Chris Kyle killed

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by pylon

But in the 160 some odd people he killed, you cannot guarantee they were all evil scumbags. Many of these people felt they were invaded (which they were) and were simply standing up for being wrongfully so.

I'd be interested to hear what you think of veterans from the First or Second World War. I don't think it unreasonable to say that the majority of Germans killed weren't "evil scumbags."

The guy was trying to help others deal with a problem that's largely swept under the rug and ignored. I think that's pretty admirable and it's unfortunate that something like this happened.

[CaptainCrunch]

^ I agree with this, I disagree with the way in this case that he was helping the guy deal with it.

It seemed that he was pretty passionate about helping vets in need.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

^ I agree with this, I disagree with the way in this case that he was helping the guy deal with it.

It seemed that he was pretty passionate about helping vets in need.

It does seem odd to take the guy to a gun range. Although this line from the article,

He quickly found a way to maintain contact with his fellow veterans and pass on what had helped him work through his own struggles...

Makes me think that (for Kyle) being at a gun range provided some sort of familiarity/structure/order? I don't know.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by valo403

His job neutralizing terrorists? You'd prefer that he just let them kill marines and other service members?

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.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

there's no basis for it at all, all of his kills were against armed combatants.

And why were these people armed? Probably because their country was being invaded.

Sure he was killing "terrorists" but that doesn't make him a hero, it only makes him another brain washed American.

[afc wimbledon]

Have no problem with what this guy did in Iraq, although it is likely he killed more than a few 'suicide bombers' who were coarced into the role by the threat that their family would be killed, very common tactic out there.

Great evidance, yet again, that just because you have been through something doesn't mean you know anything about fixing it, get this with recovered addicts all the time, quite understandably want to help other drunks and addicts get clean but usualy are crap at it as they have no perspective what so ever.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iginla

And why were these people armed? Probably because their country was being invaded.

That's irrelevant to the discussion around his record.

Originally Posted by Iginla

Sure he was killing "terrorists" but that doesn't make him a hero, it only makes him another brain washed American.

Nonsense point.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To the man in the field, the fact that she's brainwashed, or her house was bombed or whatever really isn't relevant at all, his job first and foremost in that case since he was in oversight is to protect American Lives. What was he suppossed to do, let her take the shot. She was approaching American's with a weapon in hand, sorry but at that point her motives don't matter.

No, it doesn't matter to the man in the field, but it can still be morally repulsive killing in defense of an illegally invading force. That's what I said.

you can argue about the legality of the invasion, but that wasn't Chris Kyles role, your debate is with the NCC.

The illegality of the invasion is partially shared by him and partially his responsibility. He took part in it. If I take part in a home invasion, I am as morally responsible for my actions as much as the masterminds above me that planned the action are for theirs. I am able to stand up on my own and dissent at any time, but I chose not to.

And in this case Chris Kyle's actions wouldn't fall under Nurenburg, unless you can prove that he personally broke the Geneva convention or committed a atrocity.

The "Nuremberg Defense" is an expression referring to Superior Orders. I'm using it in the context of his still being morally culpable for his actions whether or not he was ordered to by an officer above him. I'm not referring explicitly to the Geneva Convention. I'm not going to argue legalities of individual actions in the war because it's a quagmire.

Again in the two cases on his sniper record and on most of the other ones he shot people that had taken up arms against him and his comrades, I don't see where he shot "decent people" he fight armed combatants in most cases armed insurgents not wearing the uniform of any national country, which is against the Geneva Convention as well.

This exact same defense can be used on behalf of the insurgents, of course, except for the uniforms. A civilian woman theoretically gone berserk due to grief cradling a grenade I see as a decent person broken, in particular in the context of the Iraq War, you see them as an armed combatant. He seemed to be able to sleep well after it all, so I guess whatever he needs to tell himself in order to sleep at night. (And I'm only using the woman as an example of the civilian-aspect of the conflict. Maybe that woman was a brainwashed zealot, I don't know, but I don't believe for one single moment every insurgent in Iraq was one of those).

He didn't commit atrocities by any sense of the word unless you can show me proof or evidence. You can't show me where he did anything illegal or morally wrong except in your opinion which isn't exactly binding in an actual court of law.

I didn't say he committed atrocities. However, I can easily point to where he did something morally wrong by almost all standards (unelss you want me to make an argument for moral objectivism and then go from there trying to prove a moral objective truth?): he participated in an illegal invasion that killed and maimed thousands of innocent individuals in the pursuit of monetary gains on behalf of a foreign government. Perhaps he honestly believed at first that it was being done for the right reasons. However, he had the chance to stand up for what was right many, many times after, and he failed to do so. Instead, he continued to kill. From where I stand, that is morally reprehensible, I don't care whether you're a military man or not. Take your punishment for refusing to fight any longer, I don't care, but accept some sort of responsibility for what has happened.

What really bothers me is the hero worship he is receiving, when what he did was serve his government at the expense of his nation. A killer, and a good one at that? Yes, he's said as much. A war profiteer? Most certainly, with his talk show appearance, his successful book, his selling of the rights of it to a movie studio, his planned appearance as a video game character. A hero? He had the chance to be one, but he didn't. So no, not where I stand.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's irrelevant to the discussion around his record.

No it's really not. It's like a bait kill. Invade an Iraqi town then snipe the innocent people who fight back from a km away. His record is really unknown if he was killing insurgents or killing regular Iraqi folk who were sick of being embarrassed by American troops.

[jeffman]

I am not too familiar with PTSD, but could being in a firing range have caused the Marine to snap. If this is the case, would the marine be charged with murder and executed or committed to a mental hospital

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

No, it doesn't matter to the man in the field, but it can still be morally repulsive killing in defense of an illegally invading force. That's what I said.



