Chris Kyle killed

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Dion

Why soldiers get a kick out of killing





http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ill-2010-04-23

When the adrenaline fades

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Dion

I doubt he took enjoyment from killing another human being. He did what was required of him and I have no doubt that he was haunted by what he did.

He says in his book that he enjoyed his work. I'm not going to say every soldier out there enjoys killing their enemies, but this man did, or at least to some degree he did.

Chris Kyle saying none of his problems are the result of the people he has killed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ErVkLj8#t=270s

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

He says in his book that he enjoyed his work. I'm not going to say every soldier out there enjoys killing their enemies, but this man did, or at least to some degree he did.

Chris Kyle saying none of his problems are the result of the people he has killed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ErVkLj8#t=270s

What I got from the video was a man who was well trained/brainwashed into killing people. Like, how else do you get people to kill another human being? Not to think of them as human beings but as savages. He also didn't glamourise war like they do in movies. He said war is hell.

[Red Slinger]

It's a shame that this guy was killed. He clearly was passionate about helping sufferers of PTSD. That's admirable.

However, from arms length he is not very likable (not suggesting he deserved to die). He was clearly a self-promoter, a bit of a charlatan and likely a liar. I don't think he deserves the moniker of "hero". If Iraq had invaded the US and he had 160 kills while actually defending his country (as opposed to carrying out a political-military operation in a foreign country that posed no threat to the US) then I would consider him a hero. As it stands, I consider him just another sacrificed pawn.

The video of William Wold is resonating in my thoughts and becoming intertwined with this story. The US military spends so much time and resources destroying these young men and rebuilding them into machines and then spend essentially no time and no resources in making them humans again. The US military has a responsibility, not just to the soldiers but also to their families and society at large, to do everything in their power to fix what they broke.

[missdpuck]

Maybe Kyle was doing his own version of aversion therapy, where you expose the sufferer to whatever it is that freaks him out. Just a thought.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

Maybe Kyle was doing his own version of aversion therapy, where you expose the sufferer to whatever it is that freaks him out. Just a thought.

My guess is the guy was depressed and Kyle and his friend were just trying to get him moving, doing something they probably all enjoyed and was familier.
On the one hand no one knows better how bad ptsd can be than other soldiers but at the same time that very familiarity can cause an inability to recognise how bad things really are

[Rocky Raccoon]

I don't know the man personally and I can't jump into his soul; therefore, to judge his actions and the decisions he made while in the heat of combat seems irrational.

This is truly and simply a sad story.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Well, many of the "combatants" in the Iraq war weren't military men and women. Many were civilians turned to arms in one way or another. As a result, do we have any idea why a woman was approaching American servicemen with a grenade like that? Was it because her house and family were bombed by American artillery or fighters? Was she just a brainwashed zealot? I don't know if I'd call it indiscriminate killing, but I would call it morally repulsive killing in defense of your invading force. Sure, he was probably ordered to do it, but I don't give the Nuremberg Defense much credence.

It's not exactly something admirable, where I stand, and certainly nothing to be given a label like "American Hero" over, as it seriously lessons that title when given to people that actually deserve it. There's no doubt in my mind that he likely killed some really bad people, but I also can't help but think he more than likely killed some decent people, too, that turned to weapons because of a feeling that they needed to defend their country or out of some sort of grief. There is something disturbing about so many people in a country labeling a man that has killed more than 100 people, says he has no problems, ever, with having done so, and goes on talk shows about it and makes money off of it, in an illegal and morally wrong invasion a hero.

Even if he did kill decent people, what do you expect him to do? He choose to serve his country, and they sent him to Iraq. He had orders to get up in the tower and take out what the US deemed to be 'bad guys.' He was good enough at it that he got 160 confirmed kills in a few short years.

Does that make him a bad person? He doesn't have regrets. He killed all those people protecting the men and women he served with. Which, if you would actually read his book, is what he served for. The soldier beside him.

If you disagree with the Iraq War, fine. Most people do. But Chris Kyle didn't choose to be sent there. He choose to serve his country, and went through the most brutal training in the world to do so. That requires commitment, integrity and physical/mental toughness that nobody on this board has.

