Kyle. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, `How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”

I was not directly familiar with the concept of "untermenschen" before reading the article, I mean I had understood the concept without ever actually hearing a word for it.
.

News of Chris Kyle’s shooting has reached around the world. Many people are asking for my thoughts, and so this morning I write these words in response.

Chris was credited with killing about 160 enemy combatants in Iraq. He is called the most deadly sniper in US history. Obviously this will not sit well with many people, while others will see it differently.

It is unseemly to politicize this today, and I will drop it there.

Chris was known for helping folks suffering from PTSD. I have enjoyed hearing Chris talk at times (not to me personally but interviews) and I am sure that he would frown on people blaming such acts on PTSD.

Reckless speculation hurts our veterans.

It is also unseemly to immediately speculate that PTSD was the cause of the shootings. This reflexive labeling unfolds every time vets are involved.

Just an hour after it was learned that a US Soldier was the likely murderer of 17 people in Panjwai, Afghanistan, many people were clamoring that he had PTSD. His name had not yet been revealed. We knew almost nothing about him.

His experiences were not yet public, yet he was already labeled with PTSD, despite that experts know that PTSD does not lead to mass murder.

The American public in general is so ignorant about PTSD that reading popular commentary is like consulting people living under bridges for financial advice.

In Panjwai, since Afghans were killed and not Americans, many people thought that this still nameless Soldier (Robert Bales) was innocent due to PTSD. “Poor guy just snapped and killed the savages. He deserves our sympathy.”

Just as PTSD is not a cause of mass murder, it is not an excuse for criminality.

Until recently in Korea, drunkenness was a bona fide defense in rape cases, and people used it. Any excuse we leave on the table will be misused by some. That is human.

Where PTSD honestly can be a defense is in rare cases such as, say, police slam down the wrong door, and rush into a home and get flat-blasted by someone who did not realize they are cops. No PTSD would be needed for that response. Many people would do that out of fear and self-preservation.

Conversely, if Robert Bales (the accused Panjwai murderer) had killed Americans in Boston, many would have said he is guilty because he has PTSD, despite that practically none of these self-appointed experts have any idea what PTSD really is.

If he killed Americans, we would say, “That worthless, cowardly, bastard. He deserves the rope.”

When an Afghan soldier who saw years of fighting commits an insider attack, we say, “That cowardly, worthless filth is not even human. We should feed him to the dogs.” We usually call them cowards, despite that they may have fought for years.

When Anders Behring Breivik murdered 77 people in Norway, it was not because of military service. The man is various species of sick. His mental conditions might lead to the causes, but not to excuses. He is still a murderer.

In popular commentary, PTSD can make someone innocent or guilty, depending on whether we like the victims or the perpetrator more.

The enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan were never labeled with PTSD because we could not care less that they are human, too. They are just savages. If the savage is afraid after seeing years of combat, he is coward, while if our folks exhibit the same symptoms, they are considered wounded heroes or ticking bombs, depending on whether or not we like vets.

Iraq and Afghanistan are awash with people suffering from PTSD. This will damage some of their families for generations. But if they shoot our people, we will not afford the dignity of saying they suffer, or are fighting to be their version of free. Their label is Muslim.

I knew a Green Beret who murdered his wife and committed suicide. He told me long in advance that he would kill her if he ever caught her fooling around. He caught her and shot her. These days, we would say he had PTSD, when the fact was that he had anger issues. Everyone who knew him could see it.

He had not been to war. He was simmering. I got along great with him. He was very smart, with a PhD in entomology. He was fun to talk with, but you could sense something was off. Turns out, he was a murderer.

PTSD surely is real. The price for even a small war reverberates through generations. An absent or diminished parent creates conditions for children with fewer prospects, which vibrate up the family tree.

The results of war literally echo through generations.

There is no doubt that some children born fifty years from now will suffer from the echoes of our wars. They might not understand that the reason their parents did not attend university was because their grandfather suffered severe PTSD from war, and uprooted the tree. We can never calculate for that damage.

When we send our young people to war, we send many of their great-great grandchildren along for the ride. The entire society suffers for decades from every war.

PTSD often leads to family destruction, but seldom to violence. Yet this speculation is like seeing a shooting in the news and blaming it on polio. "Yep, another shooting. Must be that polio again. Is he a vet? Yes? That means it’s polio."

Many employers will not hire vets if they think they are apt to "snap.”

Most of the mass-killers never were in the military. Columbine was an example. The murderers were high school students.

More likely, the killings derived from simple anger or uncontrolled rage, or crime of some sort.

Prescribed drugs are becoming suspect, but this idea cannot be taken too far because mass killings happen around the globe, and many occurred long before modern pharmaceuticals were widespread. Something is there, but it cannot be the whole story.

