Post: #76

(01-26-2015 03:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  After the movie, I asked an Egyptian couple what they thought, woman in a hijab, they both liked it. A couple of people even applauded at the end of the film. Of course, people who would go see American Sniper are a self-selected group.

I don't think Egyptians identify themselves as the same kind as Iraqis or other Arabs. Arabs tend to think they are all unique nations, with one connection that is Islam. And the movie doesn't attack Islam as much as it attacks terrorists who hide behind Islam and endanger other Muslims by doing so.

Post: #77

(01-26-2015 10:07 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  Now on to the numbers and support aspect, this is what I mean when I speak against the politicians getting us in this mess. I'm on the fence on if it would've helped in Afghanistan, but Iraq would've benefited from an actual surge rather than a relative one. Years, infrastructure and Iraqi lives could've been saved with true permeation of force. Iraq may have been "won", but it definitely could've been won better. I asked the locals what their thoughts were on the pullout in the next few years and the response was always an ominous look or "civil war". It make me sick and angry like nothing else when the ISIS fiasco started because it was so obvious to the people on the ground.

Sure - a huge military force would have managed to pacify the country better, though only to a degree. Also they should have kept the entire lower Saddam police and military apparatus in place - this might have helped even more.

But I think very high up they knew exactly that it would end like that - what looks like incompetence is in my opinion an excellent long-term plan and they have mayhem and destruction in store for Muslim countries. A civil war fits well in that scenario - the soldiers and the civilians are the ones who suffer the most from that kind of strategy. And the US soldiers especially are lied to and sent to control a basically uncontrollable situation that is intentionally designed to go to shit anyway.

Post: #78

(01-27-2015 03:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 10:07 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  Now on to the numbers and support aspect, this is what I mean when I speak against the politicians getting us in this mess. I'm on the fence on if it would've helped in Afghanistan, but Iraq would've benefited from an actual surge rather than a relative one. Years, infrastructure and Iraqi lives could've been saved with true permeation of force. Iraq may have been "won", but it definitely could've been won better. I asked the locals what their thoughts were on the pullout in the next few years and the response was always an ominous look or "civil war". It make me sick and angry like nothing else when the ISIS fiasco started because it was so obvious to the people on the ground.

Sure - a huge military force would have managed to pacify the country better, though only to a degree. Also they should have kept the entire lower Saddam police and military apparatus in place - this might have helped even more.

But I think very high up they knew exactly that it would end like that - what looks like incompetence is in my opinion an excellent long-term plan and they have mayhem and destruction in store for Muslim countries. A civil war fits well in that scenario - the soldiers and the civilians are the ones who suffer the most from that kind of strategy. And the US soldiers especially are lied to and sent to control a basically uncontrollable situation that is intentionally designed to go to shit anyway.

That's obvious on the gov/police structure, so I though it wasn't worth mentioning directly. I do agree, but I'm saying the assumption of what could've been done with a massed US/ISAF force is greater than most would believe. Iraqis are more civil and smart than one would believe as well. Iraq was only as out of control as the vacuum left for imams to exploit was wide.
I don't account the failures in Iraq and Afghan as evil genius plots by some corporate heads. Instead, I take it for what it was presented as; opportunistic profiteering and political cronyism was leveraged so some people in the top government positions could put on a international dick measuring contest.

From the inside, there's less super conspiracy than one would believe. It all comes down to the ineptitude of government("don't attribute to evil what can be explain by ignorance") and corporate endeavors.
Look for:
-could this be explained by the possibility that an asscovering maneuver is taking place?
-could the initial reasons behind this issue be caused by lack of communication or grave misunderstanding?
-is ego or bureaucracy to blame?

(01-27-2015 02:01 AM)MidWest Wrote:  I have brothers and cousins who are all Iraq and Afghanistan war vets, and they have some resentment towards Muslims based off of what they experienced during the war. I think troops should be given this pass, because in war you cannot have mercy or compassion for the enemy and you have to hate the enemy. You cannot look at the enemy and see him as an equal to you, but as an evil savage who is trying to destroy everything about you and kill you and your fellow people. You cannot be politically correct in war, just not possible.

This seems like a big misunderstanding from the public between actions as they are implemented compared to how they are perceived.

