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.

 

Seven Big Lies 'American Sniper' Is Telling America

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I got to thinking of Sarah Palin, as she threw words out of her mouth and wrote tweets saying all the soldiers are heroes.

No, Sarah, not all soldiers are heroes.

It's said there are no atheists in foxholes, but there are ### holes in foxholes. I heard stories from my Dad about some of his fellow soldiers. The cowardly squad leader who cowered in the corner in the midst of battle. The soldiers who self-inflicted a wound to get out of the war and be sent home.

There was a public reality check after WW2. John Wayne was not the only public image. I saw The Phil Silvers Show with Sgt Bilko. Luther Bills in South Pacific. Then there was MASH. And then there was fragging and Lt. Calley.

What we have done lately is deify the soldier. Like you, Sarah, many only want to see an invincible godlike person. Maybe it was all just part of Bush's wanting to kick the "VietNam syndrom", when he created the cultish illusion for the people, that their soldiers were all heroes, invincible, to the point of not allowing us to see them come home in flag draped coffins. There is a difference between worship and honor.

No person, no nation is invincible. To deify the soldier, to turn the soldier into a demigod, is to deprive him/her of their humanity. It robs the soldier of the very thing s/he needs in order to deal with PTSD: that humans go to war and return as humans, dealing with the physical and mental pain suffered in battle. And, Sarah, let us remember that a nation also needs to heal; engaging in self-worship, jingoism, will not allow this.

My Dad and his fellow soldiers were honored but not worshipped. I think that something happened by the time of the war in Viet Nam. The soldiers were caught in a national debate about whether we should even be in that war. They came home neither worshipped nor honored. And neither soldier nor nation could heal.

IMO what the VietNam Memorial did to both soldier and nation was to give back to both their humanity. What you said in your 2011 speech from your bus at the memorial was so cruel. You never even got close enough to see what I saw when I stood before the wall. Flowers left by those who wanted to remember the person...the person, Sarah.... whose name was engraved. I read a letter left by a woman, written to "her first love", her fiance whom she never had the chance to marry but who had always been in her thoughts as she got on with her life, married, had children and was happy, but who would always remember her fallen soldier fiance as "her first love." I cried. And tears are part of healing.

Honoring someone recognizes their humanity; worshipping takes their humanity away.

Sarah, not every soldier is a hero; my Dad would have been the first to set you straight about that. Stop with the childish hero worship.

I only include this article, Sarah Palin at the Vietnam Memorial: "Tear down this wall", in case anyone still believes she cares about soldiers other than as props in her cruel, war worshiping, jingoistic world.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Boy the reaction I get from chicken hawks on social media is a bit unnerving. People really are blindly buying in to the statist propaganda of this film and taking it as gospel. Dare not mention Kyle's lies to conservative folks. Because if you dont love this film then you dont support the troops and if you dont support the troops you hate America !

Oh my the mindsets of these people and trend is disturbing. Apparently im a "liberal" coward too lol. Oh boy, here is a hint I belong to no 2 party system and never will again. If they wanted to justify the war in Iraq potentially war rally for more war then it is working. So many eager to become bantha foder.



Joseph Goebbels work carries on


edit on 2-2-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: truckdriver42
It always amazes me that the left picks the grunt to vilify and call him a coward. The OP is this generations radical screamers of the term Baby killer. These same people on the other hand worship at the feet of Obama yet never call him on the real cowardice he displays or call him a baby killer. Obama sits in the White House with his proverbial sniper rifle in the way of a fleet of deadly drones while Kyle was in harms way, on the battle field when he did his duty.

The anti-Americanism of this thread is unbelievable. These people that vilify Kyle in this thread would faun all over Obama never questioning why they march into the showers and fully believing in their cause even while breathing in the poison.

There needs to be a Jim Jones category where threads like this are archived.


You call all these people biased then make a biased assumption that they all worship the current potus when I see nobody supporting Obummer here.

