Chris Kyle (US Sniper) - You see a hero. I see a devil

reply to post by cavtrooper7
No, you may and should carry arms in DEFENSE of your soil. The problem is that this thought can't reach every soldier right at this moment, otherwise it would be an easy fix. Very few nations have the capability to even attempt to invade the US, I certainly don't think it can be done at the present, excepting the use of nuclear weapons.

If you think he was a devil for being a snipper who was trained to do so and took a oath to protect this country foreign and domestic, I guess you just don't understand, how many american lives did he save because of his training?

You would probably be the first to ask for help if you were pinned down being shot at, I don't think you would stand up and say "Here I am" you probably would shart yourself.

Calling him the devil also calls SGT YORK a devil, but he was a full blown Christan,infact he was against killing, what about Audie Murphy? the list goes on and on about those that saved other americans, it don't matter when or were, he was doing his job......The people that he shot (when he was alive) will haunt him for ever, but those that he did shot how many of them have already killed others not just americans but there own people.

Its people like you who have to ask yourself what would you do if you were in his place.......don't be so quick to judge this HERO because you are a ATHEIST.

Wouldn't think he is hero nor villain. He did his job...well I might add.

He killed people that were not known for being to loving to animals would be my guess, so I am not losing sleep over his victims.

I don't see firefighters as heros either mind you..they do their job, and I respect them for doing it, but its not like they didn't want to be what they are to begin with. Firefighters require someone to actually quite like fire and the adrenaline of the job. Snipers require someone to like the adrenaline and skill, etc etc etc...if they didn't like their job, they wouldn't have signed up.
And so no..a hero is not someone whom simply preforms their job...

A hero is someone whom say, jumps on a grenade in order to keep others around them alive..


Simpy good at his job...and that's all any of our armed forces need be.

And respect given to anyone whom does their job well, be it a sniper, a teacher, or a mechanic frankly.

Originally posted by 19KTankCommander
If you think he was a devil for being a snipper who was trained to do so and took a oath to protect this country foreign and domestic, I guess you just don't understand, how many american lives did he save because of his training?

Probably none overall...but its not just American lives that count. If a monster is killing their own innocent people, that's good enough for me.

Its people like you who have to ask yourself what would you do if you were in his place.......don't be so quick to judge this HERO because you are a ATHEIST.

edit on 20-2-2013 by 19KTankCommander because: (no reason given)

atheist doesn't require all caps..its spelled like any other word. And erm...what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china? If your an atheist, your against killing? does that then mean if your a theist, you are pro killing?

Might as well just pointed out he likes pepperoni on his pizza as his reasoning for not seeing the same as you.

Incidently, in your specific mind..what makes him a hero? Not saying he isn't..I don't know enough of his career to see if there was acts of heroism...just wondering how you specifically identify him as a hero.

Originally posted by sayzaar
Just because a politician says you can kill someone and not go to prison for it does not mean that it's not murder.
If you kill, it's murder. He killed because he was told to. How can that be right ?

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human. In war, killing is legal (sort of the point unfortunately). This is understood globally (hense why the winning party doesn't execute every soldier of the lost side).


There is actually nothing "bad" about killing. Its done every day by every form of life. Murder however is wrong...if a person has done nothing to you, then don't do anything to them..this is the golden rule from person to person and nation to nation. Person to person is easy...nation to nation is a gray area.

But the person in question was not doing anything illegal. He is just the tool used..not the motivation.

reply to post by SaturnFX
It's a clever scheme were no one is responsible, the politician is not responsible because didn't do the killing himself, the soldier is not responsible because he was merely doing his job, the person isn't responsible because he was convinced he was doing the right thing. It really comes down to the person though, what knowledge the person poses, what sort if insight into the events they partake in. I mean it surely ain't going to change from the top down, change always comes from the bottom and up, someone's gotta take responsibility or perpetual war is what we will have, forever until we nearly annihilate ourselves.

reply to post by SaturnFX


The heroism is to excel at a horrible task so others don't have to.To achieve a skill beyond that of normal endeavors to change our world.We are told it is for the better so we fight.
Afterward we are faced with the evil of our polititians who lied to us and you.Would you have us hang our heads in shame?
Oh there is a good idea,lets undermine all warrior mentality completely so we can have peace.
If this is your mind set you are missing key elements of logic concerning the face of men on earth.
It is beyond nausiating that some value only strength, but they are there.It is equally horrifying to see some customs of others without values of human life,all human life.
We don't know how many practice these,those who do hide behind those who don't so we can't kill them.
Perhaps you argue it isn't our right.
Not my place to judge that.I just go fight for what I believe by my nationstate...at the time.
Passing the buck? No just telling you like it is.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