The paranoia is more apt at describing the proper mind state than anger. You want to be like "CAN I HELP YOU MOTHERFUCKER?!" in a general sense, but everyone in these recent campaigns knew how to ease off that mentality in the necessary circumstances and safer areas. Yes, the combatant is given no remorse and even dehumanized, but fuck them to be honest-we're both willing participants in the same game and the prize is life.

It's a hard mental shift that can't be downplayed. You may be trying to breathe hate from your eyes into the soul of some guy passing on the street that you think may be tucking a rkg grenade to gently shooing a hapless old woman out of the path soon after.

Post: #79

(01-27-2015 02:32 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 03:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  After the movie, I asked an Egyptian couple what they thought, woman in a hijab, they both liked it. A couple of people even applauded at the end of the film. Of course, people who would go see American Sniper are a self-selected group.

I don't think Egyptians identify themselves as the same kind as Iraqis or other Arabs. Arabs tend to think they are all unique nations, with one connection that is Islam. And the movie doesn't attack Islam as much as it attacks terrorists who hide behind Islam and endanger other Muslims by doing so.

When I was here for a visit in 2007, there was plenty of pro-Saddam propaganda in print on the bookstands. Of course, someone blew up the Egyptian embassy in Baghdad in 2010.

There's also a lot of anti-Muslim Brotherhood agitation by the government and media here, because of the coup against Morsi.

Postscript to my visit to the movies - when I left the theater around 6 pm, they were emptying the mall, nobody would say why. Turns out there was a bomb threat, maybe even a bomb or bombs in the mall, although media here is not to be trusted.

Egypt's largest mall evacuated after bomb threat

Quote:Egypt’s largest and most visited shopping center, City Stars, has been evacuated and shut down after a credible bomb threat.

According to AMAY and Youm7, security forces shut down the shopping center after a bomb threat was received.

Youm7, meanwhile, reported that two bombs had been successfully defused at ‘Gate 1′ and ‘Gate 7′. Bomb disposal teams are currently combing the shopping center and near by areas for other explosives, reported Youm7.

Al-Masry Al-Youm, however, reports a bomb was located on the third floor of the shopping center.

Security sources have meanwhile told both Youm7 and ONA that the bombs were merely intended to cause fear among shoppers and did not contain a significant amount of explosives. ONA reported the bombs were located inside bathrooms of the shopping center and then taken outside where they were defused.

Bomb robot at the mall

Hey, that's the way to see American Sniper, have bombs around you.

Post: #80

(01-27-2015 03:38 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Hey, that's the way to see American Sniper, have bombs around you.

C'mon now, it makes it more of an interactive experience!

Post: #81

An observation in a Return of Kings review which I thought was spot-on with regard to the wife:

Quote:Sienna Miller, as Chris Kyle’s wife Taya, does add a touch of realism with her constant nagging and moaning. She does very well indeed portraying the standard, self-absorbed and even more deadly American Wife.

After a long and brutal tour of war in Iraq, Kyle comes home to bitching and whining. Small wonder he kept volunteering for additional tours. Even I began reflexively flinching each time she came on screen. I get that Eastwood was attempting to portray the toll that war takes on the family, but my question is: why would Chris have ever fallen for her in the first place? From the beginning until the last scene, she just comes across like a harpy. Possibly realistic, but as entertaining as nails on a chalkboard.

Return of Kings: The Many Problems with American Sniper

The first appearance of the wife, she's sitting at a bar alone in leather pants and bitchily blowing off an approach by insulting another guy's height. Then when Kyle hits on her, it's his flaunting his status as a SEAL which breaks her bitch shied.

Before that, Kyle comes home to find his previous girlfriend banging another guy.

From a game perspective, Kyle does not come across very well.

I thought Bradley Cooper was better than the reviewer "Charles Martel" said, his shows Kyle as a kind of naive guy who doesn't even understand what's happening to him and around him, but you can see his unconscious reaction on his face.

Post: #82

Saw it last night.
I am not a good critic of these things so I won't bother. I liked the man as he was presented and thought Cooper was good.
Having read some manosphere stuff on red flags before going (having run afoul of a troubled girl a few days earlier) it was immediately obvious his wife was a piece of work, although in truth that revelation probably would have come without the preceding reading.
I wonder if she is like this in real life OR it was a poorly done attempt to make her a character rather than the wife.

