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**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, I was speaking generally. As in "soldiers fight for their country to protect the rights that allow people to denigrate them"

I think the men and women on the ground have the best intentions, and no doubt do a dangerous job, but the fact is I didn't ask anyone to go fight wars for my freedom, and I certainly didn't ask them to feth everything up and make it worse. Now there are more insurgents and radicals than there ever were before the wars, millions dead, and less stability than ever. "Gee, thanks guys!".

This was all entirely predictable, which is why many individuals protested, and nations (including UN members) opposed the wars, and why many still do. So don't try telling me they did me any favours, because they didn't.

**LordofHats**

Now there are more insurgents and radicals than there ever were before the wars, millions dead, and less stability than ever. "Gee, thanks guys!".

Let me fix this for you;

Now insurgents and radicals are bigger news than than they ever were before the wars. I'm just now hearing about the millions dead, and lack of stability outside my own back yard "Gee, thanks guys!".

Its a bit unfair to blame all the stuff going down in the Middle East on the War on Terror or the War in Iraq. Certainly, things have been shaken in the region since we started waltzing about. I think the Arab Spring, ISIS, and the Syrian civil war however were ultimately inevitable. Sooner or later, something was going to trigger these events. It just turns out that we played a hand in making them happen now, but all those things have been building up for decades. But to act like insurgents weren't running around or everything over there was hunky dorry before we rolled a gak ton of guns in is at least incredibly ill informed.

**Smacks**

LordofHats wrote:
Now insurgents and radicals are bigger news than than they ever were before the wars.

Wrong on all counts. In the wake of 9/11 radical islam was much bigger news than it generally is today (even though we are in the wake of the French terror attacks). And there are more radical groups and fighters now as a reaction to the wars than there were before. It has nothing to do with how much is being reported.

I'm just now hearing about the millions dead, and lack of stability outside my own back yard "

Over a million people died as a direct result of us destabilizing the region. Again nothing to do with what I'm hearing now. This has been public knowledge for years. So again, lord of hats is just talking out of his 'hat' as usual.

But to act like insurgents weren't running around or everything over there was hunky dorry before we rolled a gak ton of guns in is at least incredibly ill informed.

Which is probably why no one was ever arguing that.

My argument is that rolling troops into the middle-east has done feth-all to increase our freedom or safety, and may actually have provoked more attacks and hatred towards westerners. All while our governments erode our freedoms from within with anti-terror laws. Which is the real threat.

**skyth**

I am not sure why the comments are controversial. It is part of the American psyche that attacking someone from an ambush, shooting someone in the back, or a group ganging up on a weaker opponent are the tactics of a coward.

However, I would expect our military to use those tactics. I would rather they win the fight and come back home. I am under no illusion that those tactics are honorable or fair.

As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.

**Grey Templar**

Woah woah woah. Might wanna rethink that buddy.

**Sigvatr**

skyth wrote:

As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.

I...I...wow. Just...wow.

**conker249**

Please refrain from comparing Snipers to Suicide bombers. It is uncalled for, and not appreciated.

**Iron_Captain**

soundwave591 wrote:

Iron_Captain wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I don't think pointing out that the US fight in Iraq wasn't actually protecting American freedoms is exactly "American bashing", and I think that kind of simplistic thinking is what has lead to exactly the situation that other thread is about.

When has the US ever needed to wage war in order to protect American freedom? What is the last time the US was invaded by an enemy with the intent to conquer? Since the Revolutionary War, the US has never had to protect its freedom from foreign agression. "Protecting American freedom" is just government propaganda. The US wages war in order to defend its international interests, not to defend its people and their values.

war of 1812?

Doesn't count. The US was the agressor there. Also, the British were too busy in Europe with a certain little corporal to be thinking about a reconquest of the US. Besides, a British re-conquest would only have been an improvement.

**Grey Templar**

Right, because kidnapping US citizens to force them into service in the Royal navy and restrictive trade embargos wasn't aggressive provocation.

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
Right, because kidnapping US citizens to force them into service in the Royal navy and restrictive trade embargos wasn't aggressive provocation.

