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.

**Medium of Death**

whembly wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.

Is this sarcasm?

If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.

That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.

I didn't read that as sarcasm. It's absolutely true.

It's like flag burning is protected speech. It's a gakky thing to do... but, we allow it.

If you're talking about the Military more generally I get the point but Iraq specifically as an example of fighting for freedom? I can't really see it.

**djones520**

Medium of Death wrote:
whembly wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.

Is this sarcasm?

If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.

That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.

I didn't read that as sarcasm. It's absolutely true.

It's like flag burning is protected speech. It's a gakky thing to do... but, we allow it.

If you're talking about the Military more generally I get the point but Iraq specifically as an example of fighting for freedom? I can't really see it.

Well, all the Iraqi's who get to vote in elections that really count today might disagree.

There are many merits to speak of from that war. Just because we were not repelling foreign invaders from our shores does not mean that the war was not fought to serve the purposes of our nations and their people.

**nkelsch**

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.

**whembly**

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.

**nkelsch**

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.

**Medium of Death**

djones520 wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
whembly wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.

Is this sarcasm?

If not when do you remember Saddam seriously threatening Western freedom? It's also a little off considering the state that Iraq is in now.

That's not an intended insult to those in the military. They conduct themselves with bravery and distinction even when politicians lie through their teeth.

I didn't read that as sarcasm. It's absolutely true.

It's like flag burning is protected speech. It's a gakky thing to do... but, we allow it.

If you're talking about the Military more generally I get the point but Iraq specifically as an example of fighting for freedom? I can't really see it.

Well, all the Iraqi's who get to vote in elections that really count today might disagree.

There are many merits to speak of from that war. Just because we were not repelling foreign invaders from our shores does not mean that the war was not fought to serve the purposes of our nations and their people.

Conversely I'm sure all the Iraqi's killed in suicide bombings and from other types of sectarian violence might not be too bothered about having "democracy" now that Saddam's gone. Not to mention ISIS. I was just pointing out that Iraq was not a war for Western freedom.

I'm not sure what benefits Iraq brought, other than to some thrifty multinationals.

You can have respect for the military & the people who serve/served while despising the people that started the war.

**whembly**

I'm still waiting for Michael Moore to denounce Obama with the same veritol as he did with Bush over Obama's Droning program.

I mean... if he feels that way about snipers in general... right?

**Frazzled**

jhe90 wrote:
He is just doing this for attention I think, not like he is famous now and making millions a film.
And oh looked how well it worked.

Agreed. Michael Moore who?

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
I'm still waiting for Michael Moore to denounce Obama with the same veritol as he did with Bush over Obama's Droning program.

you were saying?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
I'm still waiting for Michael Moore to denounce Obama with the same veritol as he did with Bush over Obama's Droning program.

you were saying?

Well... I stand corrected.

He's consistent bro... and that *is* an admirable quality.

**Ouze**

I think what I dislike the most about Michael Moore is that there are, occasionally, glints of awesomeness. He starts often with a pretty compelling story. Then he always goes too far and messes it all up.

I suspect liberals feel about Michael Moore the way that conservatives feel about Glen Beck.

**Jihadin**

I'm on the fence on seeing the movie. I rather not feel the sensation of going through and remembering some incidents. Its like that chapter of my life I rather not see myself in that mode. Deployment, home, deployment, home. Mentality one has on deployment and having it carrying over when your home.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I think what I dislike the most about Michael Moore is that there are, occasionally, glints of awesomeness. He starts often with a pretty compelling story. Then he always goes too far and messes it all up.

I suspect liberals feel about Michael Moore the way that conservatives feel about Glen Beck.

Agreed.

I think it's really ironic that some on the left are claiming that this is a disgusting propaganda pro-war film... that would be what Moore actually dabbles in:
fahrenheit 911
Bowling for Columbine
Sicko

Also... Eastwood was spoken recently:
Think before you shoot, Clint Eastwood says of war: interview

Defending his new war drama American Sniper from criticism of excessive violence and jingoism, Clint Eastwood says he’s more anti-war than people give him credit for.

Clint Eastwood is angry.
“I think that’s a stupid analysis,” the American Sniper director growls from New York, when asked about the buckshot his new movie is taking, from critics who believe he’s celebrating war, killing and jingoism.

David Edelstein of New York Magazine calls the film, opening Friday in Toronto, “a Republican platform movie” even as he praises it as “a crackerjack piece of filmmaking.” Lindy West of the Guardian newspaper bemoans “simplistic patriots” who applaud Eastwood’s portrait of Navy SEAL shooting ace Chris Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper.

“Pardon me for sounding defensive, but it certainly has nothing to do with any (political) parties or anything,” Eastwood, 84, tells the Star.