Hate the war, but don't hate the soldier.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, I agree with this, I doubt Jesse as crazy as he is would be bad mouthing veterans. I don't know one way of the other what happened.

I do think in a lot of ways that Chris Kyle is a lot cowboy and hollywood which is unusual for a Seal, and I do believe that he was his own best self promoter.

His fellow SEALs have often said they don't care for his grandstanding ways.

His book really brings out his egotistical personality. Interesting read, but it becomes a bore after a while.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he was the best.

And like I said before, he could have gone back to Iraq and kept on doing what he was so good at. But he choose not too.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Even if he did kill decent people, what do you expect him to do? He choose to serve his country, and they sent him to Iraq. He had orders to get up in the tower and take out what the US deemed to be 'bad guys.' He was good enough at it that he got 160 confirmed kills in a few short years.

Does that make him a bad person? He doesn't have regrets. He killed all those people protecting the men and women he served with. Which, if you would actually read his book, is what he served for. The soldier beside him.

If you disagree with the Iraq War, fine. Most people do. But Chris Kyle didn't choose to be sent there. He choose to serve his country, and went through the most brutal training in the world to do so. That requires commitment, integrity and physical/mental toughness that nobody on this board has.

Hate the war, but don't hate the soldier.

What is this, a bumper sticker writing contest?

He was a volunteer. You are trying to make it sound like he was a mindless killing machine with no choice in the matter.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What is this, a bumper sticker writing contest?

He was a volunteer. You are trying to make it sound like he was a mindless killing machine with no choice in the matter.

He was a volunteer to join the military, not to go to Iraq. The canadian government refused Asylm to an American solider who refused to deploy to Iraq because he disagreed with the war in Iraq but not war in general.

So while you can volunteer for the military in general you cant really volunteer for a specific war

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I don't think the poster you're responding to was saying that his actions were wrong; just that bragging about being America's #1 killer (a stat that the military doesn't even keep) was disturbing. The WWII heros I know don't like to talk about their experiences in battle because they see war as a necessary evil. This guy, at least based on the interviews that I saw of him, seemed to think it was fun.

This.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I simply don't understand this mentality. People that loathe their jobs usually aren't that good at it. In Chris's line of work if he has a bad day or struggles with what he is doing, innocent people are killed as well as other soldiers that are young men and women simply serving their country regardless of the politics involved. I have zero issues with him taking pleasure in blowing the head off an insurgent with a rocket launcher in his hand. As long as he's not taking pleasure in slaughtering innocent people that's the way I would want my soldiers as if you can't handle it you can end up like the soldier that committed the murders. It takes a special kind of mindset to be a soldier and I don't fault people for not having that mindset and I certainly aren't going to fault people that do have the proper mindset in that you have a job to do and you can't let conscience interfere as it may cost you your life or the life of others.

I have an issue with the way which he seemed to brag about how good he was at killing. It was disturbing. I understand the necessities of war, and the mindset that's required for it. But there was something really unsettling about his book, and his attitude around his "legacy".

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What is this, a bumper sticker writing contest?

He was a volunteer. You are trying to make it sound like he was a mindless killing machine with no choice in the matter.

How do you think the army gets it's enlistees to kill people? Humans have a powerful and natural resistance to killing another human being.

Either the guy was completely effed up before he joined or the military did it's job training him to kill. You tell me which one.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Lets look at that for a minute. The old 60's saying was "What if they threw a war and nobody came", its true to an extent, but its a far different scenario then wars like Vietnam and the later stages of WW2 where there was conscription. In a volunteer army you are always going to get people with a sense of duty, or country or adventure or even strict desperation that join the Military and execute the orders of the Commander and Chief.

Lets also separate out the concept of disobeying orders. you have an absolute right to disobey orders on an individual unit basis. If you feel an action is illegal. If a office commands you to gun down civilians or bomb a hospital or harm the innocent then you have a right to not only refuse that command but force clarification up the chain of command.