As for the response to this film, I like that it is another step in Whites waking up from their stupor. And I agree with ramzpaul that people are seeing the movie because of the man and how direct he is. That quality being something people respect as opposed to the passive aggressiveness of the critics.

I was pleasantly surprised that there were few 'teachable moments' where the Muslims are made to be extremely virtuous. The Sheikh and his son was enough. Their fates were pretty gruesome and hard to watch, but you had to see if he saved them.
Then again, I am fairly jaded on that subject after years of reading about the European crime rates.

And the movie was not pro-war which was good again. Rejecting multiculturalism is a rejection of globalism. And playing world police is a part of that.

No complaints obviously based on the cloying repetition of "I like(d)" (sans the wife of course) but also nothing impressed me.

Post: #83

Wikipedia quote

Quote: in July 2014, the sub-chapter "Punching Out Scruff F]ace" was removed from later editions of the book after a three-week trial in U.S. Federal Court where the jury found that author, Chris Kyle, had unjustly enriched himself by defaming plaintiff Jesse Ventura. In the book, Kyle described blackening the eye of "Scruff Face," whom he later identified in media interviews as Jesse Ventura.[3] The jury awarded $500,000 for defamation and $1,345,477.25 for unjust enrichment.

How much more of the story did he make up, that no one can fact check?

Won't even mentioned the allegations where he didn't use the donation money for charity.

Post: #84

The movie didn't give a pro-war message, at all. It communicated virtues like loyalty, bravery and toughness. The before and after scenes give a decent look into what average vets are like, they're not all broken or bloodthirsty. There are some highly tense moments in the movie, job well done Clint. I thought the movie was pretty good.

I think Chris Kyle did a great job for a wrong cause. The movie reminded me how Bush, Blair and the neocons will one day either be convicted for war crimes or judged guilty by history books.

Post: #85

I finally just got around to seeing it. I don't even watch many movies, but like some of you guys had to see what the hype was about. It seemed Eastwood had poked a stick into the liberal bee hive and they were all swarming in the media.

First off, this has been a good thread and I'm really impressed with the level of impartial reasoning, nuance and overall depth of perspective offered on RVF. A guy like Michael Moore wouldn't last a second on this forum.

As for my reaction to the movie, I didn't think it was propaganda. Unfortunately anything that doesn't portray the war itself critically is automatically rendered propaganda in the minds of many. My litmus test is this, I have no idea what Eastwood's stance is on the Iraq War. I didn't before the film, and I still do not. I didn't feel like I was watching a pro-war film or that there was an underlying hint that the war was justified and meaningful. The war simply was what it was and this movie was about one prominent soldier's experience through the hell that was Fallujah.

I understand why some people were critical of the showing of 9/11 and felt that connections between 9/11 and Iraq were being drawn. This is a perfect example of how people with an ideological bent are going to see whatever they want to see in it like a Rorschach test. 9/11 was a major reason many young men joined the armed forces at the turn of the century, so not having a mention of it would seem to me to be a glaring omission of the state the country was in during that time. It also gives me some temporal reference point to frame the timeline of his character. But I do think the critics have a point in that lazy or uninformed people will think that 9/11 and Iraq were part of the same struggle.

I thought it was decent movie overall from an entertainment perspective. Some things felt really rushed, such as the development of his romantic relationship. For us red pill guys, that bar scene where they first met was a bit nauseating. I'd wonder why the hell he'd even want to marry a cunt like that.

I didn't walk away with any profound lessons learned from this film, but it did give me some insights into what the service does for people's family lives and how they cope with going between war and the civilian world between rotations. It really brought home the gut-wrenching split second decision that many of our soldiers must make in the heat of battle, such as pulling a trigger on a kid. Whether the combat scenes were Hollywood fluff or not, these are still things that many of the soldiers go through and it gives us civilians a glimpse of what that might be like. And as someone else mentioned above, I like that it showed the disconnect between civilians and soldiers. The scene where he was driving and talking about how everyone is at the mall while people are dying. I think about what I was doing around 2003. Going out to clubs, partying while guys my age where on the other side of the world kicking in doors in Sadr City and getting limbs blown off. I feel a bit of guilt about this.

