It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘American Sniper’ Complaints Grow in Hollywood: Should Clint Eastwood Be Celebrating a ‘Killer

page: 13
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Simo is the greatest of all! Unbelievable what he was able to accomplish with iron sites and a Mosin. No one will ever eclipse what he did.




posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Feltrick

The claim being made that is truth is that kyle was the most effective american sniper of all time. That comes from verified kills. Perhaps around the world others have done the same or better but they are not verified in the same manner that what kyle was. To be direct with my point is that they are not just taking one mans word of his feets they are collecting data that verifies his and his spotters claims.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Simo is the greatest of all! Unbelievable what he was able to accomplish with iron sites and a Mosin. No one will ever eclipse what he did.



I assume you realize that you're celebrating a killer and all that means. On some level, it seems irrelevant that that which he did was legal. I defend your right to do so, just as I defend a filmmaker's right to make the film of his/her choice. I haven't yet seen the film so I don't know what approach Eastwood took. However, I just read your post and I do see the approach you took. It's disturbing.

We live in a culture in which "verified kills" are something to celebrate. I wonder if those who celebrate this would care to comment about why this is something to admire.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

you know i don't mind rattling on about this or that.

in the case of military being celebrated for killing it is because the us is a supposed democracy where the nation has decided to send in our own to protect our way of life. now in that situation there will be killing and if some amoung the rest are making great sacrifices to take out key targets that will result in less deaths on our side and will result in the whole mess being over quicker and american freedoms safer then i will celebrate those amoung us that chose that life and those that support them and those that heal them.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
... but overall not bad for a Hollywood production.


All hollywood productions are bad.
Too bad it will once again be one of the few industries to actually make money during the next depression.
edit on 20-1-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Support for our foreign wars has been waning, and more and more people are wondering just what we are being protected from exactly. The fact of the matter is, Saddam didn't like Al Qaeda and kept them at bay in his country. He actually kept a semblance of control (not that his torture of people was OK or justified). Our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq led to more US deaths than ever needed to happen. People are realizing that and also wondering why we are still in Afghanistan.

Because people are starting to wonder, and support for military operations is dwindling -- we magically have movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper to whip up and galvanize American nationalistic feelings.

According to the FBI 90% of domestic terror attacks are NOT perpetrated by Muslims. I wonder why all we hear about/see are scary news pieces of Arabs and Muslims recently? Perhaps the people are not scared enough? People soon burn out from being scared and on high alert all the time, the human mind can only take so much stress. I guess "they" (whoever the people that make these kinds of decisions) decided they needed to double down on the threat level to make Americans more complicit to more freedoms being taken away.

If anything, our endless wars overseas have seemingly taken away more freedoms than protect them. Every time we turn around an excuse is given for US Constitution-shredding policy, blamed on the actions of a minority that carries out 10% of domestic terror attacks. Something just isn't right about that.

I implore people to ask why we are being shown nothing but scary images of ISIS (who just magically seemed to appear, but we knew about for a long time?), and why our media seems hell-bent on scaring the crap out of Americans, thinking that the day is coming when Muslims will overrun America and turn it into the new Middle East.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Pot calling the kettle.

As those people hated KYLE.



There are plenty of left-leaning folks who still respect the troops. That being said...

There are others who hate Kyle because he's the polar opposite of a Liberal. Gun-loving, tobacco-dipping, bible-toting, patriotic, pickup-driving good-ol' boy. Because of this, he couldn't possibly be a decent and loyal person doing his job... he's an ignorant red-neck who was duped by Bush into murdering innocent Iraqis.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Support for our foreign wars has been waning, and more and more people are wondering just what we are being protected from exactly. The fact of the matter is, Saddam didn't like Al Qaeda and kept them at bay in his country. He actually kept a semblance of control (not that his torture of people was OK or justified). Our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq led to more US deaths than ever needed to happen. People are realizing that and also wondering why we are still in Afghanistan.

Because people are starting to wonder, and support for military operations is dwindling -- we magically have movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper to whip up and galvanize American nationalistic feelings.

According to the FBI 90% of domestic terror attacks are NOT perpetrated by Muslims. I wonder why all we hear about/see are scary news pieces of Arabs and Muslims recently? Perhaps the people are not scared enough? People soon burn out from being scared and on high alert all the time, the human mind can only take so much stress. I guess "they" (whoever the people that make these kinds of decisions) decided they needed to double down on the threat level to make Americans more complicit to more freedoms being taken away.

If anything, our endless wars overseas have seemingly taken away more freedoms than protect them. Every time we turn around an excuse is given for US Constitution-shredding policy, blamed on the actions of a minority that carries out 10% of domestic terror attacks. Something just isn't right about that.

I implore people to ask why we are being shown nothing but scary images of ISIS (who just magically seemed to appear, but we knew about for a long time?), and why our media seems hell-bent on scaring the crap out of Americans, thinking that the day is coming when Muslims will overrun America and turn it into the new Middle East.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


I don't disagree with anything you said; however, that's still no excuse to disrespect the troops who don't get to choose where/when/how they fight. They're doing a job that SOMEONE has to do and they're just trying to keep themselves and their buddies alive so they can come back home to a country that's increasingly ungrateful for their sacrifices.

The beef should be with the politicians and the military industrial complex, not the troops.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

You can respect someone with out calling him an american hero....

Seems that is the disconnect here.
People act like if you don't call the troops heros then you are an anti troop dirty commie.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I believe I am celebrating a man (Simo) who defended his homeland against Nazi invaders. Do you not feel that what he did was appropriate? Should he have allowed them to waltz in unoppossed? How many lives did he save?