There was a lot of kidnapping and forcing into servitude going around back then.

**Jihadin**

skyth wrote:

As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.

My aren't you a fountain of wisdom. That there line is one golden nugget of insight. Sniper = Suicide Bomber. Watched a lot of WWII movies where the Marines shoot the palm tree's and the Japanese soldier falls out dangling on a rope eh?

Edit

We're now into press ganging?

**Grey Templar**

Smacks wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Right, because kidnapping US citizens to force them into service in the Royal navy and restrictive trade embargos wasn't aggressive provocation.
There was a lot of kidnapping and forcing into servitude going around back then.

Yes, but usually it was limited to your own citizens. Kidnapping another countries citizens is definitely an act of war.

**Smacks**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but usually it was limited to your own citizens. Kidnapping another countries citizens is definitely an act of war.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of slavery, but we way off on a tangent here.

The point as I see it is that American (or should I say western) "freedom" isn't really under threat, and hasn't been for some time. The idea that military forces are abroad "defending freedom" is largely propaganda to put a PC spin on what they are really doing, which largely amounts to: flailing blindly at the behest of almost random political and corporate pressure, and doing a lot of collateral damage in the process.

**Frazzled**

*9/11 wasn't random
*Iraq's invasion of Kuwait wasn't random
*Cold War wasn't random.

Other drivers in the last 50 years:
Bosnia-journalism
Serbia-journalism
Somalia-journalism
Libya-? ok you got me.

EDIT: a more mercenary person would say wow the US deployed thousands of troops and and/or fought wars four times to save innocents of a certain faith, and then received multiple terror attacks. US then aided in another war to save innocents of a certain faith, and ended up with a dead ambassador. makes you think maybe we shouldn't be helping people any more.

**Howard A Treesong**

I wouldn't describe it as cowardly, but it doesn't seem a particularly honourable profession. It's something that a lot of people's personality probably isn't compatible with. Cowardly doesn't seem right because being a sniper can be quite dangerous. You're often left without support and are left behind when others pull back, or a pushed forward ahead of others. If you're caught, you're most likely to be executed. A lot of people don't like taking snipers prisoner.

**Smacks**

Frazzled wrote:
*9/11 wasn't random.

9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.

**Stonebeard**

No, why would he have invaded Iraq? Colorado would be the more obvious target: ManBearPig must die!

**Frazzled**

Smacks wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
*9/11 wasn't random.
9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.

Al Gore would have invaded Manbearpig. edit- oy beaten to the punch!

Always Iraq with you people.

Iraq was the domino theory in reverse. Tribalism overcame democracy. But it would not have happened had 9/11 not happened.

**Jihadin**

He was providing Over Watch to the troops. Not the type of Over Watch in 40K.

Assigned to SEAL Team 3, Sniper Element Charlie, later Cadillac,[9] platoon within the Naval Special Warfare Command, and with four tours of duty, Kyle served in many major battles of the Iraq War.[3] His first long-range kill shot was taken during the initial invasion when he shot a woman approaching a group of Marines with a hand grenade in her hand. An article by CNN reported that the woman was cradling a toddler in her other hand.[15] As ordered, he opened fire, killing the woman before she could attack.[11] He later stated, "the woman was already dead. I was just making sure she didn't take any Marines with her."[9]

Because of his track record as a marksman during his deployment to Ramadi, the insurgents named him Shaitan Ar-Ramadi (English: 'The Devil of Ramadi'), and put a $21,000 bounty on his head that was later increased to $80,000. They posted signs highlighting the cross on his arm as a means of identifying him.[3][11]

In 2008, outside Sadr City, Kyle claimed his longest successful shot, after he spotted an insurgent with a rocket launcher near a U.S. Army convoy at a range of 2,100 yards (1,920 m). As recounted in his book American Sniper, Kyle fired a shot from his .338 Lapua Magnum-chambered McMillan TAC-338 sniper rifle, killing the insurgent from about 2,100 yards away. The fighter was about to launch a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Army convoy.[16]

During four tours of duty in Iraq, Kyle was shot twice and caught up in six separate IED explosions.[11] His other weapons included the Mk 11 7.62×51mm NATO semi-automatic sniper rifle, the Mk 12 5.56×45mm NATO Designated Marksman Rifle, Sig Sauer P220 Pistol, M4 carbine and a .300 Winchester Magnum-chambered sniper rifle.[17]

Being I have not read his book or seen the movie. From what I understand he was Over Watching units and not going out solo.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Frazzled wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
*9/11 wasn't random.
9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.