The illegality of the invasion is partially shared by him and partially his responsibility. He took part in it. If I take part in a home invasion, I am as morally responsible for my actions as much as the masterminds above me that planned the action are for theirs. I am able to stand up on my own and dissent at any time, but I chose not to.



The "Nuremberg Defense" is an expression referring to Superior Orders. I'm using it in the context of his still being morally culpable for his actions whether or not he was ordered to by an officer above him. I'm not referring explicitly to the Geneva Convention. I'm not going to argue legalities of individual actions in the war because it's a quagmire.




This exact same defense can be used on behalf of the insurgents, of course, except for the uniforms. A civilian woman theoretically gone berserk due to grief cradling a grenade I see as a decent person broken, in particular in the context of the Iraq War, you see them as an armed combatant. He seemed to be able to sleep well after it all, so I guess whatever he needs to tell himself in order to sleep at night. (And I'm only using the woman as an example of the civilian-aspect of the conflict. Maybe that woman was a brainwashed zealot, I don't know, but I don't believe for one single moment every insurgent in Iraq was one of those).



I didn't say he committed atrocities. However, I can easily point to where he did something morally wrong by almost all standards (unelss you want me to make an argument for moral objectivism and then go from there trying to prove a moral objective truth?): he participated in an illegal invasion that killed and maimed thousands of innocent individuals in the pursuit of monetary gains on behalf of a foreign government. Perhaps he honestly believed at first that it was being done for the right reasons. However, he had the chance to stand up for what was right many, many times after, and he failed to do so. Instead, he continued to kill. From where I stand, that is morally reprehensible, I don't care whether you're a military man or not. Take your punishment for refusing to fight any longer, I don't care, but accept some sort of responsibility for what has happened.

What really bothers me is the hero worship he is receiving, when what he did was serve his government at the expense of his nation. A killer, and a good one at that? Yes, he's said as much. A war profiteer? Most certainly, with his talk show appearance, his successful book, his selling of the rights of it to a movie studio, his planned appearance as a video game character. A hero? He had the chance to be one, but he didn't. So no, not where I stand.

Illegal. You use this word a lot here, by what standard was this an illegal invasion? In what court has this been determined?

[CaptainCrunch]

You clearly have no clue about what your talking about and are pulling stuff our of your a$$.

Again, so you can plainly understand it.

the morality of the war has nothing to do with him executing his orders as long as they are not orders that require him to perpetrate intentional atrocities.

Which he did not do unless you can prove that.

If someone is creeping up on his fellow soldiers, its not his job to say, oh wow man we shouldn't be here, so go ahead and take a free shot at my comrades.

It doesn't matter if they were insurgents or so called embarrassed Iraqi's (which is the absolutely stupidest term that I've ever heard) they were carrying weapons, they were a threat his only consideration is removing the threat.

The argument of morality, or war crimes or whatever does not resonate to the level of the average troop unless he is ordered to execute unarmed civilians, or toss them down a well with a live grenade of systematically rape woman for example.

And whether its up close with a knife or a km away with a sniper rifle is irrelevant. In any battle where I am fighting at a squad level to basically extend my life of the life of my squad mates then you take any advantage that you can get.

Your post and the other ones like it are ridiculous.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jeffman

I am not too familiar with PTSD, but could being in a firing range have caused the Marine to snap. If this is the case, would the marine be charged with murder and executed or committed to a mental hospital

I think its more then that, from reading its more about stressful situations, or situations that cause the person to basically feel like they are in imminent danger.

I don't know what the burden of proof is for not criminally responsible, but there has to be a humane way of dealing with this guy.

I would almost think that there will be a plea deal on the table.

It sounds like this is something that Kyle had tried before and it seemed to work, but I question the judgement of someone who puts a live fire arm in the hands with someone who is messed up.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I didn't say he committed atrocities. However, I can easily point to where he did something morally wrong by almost all standards (unelss you want me to make an argument for moral objectivism and then go from there trying to prove a moral objective truth?)

Yes. Do this. Or provide me with the moral standards you are applying here. I am curious.

[flamesfever]

I understood it was a Canadian that was considered one of the best snipers.

[Canuck-Hater]

Apparently that bar altercation never happened according to Jesse Ventura, he went as far as suing Chris Kyle for defamation. In my opinion, theres no way a former Navy Seal would bad mouth war veterans like that. While he does not support the Iraq war (Lets be honest who does), he still appreciates the men and woman that fight for his country.

[HPLovecraft]

Misunderstanding.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Apparently that bar altercation never happened according to Jesse Ventura, he went as far as suing Chris Kyle for defamation. In my opinion, theres no way a former Navy Seal would bad mouth war veterans like that. While he does not support the Iraq war (Lets be honest who does), he still appreciates the men and woman that fight for his country.

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.

[CaptainCrunch]

nm

[Zulu29]

The only reason I can think of to explain Kyle taking a veteran suffering from PTSD to the range is to give him a sense of camaraderie again. This guy went from serving with comrades in a close knit unit to civilian life with PTSD. The adjustment from service life to civilian life alone can be difficult let alone suffering with a mental illness.

Also, to all the people claiming illegal this and immoral that, when you're thousands of miles away in a foreign land and your squad is receiving incoming fire you're gonna do what you have to do to protect them and deal with the consequences later. These men signed up to be professional soldiers and don't get to pick and choose which battles they fight to suit their moral compass. They serve their country and fulfil the duties bestowed upon them.

Kyle was trying to help fellow vets with mental illnesses. Try focussing on that before ripping into his service history.