It's a clever scheme were no one is responsible, the politician is not responsible because didn't do the killing himself, the soldier is not responsible because he was merely doing his job, the person isn't responsible because he was convinced he was doing the right thing. It really comes down to the person though, what knowledge the person poses, what sort if insight into the events they partake in. I mean it surely ain't going to change from the top down, change always comes from the bottom and up, someone's gotta take responsibility or perpetual war is what we will have, forever until we nearly annihilate ourselves.

With over 7 billion people..I think a little annihilation isn't a bad idea frankly.

War has always been, and until technology saves us, will always be (yes, I do believe tech will save us..but not for potentially hundreds of years). Still, I think we are in the declining years of war. things are changing..what has been the standard for 10+ thousand years of civilization is becoming almost unnecessary.

I see both sides of war. I see the peacenik side (all we need is love and whatnot), and the vendetta and conquest aspect. War has been a great motivator of innovation, breakthroughs, and culture. In a way, the world will miss it. I wonder if there will be such a great motivator when it is no longer necessary or acceptable.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

The heroism is to excel at a horrible task so others don't have to.To achieve a skill beyond that of normal endeavors to change our world.We are told it is for the better so we fight.
Afterward we are faced with the evil of our polititians who lied to us and you.Would you have us hang our heads in shame?
Oh there is a good idea,lets undermine all warrior mentality completely so we can have peace.
If this is your mind set you are missing key elements of logic concerning the face of men on earth.
It is beyond nausiating that some value only strength, but they are there.It is equally horrifying to see some customs of others without values of human life,all human life.
We don't know how many practice these,those who do hide behind those who don't so we can't kill them.
Perhaps you argue it isn't our right.
Not my place to judge that.I just go fight for what I believe by my nationstate...at the time.
Passing the buck? No just telling you like it is.

I have no clue what your talking about. I am very respectful of the military and know the score worldwide.
American warriors need to simply preform their job to the best of their ability. I see them not as heros though..I see them as brave men and women whom are doing a job they signed up to do...(some more brave than others of course).
I think maybe you maybe clicked the wrong reply is all I can think of.

Whether or not you agree/support the war (I personally don’t) he is a hero because he no doubt saved the lives of his brothers on the battlefield. That alone is worth praising. Without him, how many more US/Ally soldiers may have lost their lives?

Despite the war being unjustified and the like, once you’re there in the thick of it you wouldn’t think about this. All you’d be thinking about is looking after and protecting your fellow soldiers and accomplishing whatever objectives you’re out to achieve on any given day. It seems he excelled in doing this.

Without his sniper fire, who knows how many families would have lost a brother, a son or a father? That’s the way I look at it anyway. And he also fought in the streets too, not just with the sniper rifle.

"In 2008, outside Sadr City, he made 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 (1.9 km). He fired a shot from his .338 Lapua Magnum chambered McMillan TAC-338 sniper rifle, killing the insurgent as told in his book American Sniper.” - Wikipedia

Just one example that without him, how many soldiers in the convoy would have been slaughtered or severely injured? His job wasn’t to protect the US as such. His job was to protect his mates on the battlefield and it appears he did that extremely well and for this he deserves to be honoured, not vilified.

reply to post by SaturnFX
Yes, wars at the current scale are nowhere near enough to be of any use for population control, we need more in that case. North Korea must be the saviors then, supposedly taking the war to the US (I don't condone this in any way though, just illustrating a point). I think after war innovation there will be another more spiritual motivator, we have yet to fully unlock the innovative power of the human being for the most part, it's held back by greed and with greed comes war.

War has certainly been necessary in our development. War has really only made use of the motivation of saving more lives (on the aggressors/defenders side). That motivator is always there and after what we now call war another type of war will be fought between scientist on who can innovate the greatest things but with less focus on saving lives at the cost of others.

a good soldier is an efficient soldier. this man was a very efficient killing machine, thus he was a very good soldier. this qualifies as a hero to many. i myself don't consider long range execution to be particularly heroic.

well, if he was defending america, like some people seem to believe, he didn`t do a very job of it.
How many people were murdered in america while he was in iraq?