Al Gore would have invaded Manbearpig. edit- oy beaten to the punch!

Always Iraq with you people.

Iraq was the domino theory in reverse. Tribalism overcame democracy. But it would not have happened had 9/11 not happened.

After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.

But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.

Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.

**NuggzTheNinja**

skyth wrote:
I am not sure why the comments are controversial. It is part of the American psyche that attacking someone from an ambush, shooting someone in the back, or a group ganging up on a weaker opponent are the tactics of a coward.

However, I would expect our military to use those tactics. I would rather they win the fight and come back home. I am under no illusion that those tactics are honorable or fair.

As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.

Labeling snipers as people who shoot people in the back from comparative safety completely smacks of ignorance of the way that snipers actually work. It takes a huge pair of balls to operate in a very small team, far from friendly support, deep in enemy territory carrying with you only what you can carry on your back, knowing that if you're captured you'll likely be tortured and killed for being a sniper.

**skyth**

Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.

There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission

Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
skyth wrote:
I am not sure why the comments are controversial. It is part of the American psyche that attacking someone from an ambush, shooting someone in the back, or a group ganging up on a weaker opponent are the tactics of a coward.

However, I would expect our military to use those tactics. I would rather they win the fight and come back home. I am under no illusion that those tactics are honorable or fair.

As far as being a coward, a sniper isn't that much different from a suicide bomber. They strike at the enemy from ambush and they put their own lives on the line. Heck, a suicide bomber goes in knowing that they are not coming back.

Labeling snipers as people who shoot people in the back from comparative safety completely smacks of ignorance of the way that snipers actually work.

It would be nice if I actually claimed that.

**Da Boss**

Yeah, you've got to be brave to be a suicide bomber surely? Brave enough to die for your beliefs. It's also pretty scummy, sure, and they kill people, and I don't approve of that. But I don't see how it's morally so much worse than other kinds of bombing. It's more about who you bomb than the method of delivery.

Of course, coercing someone into delivering a suicide bomb, or tricking them into doing it, is a terrible act.

I don't see why comparisons between methods of waging war can't be made, but I guess I'm not as emotional about this topic as other people.

As for the "always with Iraq", we'll stop talking about it when it a) stops being relevant, which it obviously hasn't and b) it's cheerleaders and apologists can finally admit they were dead fething wrong.

And Huggz: It surely also takes a huge amount of balls to attack a superior force, knowing your chance of survival is extremely low. I don't get why "balls" are valued so highly.

The sniper is a valuable asset in a war, I can see that. Nobility or cowardice doesn't really come into it.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.

But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.

Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.

100% this...I've always been opposed to military intervention in Iraq. Which says a lot, given that Saddam is actually the most recent Arab dictator who attacked Israelis at home.

He was a secular Arab dictator depending on nationalism rather than religious motivations to keep his gak together. Arab Nationalist militaries are notoriously inept. While Saddam was a complete scumbag, he could (and should) have been OUR scumbag keeping militant Islam at bay. All he wanted was golden toilet seats. Small price to pay for a leash on one of the largest armies in the world (GW I, Iraq's military was massive).

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

skyth wrote:
Struck a nerve I see. Both snipers and suicide bombers use what I would call cowardly tactics(attacking from ambush). Both tactics are also used as a psychological weapon to cause the enemy to live in fear. There are similarities. Heck, both have been used to inspire terror by targetting civilian targets instead of just military targets.

There are differences. Snipers take a lot of training and skill to be good at their job. Suicide bombers are more likely to cause collateral damage. Snipers are also a lot more likely to come home after a mission

Granted, I'd prefer the use of snipers as the soldier coming home has a higher value to me.