While the international community has constantly stated that the war in Iraq is illegal by the international court standards (which America is not a signatory) that does not make it an illegal war to a soldier because the order to go to war was a legal one based under U.S. law and sanctioned by the government and by the legal chain of command. so sitting there and stating that a soldier has a responsibility in that war of being able to claim its illegal is not true. That's why the people that fled to Canada for example that were service members actually broke the law and are AWOL. the only way that they could legally get out of that war was A) not to join the American Military in the first place (especially the ones that joined after Iraq stated) or claim conscientious objector status which would usually lead to a general discharge.

As for the second part, lets talk about the personal responsibility concept. Since they aren't doing anything illegal in terms of the American declaration of war, and they aren't under any obligation outside of that and they went there voluntarily then the responsibility isn't legal in any way. However we are seeing clearly that alot of these soldiers that are coming home are suffering a fate worse then any court could sentence them too and those people deserve some compassion. The Marine that did the killing here is not a monster or a homicidal maniac he's a messed up disturbed guy who is obviously bearing a lot of responsibility. In this case and chances are not for fighting some lofty nebulous concept of international law and an illegal war, but for seeing and doing things that would drive anyone out of their mind.

I don't necessarily altogether disagree with you but I am curious about the part I bolded here. This is slightly off-topic as I usually go so please bare with me / ignore if necessary. I also am not trying to Godwin the thread, I am just asking a hypothetical because I think this part is important.

So the US is not a signatory for the international court, how many other countries are? Is this a UN directive? Is this a handful of countries, or just about everybody?

I don't get how the States can just not sign up for this thing, and then invade whoever they want and all of a sudden to them it's legal, because it's legal under US law. I am sure when Germany told everybody they wouldn't invade Poland, and then did and caused a ####-show, they felt it wasn't illegal either. Or am I not understanding this properly?

Agree with the general sentiment of the thread which seems to be trending that this man had a duty, performed it admirably, but pumping his fists over killing people seems like a repulsive thing to be overtly proud of. Yes, I realize he was saving the lives of his fellow...volunteer...service men that also wanted to- on their own free will- sign up and kill people in a foreign country.

Yes I would be the first one to hope like hell these people are there for me and my family if we were ever invaded and I am highly hypocritical.

I think this is a much more complicated topic than most of the people in this thread have been treating it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Azure

Even if he did kill decent people, what do you expect him to do? He choose to serve his country, and they sent him to Iraq. He had orders to get up in the tower and take out what the US deemed to be 'bad guys.' He was good enough at it that he got 160 confirmed kills in a few short years.

Does that make him a bad person? He doesn't have regrets. He killed all those people protecting the men and women he served with. Which, if you would actually read his book, is what he served for. The soldier beside him.

If you disagree with the Iraq War, fine. Most people do. But Chris Kyle didn't choose to be sent there. He choose to serve his country, and went through the most brutal training in the world to do so. That requires commitment, integrity and physical/mental toughness that nobody on this board has.

Hate the war, but don't hate the soldier.

If there was an Iraqi sniper/insurgent who killed 160 American soldiers, would you view them the same way?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

How do you think the army gets it's enlistees to kill people? Humans have a powerful and natural resistance to killing another human being.

Either the guy was completely effed up before he joined or the military did it's job training him to kill. You tell me which one.

I knew the guy about as well as you did. I probably have about the same military training you do as well (none, I assume). I don't know if he was effed up before he joined up or not.

I don't think it's normal behaviour to "keep score", and then write about how many people you killed in a book.

Millions of guys killed millions of other guys in other wars. Generally, it's seen as an admirable trait that they don't talk about it. It's like this guy was bragging about it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I knew the guy about as well as you did. I probably have about the same military training you do as well (none, I assume). I don't know if he was effed up before he joined up or not.

I don't think it's normal behaviour to "keep score", and then write about how many people you killed in a book.

Millions of guys killed millions of other guys in other wars. Generally, it's seen as an admirable trait that they don't talk about it. It's like this guy was bragging about it.

You're trying to equate sniper mentality and special forces mentality with that of an ordinary soldier, and they are far apart and different.

Snipers absolutely keep track of their kills, they are in a lot of ways like fighter pilots. A lot of the special forces groups track casualty counts because they are expected to have the highest kill ratio in the ground forces. Average soldiers are judged by casualties inflicted, but more along the idea of objectives reached and secured.

Elite troops are entirely different and judged differently, you can't equate with the average infantry man.