War is brutal but is sometimes necessary to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. He was not an invader...he was a defender of his countrymen. Where do you find guilt in that?



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I meant no disrespect to Kyle nor am I downplaying his skills as an elite marksman.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

You can respect someone with out calling him an american hero....

Seems that is the disconnect here.
People act like if you don't call the troops heros then you are an anti troop dirty commie.


I never said that but some others might have implied it.

I don't care if someone uses the word "hero" or not and you'll be hard pressed to find any service member who thinks they deserve that label. I was referring to the people who are saying Kyle deserved to be killed and was a coward/murderer/etc.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
I assume you realize that you're celebrating a killer and all that means. On some level, it seems irrelevant that that which he did was legal.


Do you have the same objection to people who will be "celebrating" Obama tonight when he stands up to give his speech?

And yes. Soldiers are supposed to kill. It's a war, not a tea party.

I am celebrating our freedom, and those who stop our enemies from trying to take it from us.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Well IDK about hard pressed to find one, there are some service members that are really full of them self's and what they do.
I am sure you have heard the term mo-tard before.

But I do agree many don't like to be called a hero.




I was referring to the people who are saying Kyle deserved to be killed and was a coward/murderer/etc.


I also agree here, those comments are completely off base.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

So agian, him doing his job that he signed up for.

What is so heroic about doing something you signed up for?


He saved the lives of hundreds of soldiers. He inspired them to feeling almost invincible when they knew it was him who was providing over-watch. When he saw bad tactics being used by the Marines he left his over-watch duties and led them in clearing of houses.

I suppose if someone has never lifted a finger in either civil or military service they would never understand.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: deadeyedick



I meant no disrespect to Kyle nor am I downplaying his skills as an elite marksman.






I get that and just wanted to state the difference and how we may never be sure either way. Iron sights are a whole different ball game as is the way things were reported in the past. My aim was not to take away anything away from simo. In fact i think there is a thread on here i read about him yrs back.




posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer




was duped by Bush into murdering innocent Iraqis.


I guess i am a very special person cause i believe he was a hero of the highest order and yet i still find truth in this statment if i search for truth. Of coarse minus the innocent part.

My view is that tptb forced the war and it is people like kyle that by being very good at there job would end it with less death on both sides. Bush and bama both are tools of tptb. This is how they get the weapons they have. It is like how the rothchilds and such pump money into both sides. Once you get to the top things like war become dollar signs.ck

Without the badasses in our military the war becomes way more focused on death and not dollar signs. If you are gonna do it do it right. The true blame for the bloodshed is not on the backs of the military it is on the backs of the general public that continues to be duped into believing that votes matter as they once did. TPTB use control tech. for the general pop. that we often bring up in threads right up here on ats and they send in the mindless masses to defend and deflect the real issues and in many cases they know not what they do.
edit on 20-1-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: NavyDoc
... but overall not bad for a Hollywood production.


All hollywood productions are bad.
Too bad it will once again be one of the few industries to actually make money during the next depression.


It's ludicrous to say that all Hollywood productions are bad. How many Hollywood films have you seen in the last year? Can you name them?



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: neo96

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Oh that is rich neo! Best ironic laugh I've had in ages.


I brought demographics,, not specifically just race, as well as politics. You chose to only acknowledge the racial aspect. But, the fact is, Hollywood is very political and the demographics of the Academy are not the demographics of Hollywood at large.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



Perhaps you'd care to define that which you mean by "Hollywood".



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Support for our foreign wars has been waning, and more and more people are wondering just what we are being protected from exactly. The fact of the matter is, Saddam didn't like Al Qaeda and kept them at bay in his country. He actually kept a semblance of control (not that his torture of people was OK or justified). Our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq led to more US deaths than ever needed to happen. People are realizing that and also wondering why we are still in Afghanistan.

Because people are starting to wonder, and support for military operations is dwindling -- we magically have movies like Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper to whip up and galvanize American nationalistic feelings.

According to the FBI 90% of domestic terror attacks are NOT perpetrated by Muslims. I wonder why all we hear about/see are scary news pieces of Arabs and Muslims recently? Perhaps the people are not scared enough? People soon burn out from being scared and on high alert all the time, the human mind can only take so much stress. I guess "they" (whoever the people that make these kinds of decisions) decided they needed to double down on the threat level to make Americans more complicit to more freedoms being taken away.

If anything, our endless wars overseas have seemingly taken away more freedoms than protect them. Every time we turn around an excuse is given for US Constitution-shredding policy, blamed on the actions of a minority that carries out 10% of domestic terror attacks. Something just isn't right about that.

I implore people to ask why we are being shown nothing but scary images of ISIS (who just magically seemed to appear, but we knew about for a long time?), and why our media seems hell-bent on scaring the crap out of Americans, thinking that the day is coming when Muslims will overrun America and turn it into the new Middle East.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


It takes at least three years to get a film made from screenplay to screen. It sometimes takes much longer than that. Try predicting three years ahead the film you need to make to push your political agenda in response to the timing of specific political events that will happen in three years.

The people who make the decisions to finance major films do so in the expectation that the film will make money for them. They are largely unconcerned about any other motive. If they are concerned about any other motive, they won't last long. The notion that big studios (which is what most people mean when they say Hollywood) have a political agenda is absurd. If anything, it's the ticket-buying public that has the political agenda. They love violence. When they stop paying to see it, those films will no longer get financed.

Now ask yourself why the ticket-buying public loves violence. Could it be that humans are inherently violent? If you want to examine the influence of media, look at news programs (pseudo news) and newspapers and the internet. People go to the movies for entertainment.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join