Do you see the irony in your statement ?
pot meet kettle

I wont stoop so low to bash Kyle and call him a baby killer but I will call him a liar that embelished in the accolades of his duty. It is unbecoming for veterans to brag about thier kills , in poor character. The fact remains he defamed Mr Ventura and all though I do not agree with Ventura being rewarded money from his estate he had every right to prove Kyle wrong in court. What would you say to all those people calling a veteran like Ventura a valor thief , traitor , wimp for being "beaten up" when it actually never happened ?

It goes both ways. No it is not ok to call him a baby killer again to my knowledge he killed no infants. That is low to call him that. I would have eliminated any hostile targets without hesitation no matter age or sex to to protect my men. But I will never involve myself or align with a military industrial complex that kills for profit to begin with ... go me ! War is ugly. But again Kyle is a hero in the minds of the men he protected. But he enlisted knowing all factors involved he was not drafted or forced to fight a unjust war, he voulenteered. He participated in a illegal invasion of a soverghn nation over a series of lies i need not remind you. Lining Dick Cheney and Halliburtons pockets at the expense of the taxpayer and thousands of soldiers lives. But you never hear anything about the ill gotten gains in any of the war porn being churned out. Hence there is no lesson to be learned in this and shows coercion through emotional and visual stimulus. They really sugar coated Kyle in the film as opposed to the book.

Zero Dark Thirty > Lone Survivor > American Sniper = Propaganda

Worked for the Reich


edit on 2-2-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: tiberius10721
a reply to: squittles

Great reply good job putting these feminized cowards in their place! I'm tired of these cowardly men with their hair color and man purses trashing my country and its heroes! !


I am ex Army all though it was during peace time I served. And I will remain critical of the MIC. What about all those viet nam veterans that came back and protested the war ? Were they feminine purse toting liberals that protesed themselves ?

The ignorance in your comment makes my brain hurt.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DarthFazer

Is that shot from inglorious bastards?.
If so great comparison
.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Yes it is, the funny thing is Inglorious Bastards is more compelling than American Sniper.


I forgot to mention Hurt Locker in my propaganda list. It is the best imo film out of the bunch. But propagandist undertones are in the film too. The fact these films adress PTSD to some degree but fails to deliver a broader message that Soldiers are expendable at the hands of filthy politicians is what gets under my skin. If they showed war from the enemy combatants perspective defending his country from foreign invaders then it would be true war film. BUT THESE FILMS ARE A DISSERVICE !

If they ever make a film how war criminals like Cheney and Halliburton played us all that would be a PATRIOTIC



posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sheesh, for a guy whose background says "no h8," you sure appear to have a lot of it.

That aside, you can hear some of it from his own words:



This next video may or may not help you realize that sitting at a computer desk typing out your h8 against this guy and those like him is generally based on ideology and a certain ignorance of what war is like, what it does to many Soldiers, and also what it doesn't do to many Soldiers.



While I disagree with the "why" that we've been overseas since 2002, I don't disagree with the job that people like Chris Kyle did that helped bring our Service Members back home safely to their families--many of whom disagreed with the "why" that they were there while being deployed. I just wish that people who make comments like you could better understand that it's absolutely, 100% possible to still support the individual Service Members but still despise why they are being sent to other countries and asked to put their lives on the line.

As for the movie, it seems as though the Kyle family worked very closely with the directors/producers/actors in the film, so if there are discrepencies, they are minor to the overall story. I will be seeing this movie, hopefully soon, with my wife--I never deployed, but she had to in 2005-2006.

I don't know your personal life story, but if you've never deployed, let alone served, you are writing on a topic about which you are woefully ignorant. It's easy to judge--and as I often do, it's easy to have served and judge--but if you lack that part about serving, then you lack a big part of what gives you any credibility on the topic. It's akin to Michael Moore's recent comments.

I don't think war should ever be "glorified," but portraying war has its place. What also has its place in modern society is the telling of individual stories of those who serve in extraordinary ways, because it helps shine a light on the very, VERY few silver linings in war.