As far as being able to build an effective soldier, the first thing that you have to do after you tear down the individual and build them back up as a unit member and a disciplined soldier is that you have to dehumanize the killing aspect of the job.

I remember on my first day of basic training we had an older Warrant Officer acting as our training NCO. He came into the room and sat us down and after the usual gentle speak about how we were lower then the low, that it was amazing that we could figure out how to clean our butts without momma's help, and god forbid that any of us should decide to breed because it would just increase the stupid to smart ratio of the planet, he sat down in front of us and basically stated in a deceptively gentle voice.

You will be asked to do some god awful things in this job at least once and probably more then once. You will probably have to look someone in eyes similar to yours that's about the same age, and looks as terrified as you. At that moment you will have to make a decision on whether you want to live and die and whether your friends want to live and die, because he knows and you know that in order to survive he's going to have to die. Our job is to make it so you can make that decision, and not view it as killing but a necessary decision. At the end of the day if you go to war, at the start of it, its about god and country and all of that bullsh%t, but it quickly comes down to doing whatever it takes to win so that you can go home alive and your friends can go home alive, and your neighbors and friends back home can continue to live the life that they were promised.

Then he made us do pushups til someone puked.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Azure

He choose to serve his country,

This is a euphemism for "volunteered to kill people."

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I knew the guy about as well as you did. I probably have about the same military training you do as well (none, I assume). I don't know if he was effed up before he joined up or not.

I don't think it's normal behaviour to "keep score", and then write about how many people you killed in a book.

Millions of guys killed millions of other guys in other wars. Generally, it's seen as an admirable trait that they don't talk about it. It's like this guy was bragging about it.

My interpretation of what i've read about the guy that he was very proud of the job that he did for the military and that he felt very strongly about the war he was fighting.

I suppose it could be taken as bragging when he had no remorse for the people he killed and I can see why people would view it that way. Then again he could have been so dehumanised about the war that he only viewed the people he killed as a threat to his safety and those people he was serving with. he was quoted as saying in the article below.....

Chris Kyle, America's deadliest sniper, offered no regrets

"I had to do it to protect the Marines," Kyle told Time magazine a year ago. "You want to lose your own guys, or would you rather take one of them out?"

"I'm a better husband and father than I was a killer," he told Time. "I'm pretty comfortable with not having to kill anyone. Now, don't take deer hunting away from me."

"The first time killing someone, you're not even sure you can do it," he said. "You think you can, but you never know until you actually are put in that position and you do it. ... And then, you're worried when you get home, are the politicians going to hang you out to dry and put you on trial for murder?"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/us/tex...ile/index.html

As to why he talked, something that was said in the article below gave me pause for thought.....

How soldiers deal with the job of killing

This revulsion against committing the ultimate deed prompts the question, how easy is it to do? Soldiers put on what some call their "warrior's mask" - but away from the heat of battle, how do they take it off again?

Experiences vary. Andy Wilson, a soldier in the SAS, Britain's elite special forces, joined the army at 18.

Now 36, he still clearly remembers the first time he took someone's life in a kill-or-be-killed scenario.

"He had an AK47 and he was going to kill me. I was cool, calm and collected the whole time. I knew I had a job to do. I knew I was going to do it, and I did. I was a soldier. That was my job. And that was war."

----------------------------------------

Lt Col Kilner, of the US Army, says the way to keep soldiers psychologically on an even keel is to reason with them - not to take away their choice and intellectual involvement with what happens in battle.

"If a soldier reasons that his or her cause is just, then killing sits more easily in the mind," he says.

"The experience of killing is huge and powerful. If you go in with the right personal tools, you can come out stronger. If you go in with cracks, you'll get shattered. The key is preparing people for this intense experience".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13687796

Like you said, none of us really knew the guy well. My views are merely an interpretation and could very well be of base.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dion

How do you think the army gets it's enlistees to kill people? Humans have a powerful and natural resistance to killing another human being.

Either the guy was completely effed up before he joined or the military did it's job training him to kill. You tell me which one.

False dichotomy.

Also, the entirety of human history makes a mockery of your first argument. Mankind has been killing his fellow man for millenia. Often on mass scales in warfare.