“These fellows who are professional soldiers, Navy personnel or what have you, go in for a certain reason. Their commander-in-chief (U.S. President Barack Obama) is a Democrat and the administration is, and there’s no political aspect there other than the fact that a lot of things happen in war zones.”

This interview is prior to Tuesday’s announcement by the Directors Guild of America that Eastwood is one of five nominees for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film for 2014. The DGA honour greatly improves Eastwood’s chances of a Best Director nod come Thursday, when nominations for the Feb. 22 Academy Awards are unveiled, and there have been other kudos for him recently along the awards trail.

So the mood of the silver-haired Hollywood legend has to be improving, although having previously won four Oscars — taking both Best Picture and Best Director for Million Dollar Baby in 2005 and Unforgiven in 1993 — his fireplace mantel is already crowded with gold.

This year marks his 60th year in showbiz, much of it as an actor. He began in 1955 with an uncredited role in the B-movie horror Revenge of the Creature.

“I don’t think too much about it,” Eastwood says of the current Oscar race.

“I’ve been lucky on a few occasions over the years with different shows and there are (also) a few times with nominations and no wins. But you know, it’s fine. I’m not making the movie for that. So it’s kind of an afterthought, but it’s nice when people recognize you if they just like your movie.”

Eastwood did think a lot about his American Sniper subject Kyle, who was considered the most lethal sniper in U.S. history, having logged 160 confirmed kills in four tours of duty during the Iraq War.

Both the film and the 2012 Kyle autobiography it’s based on aggressively depict the efforts of American soldiers to defend themselves and each other from the Iraqi fighters they refer to as “savages.” Bullets and profanity fly with equal intensity in the many onscreen skirmishes.

Eastwood insists he’s not the warmonger or right-wing poster boy he’s often made out to be, although he did himself no favour in 2012 with his bizarre rant about Obama, with an empty chair subbing for the president, at that year’s Republican National Convention. (He later admitted his attempt at comedy didn’t quite go as planned.)

He points out that even though he’s directed several war-themed movies and appeared as an actor in others, he’s more dove than hawk: a pragmatic libertarian rather than a red-meat Republican. Eastwood opposed both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because he’s seen enough conflict in his life.

“I was a child growing up during World War II. That was supposed to be the one to end all wars. And four years later, I was standing at the draft board being drafted during the Korean conflict, and then after that there was Vietnam, and it goes on and on forever . . .

“I just wonder . . . does this ever stop? And no, it doesn’t. So each time we get in these conflicts, it deserves a lot of thought before we go wading in or wading out. Going in or coming out. It needs a better thought process, I think.”

Still, in making American Sniper, which he took over after Steven Spielberg bowed out due to budget restrictions, Eastwood felt he had to properly represent Kyle’s version of events.

“This picture was interesting, because I’m seeing it from the point of a person who was sort of an American hero, as far as his ability to be this ultra-sniper. And his family and his beliefs were very strong about defending the country and defending the guys who are defending the country, as a sort of an oversight warrior. It was an important story, but you have to embrace his philosophy if you’re going to tell a story about him.”

Eastwood has long been interested in stories about stoic loners doing jobs that other men would find distasteful or impossible to do. I remind him that for much of his six-decade career as an actor he’s played men like these, in films such as A Fistful of Dollars (1964), Dirty Harry (1971), Unforgiven (1992), In the Line of Fire (1993) and Gran Torino (2008).

“I think so,” he agrees.

“The conflict of doing tough jobs is much more interesting than if I did something about a businessman or something. You have to have some kind of conflict, and pro and con for doing a story . . . war is sort of the ultimate conflict and conflict is the basis of drama, so they’re kind of natural.”

American Sniper is Eastwood’s second movie in less than a year; he released the music biopic Jersey Boys in June 2014. His work ethic is remarkable, and he’s not ruling out future acting or directing jobs, although maybe he’ll take the rest of 2015 off.

“I think I should just cool my heels for a while!” he says, laughing.

**Ouze**

I definitely don't see this one deserving an Oscar and suspect it's only up for one because it's such a weak field - the nominees all sort of were nothing special. American Sniper just kind of meanders along with no real arc. There have been a lot of movies that I think much better address the strains of deployment\return, deployment\return - it's not a novel theme or one that is especially well done.

I do, however, think Clint Eastwood is a gifted director, so maybe I just have a higher bar for him. When you crank out Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino, I come to expect greatness and not less.

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
I definitely don't see this one deserving an Oscar and suspect it's only up for one because it's such a weak field - the nominees all sort of were nothing special. American Sniper just kind of meanders along with no real arc. There have been a lot of movies that I think much better address the strains of deployment\return, deployment\return - it's not a novel theme or one that is especially well done.

I do, however, think Clint Eastwood is a gifted director, so maybe I just have a higher bar for him. When you crank out Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino, I come to expect greatness and not less.