America does need defending but not defended from a bunch of 3rd world people who can`t even afford a plane ticket to get to america.
america needs defending from criminals and gangs, from corrupt politicians and banksters,from tobacco and pharmaceutical companies,from corrupt LEOs, those are the people who are taking more american lives right here in america every year than all of the 3rd world peasants combined ever did.

reply to post by TXRabbit


Op, I understand your perspective. I can also understand how others can feel this guy is a hero.

I'm someone who can't understand why anyone would want to be a sniper, let alone being a soldier and killing another human being. Speaking for myself, I can't wrap my head around killing anyone. Having said that, I probably would shoot someone if my life was directly threatened. Than again, I don't know if I would make a kill shot or just shoot them in the leg to give me time to get away.

We look at the other side as our enemy, but our enemy has the same perspective towards us. We're both fighting to defend the values we both believe in. I always questioned if two enemies would spend a week together and got to know each other well, if they met each other face to face on the battlefield would they still shoot each other? I don't think either would be able to pull the trigger.

Every soldier in the world goes to war only because they've been directed by our leaders. Our governments create conflicts between countries based upon interventions, occupations, ideology, territory expansion, resources, our own perceived moral values, religion affiliations and just plain bullying.

We can all say we don't go to war because we hate the people of a particular country. We don't have any relationship between the people of our world, yet we can round up our military at a seconds notice and bomb, shoot, kill and maim an entire population of people. What does that have to say about human morality and personal values for human life?

War is really a primitive way of settling our differences, yet here we are in the 21st century, still fighting and killing like primitive people in an uncivilized world. When will the people of the world say enough is enough.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
War is really a primitive way of settling our differences, yet here we are in the 21st century, still fighting and killing like primitive people in an uncivilized world. When will the people of the world say enough is enough.

It's sad to think that some of the early inventors of the machine gun and similar weapons thought such a horrible invention would wake people up to the chilling futility of killing to get your way.

I think the message was lost.

Somewhere along the line though, inventing machines of death seemed to become motivated almost entirely out of a hatred for humanity. I'm not even sure a living is enough to excuse it. Swarms of robotic death? Who wants this future, exactly?

Those who condone his killings, also condone the killings of Americans by snipers in war. There's no difference whatsoever. You give hypocrisy a bad name.

reply to post by WeRpeons


That is rich. Enjoy sitting in some waadi with the Taliban for a week. I am sure everyone will be great friends!!!!!!

Originally posted by onthedownlow
I imagine that his actions saved many lives. Either way, he served his country honorably, and thats enough!

So because he was "serving his country" then we turn a blind eye to his murderous acts? A trained murderer is still a murderer. What if it had been you or one of your loved ones that he had shot. Bet you'd be singing a different tune.

It's like the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Well, one man's patriotic hero is another man's murderous villain.

What's sad is how many so-called Christians are praising this guy when everything he did, his whole "career," goes completely against Christ's teachings.

And the fact that he himself was then shot at a shooting range? It really puts in perspective Christ's teaching of "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword."

It's sad that he was killed, I feel for his family and loved ones, but he is far from a hero and will not be celebrated by me.

ETA: Kudos to everyone who sees it the same way. It takes a lot of guts to speak out against an "American hero" especially after they are killed. America loves to rally behind "heroes." And if I learned anything during the 8 years of Bush (and even the past 4+ years of Obama) any time you criticize certain people, the American public can get downright nasty.

He was a professional soldier, serving his country and the US Forces - some would say rather effectively.Regardless of who you are, in the military you follow your orders and you go where you are sent.

Did Chris Kyle actively pursue his career as a sniper hoping to get sent into Iraq? I highly doubt it. Regardless of views & opinions on the war in Iraq, he was a fighting man, doing his job and carrying out his orders, as commanded by his superiors. It just so happens he was highly effective.

Yes, he was protecting fellow countrymen, along with coalition troops. He was not out there single-handedly wandering around, waging a campaign of killing innocents. He was out there defending allied soldiers from an enemy that often use innocent human shields. Perhaps he even managed to save a few of these through his prowess with a rifle. That's not for me to speculate.

Undoubtedly, bravery was shown - it's hard not to admire a man willing to go behind enemy lines unsupported, knowing that capture would most likely result in torture and death.

Calling him a devil is not something to be proud of, and neither is calling him a saint. He was a professional, carrying out orders with efficiency. Some are always going to disagree, it's inevitable. However don't let your paper thin morals cloud your view of a man doing his job.