I agree that we can despise the leaders and policies that put us into wars without being cruel to soldiers.

Having said that, I disagree that those of us who haven't been deployed cannot judge the war. People who say this haven't really thought that through.

It's like a Nazi saying "why you weren't ever a concentration camp staff member so you can't judge!" Do you see how that doesn't quite compute?

I also think that it depends on the soldier. Right after 911 there were a lot of lies and the media didn't represent things objectively Iraq so maybe those first waves of soldiers were not at fault for thinking they were actually defending something. But later waves? One is responsible for joining an unethical war of aggression.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I agree that we can despise the leaders and policies that put us into wars without being cruel to soldiers.

Having said that, I disagree that those of us who haven't been deployed cannot judge the war. People who say this haven't really thought that through.

It's like a Nazi saying "why you weren't ever a concentration camp staff member so you can't judge!" Do you see how that doesn't quite compute?


Your Nazi staff-member comparison is not the same thing at all, so, no, I don't see how that doesn't quite compute. I served in the Army and was part of it during the 9/11 event, but I never had to deploy. I don't have the same perspective, knowledge or experiences of Soldiers who did deploy, so I can't speak about being a part of war with any real knowledge or experience. And that's exactly what I said--I didn't say that you can't judge the war, I said that judging Soldiers who serve while you have never served or deployed is doing so out of ignorance, because you don't have the true knowledge or experience. I was speaking on the ignorance of people, not their right to speak out against the war. I was saying that you don't know what it's like to be a Soldier at war, so don't judge the Soldier. The "war" is a different topic altogether.


I also think that it depends on the soldier. Right after 911 there were a lot of lies and the media didn't represent things objectively Iraq so maybe those first waves of soldiers were not at fault for thinking they were actually defending something. But later waves? One is responsible for joining an unethical war of aggression.


All I will say is that, just like with politics or taxes or gun control, a lot of people join a cause without really having ever researched what they're getting themselves into. Sure, there are always Service Members who join with the sole hope of going to war and killing a 'bad guy,' but that's not the majority of those who serve, at least not in my experience with Service Members.

Honestly, if I ever joined up again, I'd prefer a job like Chris Kyle's, who knew that when he was taking out a target, that it was verified to the best of the military's knowledge that he/she was truly working against our Soldiers with deadly intent. That's much better than being a drone pilot and just firing on things from far away, not truly knowing who or what you're hitting.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I want to apologize for deserting the thread. I had no idea it was reopened.


originally posted by: FlyersFan
The film shows Kyle and his wife watching the news as the towers were hit with airplanes on 9/11. Then the movie switches to Iraq and shows Kyle in the war.


And you don't think that scene "Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11"? That's what the article in the OP stated.



The movie cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq, implying there is some link between the two.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
No. Not at all.

Eastwood did the movie with jarring back and forth between nice quiet home in USA to intense war ... and back. The jarring was the point of the film, and it was there to show why the sniper had PTSD. There is no decompression time for them from war to home to war to home. The whole movie was like that. Fast jarring between the two situations.

There was absolutely nothing that even remotely came close to the film saying or insinuating that 9/11 caused us to go into Iraq. I kept a wide open mind and was looking for it because of what I had read here. It simply wasn't there. If it had been, I would be on here complaining about it because the reason we were given for going into Iraq was that Iraq broke UN resolutions from the Kuwait war, including repeated violations of airspace.

So no ... no matter what the partisan talking heads say ... the movie doesn't have us going into Iraq because of 9/11.

I stick with my original movie review ... for me the movie was slow and many times felt like a 'chick flick'. It wasn't a war film. It was about relationships and feelings and PTSD. The part of the film that I did think was moving was the credits at the end. You watch the credits in silence and at the same time there are films and pictures from the real funeral. It is moving to be at the funeral of the man who you just spent 2 hours with during the most intense time of his life. That was well done.

It was worth seeing once. I wouldn't see it again.