The Sniper Vs Suicide bomber argument, ultimately boils down to morals and ethics, and of course, the cause you're fighting for or against. Consider these examples:

A few months ago, a female Kurdish suicide bomber targeted ISIS troops. The other week, a suicide bomber killed civilians in Pakistan.

Allied snipers killed many enemy troops fighting for the Nazis, and Serbian snipers killed many civilians in the Yugoslavian civil war.

Israeli Army snipers have been accused of killing Palestinian civilians in the past, whilst suicide bombers have killed innocent Israeli civilians.

Who was right and who was wrong? It's a moral minefield.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
*9/11 wasn't random.
9/11 was orchestrated by mostly Saudi nationals, and one of their main beefs was the continued American presence in Saudi Arabia (which contains, many of Islams holiest sites). So what was the response? Invade Iraq! That's pretty fething random. And probably had more to do with Bush mk2 needing a target to right his political career, then because it posed any real threat. Do you think Al Gore would have seen the need to invade Iraq? If it's not random, it's at least chaotic.

Al Gore would have invaded Manbearpig. edit- oy beaten to the punch!

Always Iraq with you people.

Iraq was the domino theory in reverse. Tribalism overcame democracy. But it would not have happened had 9/11 not happened.

After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.

But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.

Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.

Attacking none of those would have been better. Again, I think it was a reverse domino play to knock down multiple dictatorships. For a short period of time it worked. Libya got in line, Lebanon, Iraq. Then it went bad. Thats really the only thing I can figure. Of course Hussein refuses to let inspectors do their jobs and shooting at our planes were constant causus belli.

But again none of that would have occurred had 9/11 not. Bad move - sure like Africa in WWII.
Its strange that the AQ was never questioned - wait you don't want US troops in SA - are you ok with Hussein invading? After all freaking SA invited us in to protect them.
And why was AQ performing terrorist attacks on US forces in Somalia trying to feed starving people, embassies in Kenya etc? What exactly was the point and why were they getting support? Heck why is ISIS getting support now?

**Da Boss**

As far as I can tell from OT threads, who is right and who is wrong does not depend on the persons actions, motivations or the outcomes of their actions, but mostly just on which side you've chosen to cheerlead.

Nuggz, sorry I misspelled your name as Huggz. Also refreshing to see that POV on Saddam, which is the view I also hold.

**Smacks**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.

There are also a lot of training camps in northern Pakistan, but "oh woops!" Pakistan is nuclear power! So they got left alone. Which just shows how much of it is just flexing for political effect without any real purpose.

**Frazzled**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.

But Iraq. I've been scratching my head about that one for so long, it's probably the reason why I'm going bald. Attacking Saudi Arabia would have made more sense than invading Iraq, bou of course, the Saudis are a valuable American ally, just like Pakistan, and let's not go there.

Not attacking you, Frazz, just making a general point.

100% this...I've always been opposed to military intervention in Iraq. Which says a lot, given that Saddam is actually the most recent Arab dictator who attacked Israelis at home.

He was a secular Arab dictator depending on nationalism rather than religious motivations to keep his gak together. Arab Nationalist militaries are notoriously inept. While Saddam was a complete scumbag, he could (and should) have been OUR scumbag keeping militant Islam at bay. All he wanted was golden toilet seats. Small price to pay for a leash on one of the largest armies in the world (GW I, Iraq's military was massive).

It does turn out to have been a bad idea. I admit it, Iraq, Libya et al have taught me that the US should never ever intervene to get a dictator out. Ever ever ever.
Have at it Isis. Go to town Putin. Live the dream Ronald McDonald.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After 9/11, invading Afghanistan made sense - it's where the terrorists trained and where Bin Laden took refuge.
There are also a lot of training camps in northern Pakistan, but "oh woops!" Pakistan is nuclear power! So they got left alone. Which just shows how much of it is just flexing for political effect without any real purpose.

Er...no they supposedly were helping us. Its not our fault we were betrayed. But I think my opinions on what we should have done are pretty clear and I don't feel like being BANED again. I really hate that guy.

**Jihadin**

Damn. This thread got stupid while I was buying tickets for Motley Crue/Alice Cooper tickets.