We look for something to blame. Guns. Drugs. PTSD. Video games. Culture. Sociopaths. Hollywood. Media. Vets. Religion.

When we blame religion, we blame the other religion, while atheists blame all religions.

Murder in the name of religion happens many times per day, without end. But if someone from our religion commits a despicable act, we call him a nutter and change the topic.

Some people are just bad. They are perfectly sane and will kill us for a wristwatch, for sport, or because they wanted some excitement.

Culture plays a crucial roll. Many Afghans will torture dogs for entertainment, which I would not doubt has led to some “accidental” killings of Afghans by our folks.

If one of our young Soldiers shot an Afghan who was torturing a dog, the Afghans surely would label him a murderer and want revenge. Many dog lovers and Americans in general would give a standing ovation, and say, “Ah, he has PTSD. Just let this one slide. Savage dog killers.”

But that would likely not be the case. The trooper killed him because he was torturing a dog. This is simple. Nobody needs a PhD to see it. He was not insane, just enraged.

Our troops become enraged when they see dogs tortured, and if an American trooper tortured a dog, he would be labeled a sociopath and tossed into jail, after pulling some boots out of his backside.

If one of our Soldiers were to have sex with an Afghan woman, many Afghans would kill her, and try to kill him. We would call that murder. For them it is house cleaning. They are not crazy. That is their world.

That Chris is “credited” with killing about 160 humans using a rifle, one by one, is seen by many people as mass murder of historical proportion.

Others applaud it, saying that he saved lives, which is countered by people saying the war was unjust and illegal.

Some of this derives from culture clash. In Thailand, the idea of Americans widely applauding killing 160 people is shocking. Chris was a minor-celebrity in America. Many British are livid.

Other Americans say Chris’s death is karma. The enemies in Iraq put a bounty on him just as we put bounties on some of them.

A salient point is that cultures and worldviews vary dramatically, and some people will commit acts that we consider barbaric, which in their culture is normal.

The United States is a cultural kaleidoscope. This makes it even more difficult to divine the actions of others.

Take a subset of people who live in Charleston, South Carolina, and compare them to a similar subset in Boston, and another in San Francisco, and another in Berlin, who share the same race, religion, education, and social status, and you will find that they have remarkably different cultures and worldviews.

Combat units have their own subcultures. Special operations units have strong subcultures that are invisible to the outside world.

Some people grow up on the streets or with gangs and have fundamentally different views that were not solidified into what we call “civilized.”

Some personalities are shaky and horribly imperfect. A few of these people end up in uniform, and we send them off to war. Some return and commit terrible acts.

The accused vet will embrace and play up PTSD as alibi, while knitting a holy cross from the strings in his socks that he can wear around his neck when he stands before the judge. The realty is that he was ticking before he joined, and he is simply a bad man and should be in prison.

We like cubbyholes. The uncomfortable truth is that none of these cubbyholes work in a broad sense.

We similarly label Muslims, as if every crime committed by a Muslim is in the name of religion and jihad. (Few Americans understand the meaning of jihad, despite these many years.) This is silly, and using this label reveals purveyors to be untraveled, or perhaps just simpleminded.

There are robbers and murderers who happen to be Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists. Name it. It is there.

In many cases a cubbyhole might work, and there will be some basis in truth, but at some point, in a broad sense, under scrutiny, the models all break down.

Even if someone with severe PTSD kills intentionally, it does not automatically follow that PTSD was the culprit or even partly to blame. Could be anything. Lovers' spat. Revenge. Alcohol. Meth. Prescription drugs. Clash of cultures. Craziness of some sort. Anything. It could be a mixture of many things.

Importantly, most people who go to wars do not suffer PTSD. The chief cause of PTSD in the United States is traffic accidents.

Is there a pattern of murder based on car crashes? If someone commits a violent crime, should we ask if he has been in a car crash? Should we, in every media report, feel obligated to mention, “The accused was involved in a fatal car accident in 1983”?

Take this real title of a news report: “Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle' Killing Puts Spotlight on PTSD”.

We do not know enough about PTSD. We must redouble and work to get a handle on this. It is damaging our country, and many others.

In any case, I am taking a chance that Chris would have said something like this, and so I tried to say it for him. If his close friends or family disagree, I apologize in advance for being presumptuous.

We lost a good man. That something good should come from this tragedy is important. PTSD clearly was important for Chris and so in his honor, it is worthwhile to say some heartfelt words about the topic that Chris took head-on.

And another man was lost whom few people are talking about, Chad Littlefield. Many thoughts for their families.

Rest in Peace Chad Littlefield.