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



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

All I will say is that, just like with politics or taxes or gun control, a lot of people join a cause without really having ever researched what they're getting themselves into. Sure, there are always Service Members who join with the sole hope of going to war and killing a 'bad guy,' but that's not the majority of those who serve, at least not in my experience with Service Members.


I would say that your spot on with that assessment. Most of the guys i served with were from crappy social backgrounds and it was the only way they were going to be able to pay for college by becoming government property for at least 4 years. I can count one one hand how many people I served with who signed on because they thought theyd get to shoot someone. They were usually the ones to puke when it actually happened too.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


To be honest, I haven't seen the movie and have no desire to.


I felt the same way. The truth is I can't be bothered to get myself to a theater to see it - too many other films I'd rather see first

I'm really curious though. This movie seems to be a kind of mirror. I want to know what I would see. I can guess - but still

I wish there was a way to watch it without actually having to watch it


edit on 2/10/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
There was absolutely nothing that even remotely came close to the film saying or insinuating that 9/11 caused us to go into Iraq.


Then why didn't they show Kyle and his wife watching Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and then switch to Iraq? I mean, he was already in the navy on 9/11, so why did they even bring 9/11 into it, if not to give that impression?

And alternet isn't the only source that has that opinion.

Source



The film does not contain, as best I can tell, a single reference to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, or weapons of mass destruction. There's no Dick Cheney, no Colin Powell at the UN, no anti-war protests. The film implies that the Iraq War was a deliberate response to 9/11.


edit on 2/10/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That's why I'm not writing a review here. That's not the purpose of this thread. The purpose was to discuses the discrepancies between the book/movie and reality. I don't have to see the movie when so many people that have are outlining the inconsistencies.

I have no desire to see it. But FF mentioned that it's almost like a "chick flick" so maybe I would like it. LOL!



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Then why didn't they show Kyle and his wife watching Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and then switch to Iraq? I mean, he was already in the navy on 9/11, so why did they even bring 9/11 into it, if not to give that impression?


- 9/11 was a major event. Why NOT have a news report of it come on their TV? It's something that a military family, any family, would worry about. The major point of the film was his stress and PTSD.

- The point is the jarring between war/home/war/home/war/home. Stuffing something between them watching tv and him being in the war was unnecessary (and would have made a slow movie even longer and more slow .. IMHO).

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



edit on 2/10/2015 by FlyersFan because: oooops forgot the mod tags



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



That's why I'm not writing a review here. That's not the purpose of this thread.

It's a good thing - I'm sick to death of reading all the reviews - and I've read a bunch. Then reviews of the reviews - articles out the wazoo - the media pretty much cannibalizing itself

To stay on topic - and working in something I read yesterday about the movie Selma - it's interesting how differently people look at art and history. Especially since history is a combination of sometimes very unreliable or unverifiable facts, unreliable memory and what the audience projects onto all of that

Facts are pretty inconvenient when you need a hero


I have no desire to see it. But FF mentioned that it's almost like a "chick flick" so maybe I would like it. LOL!

It was that comment of hers that kinda made me think I should see it - it was so not political. Made me rethink everything...Clint Eastwood's chick-flick :-)

Because of Letters from Iwo Jima I want to give Eastwood a chance. I wonder if his point is simple and obvious - or if the man dug a little deeper. It would be interesting to see if he left out the truth to tell a bigger truth


edit on 2/10/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: too much difference :-)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
I want to give Eastwood a chance.


The movie took liberties and obviously embellished to make the story interesting - like in real life Kyle never ran into his brother in the war zone, but the movie has them meeting up on the tarmac and discussing emotional stuff. The main point was emotions and relationships and stress and PTSD. Honestly ... I kept looking at my cell phone during the movie to see how much longer I was going to be in the theatre.

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



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan



Honestly ... I kept looking at my cell phone during the movie to see how much longer I was going to be in the theatre.


:-)

OK - that just decided it for me - it's a renter...



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Thinkig about American Sniper and getting inspired by him www.kizigamesxl.com...

Awesome is awesome!
edit on 6-2-2016 by MikeGal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join