Author Chris Kyle fatally shot on gun range

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Eskimospy, I think if you can criticize this guy for what he did, you can criticize equally every soldier who ever killed anyone in any war.

He didn't decide to start the war. And his actions probably saved a lot of American lives.

I agree with you about the over-romanticizing of the military here, but I think some people go too far the other way as well.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Eskimospy, I think if you can criticize this guy for what he did, you can criticize equally every soldier who ever killed anyone in any war.

He didn't decide to start the war. And his actions probably saved a lot of American lives.

I agree with you about the over-romanticizing of the military here, but I think some people go too far the other way as well.

I don't agree. There are plenty of people (like say...me) who joined up before 9/11 or either the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq started and didn't re-enlist. While you accept some level of knowledge that you could be sent to a war you don't agree with, that's unknowable for the most part when you enlist in peacetime. Furthermore, in the past many soldiers were conscripted. This guy chose to enlist again knowing full well what he was getting into. In my mind that makes him more responsible for those outcomes than a conscript or an enlistee that didn't know.

He didn't decide to start the war, but he DID decide to remain there long after he could have left. That means something. He chose to continue killing. If you think this killing was justified or necessary that's fine, but if you remove his agency you are not telling the whole story.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
I don't agree. There are plenty of people (like say...me) who joined up before 9/11 or either the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq started and didn't re-enlist. While you accept some level of knowledge that you could be sent to a war you don't agree with, that's unknowable for the most part when you enlist in peacetime. Furthermore, in the past many soldiers were conscripted. This guy chose to enlist again knowing full well what he was getting into. In my mind that makes him more responsible for those outcomes than a conscript or an enlistee that didn't know.

He didn't decide to start the war, but he DID decide to remain there long after he could have left. That means something. He chose to continue killing. If you think this killing was justified or necessary that's fine, but if you remove his agency you are not telling the whole story.

So you joined the military, but conveniently cry about it when you are sent to any war you don't agree with. So you were one of those soldiers...
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Uhmm, yes it does. If he had a problem with shooting people in that conflict he could have chosen not to re-enlist. Clearly he didn't have a problem with it. I personally don't care about his body count, but to say that he was forced into it by orders is absolutely ridiculous.

You really just like to spew BS just for arguments sake...sometimes soldiers and especially SEALs feel an obligation towards those they serve with.

Out of curiosity, what did you do in the military? Why did you join to begin with?
 
Last edited:

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
You really just like to spew BS just for arguments sake...sometimes soldiers and especially SEALs feel an obligation towards those they serve with.

Out of curiosity, what did you do in the military?

Probably a lot of bitching and crying about how much military life sucks.

And disrespecting his fellow soldiers.
 
Last edited:

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
I don't agree. There are plenty of people (like say...me) who joined up before 9/11 or either the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq started and didn't re-enlist. While you accept some level of knowledge that you could be sent to a war you don't agree with, that's unknowable for the most part when you enlist in peacetime. Furthermore, in the past many soldiers were conscripted. This guy chose to enlist again knowing full well what he was getting into. In my mind that makes him more responsible for those outcomes than a conscript or an enlistee that didn't know.

He didn't decide to start the war, but he DID decide to remain there long after he could have left. That means something. He chose to continue killing. If you think this killing was justified or necessary that's fine, but if you remove his agency you are not telling the whole story.

Are you saying you joined the military knowing that you weren't going to agree with war if ordered to engage in war? What do you think the military is for?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Are you saying you joined the military knowing that you weren't going to agree with war if ordered to engage in war? What do you think the military is for?

No, I have no idea how you could possibly have gotten that from what I wrote. I do not have a problem with all war, just foolish and irresponsible ones. I was ware of such a possibility going in, but when I had the option to get out I did. Pretty simple, really.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
So you joined the military, but conveniently cry about it when you are sent to any war you don't agree with. So you were one of those soldiers...

Amazing how your desired respect for the military dissipates when you find a veteran who doesn't agree with you. I wish to hold people accountable for their choices, if you think that's disrespectful then that is your business.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
I don't agree. There are plenty of people (like say...me) who joined up before 9/11 or either the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq started and didn't re-enlist.

And if he hadn't re-enlisted, he'd be getting much of the same criticism anyway.

He didn't decide to start the war, but he DID decide to remain there long after he could have left. That means something. He chose to continue killing. If you think this killing was justified or necessary that's fine, but if you remove his agency you are not telling the whole story.

It's not necessarily the case that he re-enlisted because he "wanted to keep killing". It could be that he felt an obligation towards those who were already there.. I seem to recall there being issues with manpower and people being rotated back there sooner than necessary.

Maybe he really was bloodthirsty. I'm just saying these things aren't always cut and dried.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
Amazing how your desired respect for the military dissipates when you fond a veteran who doesn't agree with you. I wish to hold people accountable for their choices, if you think that's disrespectful then that is your business.

Who said I have respect for all military personnel, maybe you should re-read my posts with a bit more discretion. But you're right, I have zero respect for guys like you, who demonstrate zero respect for your fellow soldiers. I don't personally know Chris Kyle or you, but from what I've read and seen, I can say with certainty that you're a piece of trash compared to him. You read everything as black and white, and if you're actually a soldier like you say you are, you'd know that wars are never black and white. But hey, it's the internet right? Take it for what it's worth.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
And if he hadn't re-enlisted, he'd be getting much of the same criticism anyway.