Such as?

As I said, I haven't seen it yet, but my father did call me nearly in tears after seeing it. Really brought back his post Desert Storm days. He'd never seen a movie like that.

IMO, sometimes movies just don't really have the impact for some that they do for others. Interstellar was like that for me. To me, the central theme of the movie ended up being about Murph and her father, and the pain and anguish associated with their separation. That tore me up inside. Single hardest moment of my life was when I was walking down the ramp to my airplane for a deployment, and my 2.5 year old son was behind me screaming "Daddy, don't go!".

I had a way to directly associate with that message. I've felt that feeling before. I thought they did an amazing job portraying it. A little to amazing...

I've never been in a PTSD provoking situation though, so I know I won't relate as well to this, but I've had people who have been there tell me it was a great representation.

**Ouze**

Return, Home of the Brave, Fort Bliss, hell, even Stop-Loss. And I'm just naming the ones I've personally seen.

**Jihadin**

Ouze wrote:
Return, Home of the Brave, Fort Bliss, hell, even Stop-Loss. And I'm just naming the ones I've personally seen.

Not
Hurt Locker?
Taking Chance?

Stop Loss.....the almighty Combat Jerk.....still going on

**Ouze**

I was just going to edit the post to add Hurt Locker.

I don't think Taking Chance is quite in that genre (stresses of returning home from deployment), though an excellent film that tackles tough subject matter without quite slipping into jingoism.

**Piston Honda**

Moore is a knuckle dragging gakker nugget of the highest order.

As for the movie, pretty damn good, definitely not a 'murcia fck yeah, war is awesome and glorious movie. Quite the opposite.

**Stonebeard**

Stepping back from myself, I can see how this tweet would anger people. It is insulting, rude, and entirely petty. However, despite that being the case, I can't be pissed off by it, because, no matter what vile gak comes out of his hot dog caked mouth, I always imagine this:

saying it, and then I'm happy.

**Peter Wiggin**

Michael Moore is a wonderful example of the most toxic aspects of extreme leftism allowed to fester and metastasize in the womb of monetary wealth.

In other words, he's a fat hypocrite.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Review and Commentary: American Sniper
Seth Rogan has suggested American Sniper is a lot like Nazi Propaganda... sounds like someone needs a lesson in propaganda. The issue with calling a biopic propaganda is propagabda is by necessity at least partially a lie. Well I don't think much of the story portrayed in the film's a lie, and I think even less that it's the kind of story the powers that be would want told. Having just come from the movie, I think Eastwood and Cooper did a very excellent portrayal of the man himself, and Chris Kyle was neither hero nor villain in the end, he was a very highly trained soldier, and the story told is his own. No patriotic My Country Tis Of Thee jingoistic addons, the wider scope of the war isn't even touched on, there's just the dusty chunks of hell Kyle found himself in, the men to either side of him, and the enemy on the other side of his scope. It is intimate, painful at times, brutal and jarring when it should be, Eastwood has touched on complex men that history and media have wanted to water down or white wash before, Flags Of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima depict both sides of one of the most famous battles in Marine Corps and American history, and focuses on the stories of some of the men who fought and died on that little spit of rock in the Pacific with it's black sand beaches. War and the men who fight in them are not black and white, nothing is simple and any attempt to make it so is the actual propaganda.

As I write this however, I can't help but remember this is the same group of wealthy, inbred idiots who championed "The Hurt Locker" as my generation's Saving Private Ryan and applauded wildly for it's Oscar win, and it's "complex" depiction of war. I think that says more then enough about the validity of their opinions doesn't it? The same Hollywood that couldn't figure out if the brilliant Apocalypse Now was pro or anti war savaged it, but just like that film the message is the same, it is left to the viewer to determine who is good and who is evil, who is the hero and who are the villains... if any one at all is. (Hint, usually nobody)

A further point, beyond Mr. Rogan's rather impressively stupid comments, a bunch of other well heeled mouthbreathers have been making the rounds on twitter along with Michael Moore, Arch-Commandant of the Doughnut Tray. While Moore's comment was rude and offensive at least, and his damage control after the fact highly amusing, especially when called out directly by other snipers, the more impressive comments are by people who think this film is "rewriting" the Iraq war, including one impressive idiot who thinks the film "magically" made Al Qaeda appear in Iraq despite the fact that they had been there long before the invasion in 2003, and were some of the tougher opposition, as well as the main targets of the First and Second Battle of Fallujah, and the liberation of several other cities under Al Qaeda control. The Butcher of Fallujah was absolutely a real man as well... and well... if I remember the stuff I saw on him and heard about him, the movie understates his brutal nature and operation style significantly. Like as not Chris Kyle was a real man, who's values and ideals are questionable to some, if not many (hell I don't necessarily like his mindset and I don't share his world view on a great many things). Having seen that, I don't think Kyle's opinions or world view are painted over in any way, nor was the brutality of the fighting in Iraq glossed over or polished to look prettier. If war is hell, then COIN is the lowest circle of it, I'd theorize the baying over American Sniper comes from not wanting to accept that reality more then anything else.