Post: #86

After watching this movie here in Peru I went out and had myself a cheeseburger.

Post: #87

(01-25-2015 11:25 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  He shirks his duty as sniper to become one of the guys kicking in doors
WIA

That part isn't Hollywood.

According to the book Modern American Snipers it's normal for commandos to do both sniper duty and door kicker duty since most of them start out as door kickers before becoming sniper trained. Some missions did not require sniper support, or there might not be suitable overwatch positions, or as the mission proceeds the snipers would be needed for other roles closer to the target.

Post: #88

(02-16-2015 05:57 PM)SupaDorkLooza Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:25 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  He shirks his duty as sniper to become one of the guys kicking in doors
WIA

That part isn't Hollywood.

According to the book Modern American Snipers it's normal for commandos to do both sniper duty and door kicker duty since most of them start out as door kickers before becoming sniper trained. Some missions did not require sniper support, or there might not be suitable overwatch positions, or as the mission proceeds the snipers would be needed for other roles closer to the target.

Saw a documentary the other day and during one mission he did go down and help kick doors. He had bad visibility for sniping and got tired of seeing Americans carried out (as in wounded) of homes they were checking.

Post: #89

Not sure if this is common knowledge, but I certainly wasn't aware:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/forensics-ex...per-trial/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-navy-seal...-in-texas/

Quote:Forensics expert testifies in "American Sniper" trial

Eddie Ray Routh could face life behind bars if he is convicted in the shooting death of Chris Kyle.

STEPHENVILLE, Texas - A forensics expert testified Tuesday that "American Sniper" author Chris Kyle had no time to react when an ex-Marine opened fire on him at a shooting range two years ago.

"He absolutely never saw this coming," Howard J. Ryan, a forensics expert from New Jersey, testified Tuesday in the trial of Eddie Ray Routh.

Routh is charged in the deaths of the famed Navy SEAL sniper and his friend, Chad Littlefield. The trial has drawn extra attention because of Kyle's memoir and the blockbuster film it inspired.

The trial resumed Tuesday after a day's delay due to icy weather. Court officials say closing arguments could begin as early as Tuesday afternoon.
Routh is charged with capital murder, but since prosecutors aren't seeking the death penalty, he faces an automatic sentence of life in prison without parole if convicted. His attorneys have mounted an insanity defense, arguing that he was psychotic at the time and didn't know right from wrong.

Ryan, a law enforcement veteran, testified about his analysis of the crime scene as a rebuttal witness for prosecutors. Ryan noted the six gunshot wounds on Kyle were all on the right side of his body, indicating that he had relatively no movement when shot.

Ryan said that in assessing the crime scene, he took Kyle's skills into account.

Littlefield was shot seven times, including in the back and the top of the head. Ryan says that the gunshot wounds at various locations on his body indicate the shooter was moving at the time.

He says it's logical to conclude the shootings happened at close range and the crime scene is a "very confined, very small area."

An earlier expert testified that both Kyle and Littlefield had loaded guns in holsters in their waistbands, but it didn't appear they were ever able to even remove them from their holsters.

AP

Post: #90

The left portrays Kyle as a bloodthirsty killer, but in interviews he comes across as level-headed and humble.

Post: #91

He is a killer. Bloodthirsty is merely a matter of viewpoint.

Post: #92

Those with no combat experience scrutinizing the actions of combat speaks for itself

Post: #93

(02-25-2015 10:51 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  Those with no combat experience scrutinizing the actions of combat speaks for itself

Those criticizing soldiers like them are like men criticizing a sword for being so sharp and deadly.

If you want to lay blame on someone do it on the guys who swung that sword and whether it was truly necessary.

Post: #94

The part in the movie which rubbed me the wrong way was how the Marine observer/security didn't want to go down with Kyle and do some door kicking.After all who confirmed his kills and modern snipers work in pairs.I just don't believe the Marine wouldn't want to do it.I don't believe Marines would defer to anyone after working with them nor did I find them to be SF cult worshippers.
I loved Generation kill ,the show and the book.Also Restrepo