Rest in Peace Chris Kyle. Mission Complete.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

skyfi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:



“Savage, despicable evil,” writes Kyle. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, `How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”

I was not directly familiar with the concept of "untermenschen" before reading the article, I mean I had understood the concept without ever actually hearing a word for it.
.

He's not racist. He's directly observing the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. These guys murder women and children the way someone in the West decides to have lunch. Notable incidents that stood out for me include a suicide bombing where the explosive was delivered in an ice cream cart. Target? Local children. When Iraq was in full swing AQ occupied several cities, and in particular one group had picked up the habit of murdering children, then booby trapping the bodies to kill parents when they came out to retrieve their children... or risk those children dying before they could be properly buried. Which culturally speaking is a big deal over there. Throw in these guys killing your friends and it's not hard to understand a hard stance against them.

I personally happen to agree. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are the scum of the earth. Either way that article is hilariously biased. Where did you find a nutter like that?

Some people are just bad. They are perfectly sane and will kill us for a wristwatch, for sport, or because they wanted some excitement

 LordofHats wrote:
Gotta say Whembly, that is a long drawn out, but very on hit article

Some people are just bad. They are perfectly sane and will kill us for a wristwatch, for sport, or because they wanted some excitement

Probably the most profound thing posted in this thread.

2d Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by 6 tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to prepared positions in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, 1 of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from 3 sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.

skyfi wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

skyfi wrote:

 d-usa wrote:



“Savage, despicable evil,” writes Kyle. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, `How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”

I was not directly familiar with the concept of "untermenschen" before reading the article, I mean I had understood the concept without ever actually hearing a word for it.
.

He's not racist. He's directly observing the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. These guys murder women and children the way someone in the West decides to have lunch. Notable incidents that stood out for me include a suicide bombing where the explosive was delivered in an ice cream cart. Target? Local children. When Iraq was in full swing AQ occupied several cities, and in particular one group had picked up the habit of murdering children, then booby trapping the bodies to kill parents when they came out to retrieve their children... or risk those children dying before they could be properly buried. Which culturally speaking is a big deal over there. Throw in these guys killing your friends and it's not hard to understand a hard stance against them.

I personally happen to agree. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are the scum of the earth. Either way that article is hilariously biased. Where did you find a nutter like that?

I respect your opinion that racism didn't play a role, but I feel maybe racism is a misnomer here. There seems to be a definite cultural difference (whatever we call it, racism, nationalism, class-ism, whatever collectivist generalization) that makes Kyle generalize Iraqi's as a WHOLE as savages, and not merely the individuals who perpetrate heinous acts. I think the lack of differentiation by Kyle was supposed to be the evidence of "untermenschen" . The article was very bias, as I thought the title would indicate. I don't think the author was trying to get anything past anybody about his bias.

Personally I think you are sort of demonizing Iraqis by comparing them to westerners the way you have. It is a collectivist statement in itself. You are saying "these guys' do these things ... No differentiation for peaceful bystander Iraqi, and flying rodent gak crazy IED planting iraqi.. just the mindset of "these guys" = iraqis... guilt by association of ones countrymen.. The last time I checked people rarely collectively act. They act individually. We have people here in the west just like they have in the east, who would "murder women and children the way someone in the west decides to have lunch."... they have those same people in africa, south america, everywhere... Because as a universal rule... People can be really sucky. Regardless if they are Iraqi or American.

In any case. I understand the hard stance one might naturally foster as a means of protecting oneself in a hostile environment, but I do think it is worth noting and discussing the potential ramifications of reinforcing that wariness of cultural differences in of itself. Especially in the long term.

I apologize that brevity isn't my strong point, nor grammar. Pardon me.

“Savage, despicable evil,” writes Kyle. “That’s what we were fighting in Iraq…. People ask me all the time, `How many people have you killed?’... The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”

CptJake wrote:

Some of the bad guys Kyle killed made the SS look like Mr. Rogers.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Yeah, one of the reasons people do a job is for money, shocking I know. And to some people their job is just a job. You can romanticize any profession all you want; the fact of the matter is you can be both A. a soldier and B. a douchebag. These things are not mutually exclusive.

I just find all this talk of being insensitive patently absurd, like I'm sending this stuff to his widow or standing outside his funeral with signs that says "Chris Kyle was tool", I'm talking about a man on an internet forum, a now dead man who himself murdered hundreds of poor brown people then went on to write a book about how awesome that makes him. He was the embodiment of american stupidity and he was proud of how ignorant he was.

His whole "these people are savages so it's ok to wholesale murder their asses" mentality is everything that’s wrong american foreign policy

efarrer wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Some of the bad guys Kyle killed made the SS look like Mr. Rogers.

Doubtful.