8/10

**mitch_rifle**

Who cares what an obese closet capitalist thinks?

**Vaktathi**

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.

Seemed to be settled to the tune of $1.8 million to me.

Given how absurdly hard it is to usually lose a case like that as the defendant, something must have really gone wrong.

This guy made a lot of outrageously outlandish claims that are exceedingly difficult to believe as true, and if some of them are, he's committed multiple (potentially capital) felonies. (e.g. shooting people from the roof of the superdome under federal orders....)

While I'm not a fan of Michael Moore at all, Chris Kyle wasn't the figure he's made out to be in the film either.

**Firehead158**

Yea because Michael Moore is a real badass....Feth him. His fat arse can't even fit in a military vehicle.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

The issue for me with the movie is that it was a biopic of a person that doesn't really exist. The Chris Kyle that Bradley Cooper portrays is a stylized caricature of the real Chris Kyle. In that Eastwood kept away from the self-mythologizing (and lying) that made Kyle a controversial figure. The problem is compounded by the irrational hero-worship that has been on display recently, because these people can't accept the fact that he was a seriously flawed man and any criticism on the film is an attack on Kyle (which is ridiculous). It could be viewed as propaganda because it presents quite a few things that didn't happen as if they were true: there was no sniper battle with "Mustafa" and it was added for dramatic effect, the character of "The Butcher" was not mentioned in his book (and character in the film was not Ahmad Hashim Abd Al-Isawi, "The Butcher of Fallujah"), he also didn't shoot the boy with a grenade (only the woman), and all the stuff that he lied about that others have already mentioned.

It was a beautifully made film and Bradley Cooper was phenomenal, but when it comes to substance in the movie it was just a collage of out-of-context battle scenes and melodrama on the home front. However, I enjoyed the film and it was definitely worth going to see.

**LuciusAR**

I’m not all that familiar with Chris Kyle and I’ve not read his book, however I did go and watch American Sniper over the weekend.

I don’t know what movie the people denouncing it as Jingoistic, Flag Waving, Pro War film that glorifies a killer saw, but it certainly wasn’t the film I watched. If fact I suspect the like of Moore haven’t actually watched it at all. I don’t think the film took any particular stance over whether the Iraq invasion was justified or not but what it showed was that the war was a unpleasant and messy business and the life and death decisions people like Kyle had to take took a tremendous psychological toll on them.

I saw it as much more of a character study of a man damaged by war. Far from glorifying him it pulled no punches about the fact that the war tore him apart from his family and turned into a shell of man and it was only by helping fellow suffering veterans that his was able to put his life back on track and become a decent husband and father again.

For alleged ‘propaganda’ it arguably has a massive anti war theme running through it.

**Firehead158**

LuciusAR wrote:
For alleged ‘propaganda’ it arguably has a massive anti war theme running through it.

This is what pisses me off about stuff like this. I know what you are saying, and the exact opposite opinion also irritates me. When I watch controversial movies, I don't even attempt to find whether it is pro-war, or anti-war, or anything in between.

Let's change the setting of the movie to an EMT or police officer who has seen horrible things through his time. It really jacks him up mentally, so he decides to help his fellow EMTs/Police Officers/Public Servants through a therapeutic method. Somehow he dies during said therapeutic treatments of his brothers/sisters. What opinion would you glean out of that? Anti-humanity? Pro-humanity? Some moron will decide that there was a message. How about people just watched the damned movie for what it is? A movie.

He wasn't a hero because he shot people. He was a GOOD human being because in the end he only tried to help them.

ETA: I re-read this and it kind of sounded like I'm attacking you. For clarification, I'm just saying that I find it frustrating that people tend to try and find hidden meaning behind something that wasn't meant to. People try and read between the lines waaaayyyy to much.

**LuciusAR**

Firehead158 wrote:

ETA: I re-read this and it kind of sounded like I'm attacking you. For clarification, I'm just saying that I find it frustrating that people tend to try and find hidden meaning behind something that wasn't meant to. People try and read between the lines waaaayyyy to much.

Don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack and I agree with alot of what you say.

**Smacks**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chris Kyle fought to defend Moore's right to be a dumbass. Don't ever let him forget that.

That would imply that Moore's right to be a dumbass was under threat, which is doubtful, and also under threat from anyone associated with Iraq before the invasion, which is even more doubtful. At best he fought to preserve western corporate interests in the middle east, assuming they were under much threat... which is doubtful.