It's not necessarily the case that he re-enlisted because he "wanted to keep killing". It could be that he felt an obligation towards those who were already there.. I seem to recall there being issues with manpower and people being rotated back there sooner than necessary.

Maybe he really was bloodthirsty. I'm just saying these things aren't always cut and dried.

Well maybe he would, but that doesn't change my argument...which is simply that he should be able to be criticized for his actions. Being in the military doesn't make anyone above reproach.

I don't make any judgment as to his motivations or his actions. I don't really have any strong feelings either way. What I do have strong feelings about are the creepy military fetishists.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Who said I have respect for all military personnel, maybe you should re-read my posts with a bit more discretion. But you're right, I have zero respect for guys like you, who demonstrate zero respect for your fellow soldiers. I don't personally know Chris Kyle or you, but from what I've read and seen, I can say with certainty that you're a piece of trash compared to him. You read everything as black and white, and if you're actually a soldier like you say you are, you'd know that wars are never black and white. But hey, it's the internet right? Take it for what it's worth.

Darn, and I was really hoping for your respect. You think saying everyone should be able to be held accountable for their actions is showing no respect. That says a lot more about you than it does me.

You're clearly angry and are just foaming and frothing now, while making up new positions for me to hold because you can't argue against the one I've said. (which really should be totally uncontroversial).

Meh. Enjoy your anger.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
Darn, and I was really hoping for your respect. You think saying everyone should be able to be held accountable for their actions is showing no respect. That says a lot more about you than it does me.

You're clearly angry and are just foaming and frothing now, while making up new positions for me to hold because you can't argue against the one I've said. (which really should be totally uncontroversial).

Meh. Enjoy your anger.

Frothing at the mouth... :rolleyes:

You sound like a drama queen if anything.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,709
871
126
You gotta be reallllllly careful if you're going down this road. I do agree with you, however I've seen how retarded our government is and they'll fuck it up. I've personally been to PTSD counseling twice according to the government. Because something happened? No, its actually 100% mandatory when you get back from a deployment.

Also we don't want people denying they have PTSD so they can keep their gun. Need to be sure they get the help they need.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Also we don't want people denying they have PTSD so they can keep their gun. Need to be sure they get the help they need.

Exactly. I'm not saying that a vet can't be denied because of mental reasons, but spreading the word that PTSD will strip your gun rights could actually lead to more incidents of vets losing their shit because they never got treated.
 

Gintaras

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2000
1,892
1
71
"As US forces surged into Iraq in 2003, Chris Kyle was handed a sniper rifle and told to watch as a marine battalion entered an Iraqi town.

A crowd had come out to greet them. Through the scope he saw a woman, with a child close by, approaching his troops. She had a grenade ready to detonate in her hand.

"This was the first time I was going to have to kill someone. I didn't know whether I was going to be able to do it, man, woman or whatever," he says.

"You're running everything through your mind. This is a woman, first of all. Second of all, am I clear to do this, is this right, is it justified? And after I do this, am I going to be fried back home? Are the lawyers going to come after me saying, 'You killed a woman, you're going to prison'?"

But he didn't have much time to debate these questions.

"She made the decision for me, it was either my fellow Americans die or I take her out."

He pulled the trigger.

"It's killing that is very distant but also very personal - I would even say intimate”

He was doing a job. He was good at his job. It's unfortunate that excelling in his job meant ending the lives of other humans, however he prolonged the lives of far more Americans in doing so. Not many people can say that they single-handedly helped to shape world events.

If that asshole - Chris Kyle wasn't a dumbass who could make a living while killing others...if he wanted to save fellow americans and other people from dying, he should have pointed his gun to Jorge W. Boosh - the One, who's responsible for deaths of more than 100 Thousand iraqi people and thousands of americans he sent to die...WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction was not found in Iraq, but in US was found WMD - WEAPONS of MASS DECEPTION....
He was a "brainless meat" in the hands of politicians - those, who hide scared behind people they send to die in other countries...
Chris Kyle or some arab terrorist - same kinda people, just on different sides OF THE FENCE, both brainwashed by their mentors - their politicians....
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
If that asshole - Chris Kyle wasn't a dumbass who could make a living while killing others...if he wanted to save fellow americans and other people from dying, he should have pointed his gun to Jorge W. Boosh - the One, who's responsible for deaths of more than 100 Thousand iraqi people and thousands of americans he sent to die...WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction was not found in Iraq, but in US was found WMD - WEAPONS of MASS DECEPTION....
He was a "brainless meat" in the hands of politicians - those, who hide scared behind people they send to die in other countries...
Chris Kyle or some arab terrorist - same kinda people, just on different sides OF THE FENCE, both brainwashed by their mentors - their politicians....

Cool story bro.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
When one suffers with PTSD it may not be wise to give them a loaded gun.....

36ezp.jpg
 

Bulk Beef

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2001
5,466
0
76
I don't agree. There are plenty of people (like say...me) who joined up before 9/11 or either the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq started and didn't re-enlist. While you accept some level of knowledge that you could be sent to a war you don't agree with, that's unknowable for the most part when you enlist in peacetime. Furthermore, in the past many soldiers were conscripted. This guy chose to enlist again knowing full well what he was getting into. In my mind that makes him more responsible for those outcomes than a conscript or an enlistee that didn't know.

He didn't decide to start the war, but he DID decide to remain there long after he could have left. That means something. He chose to continue killing. If you think this killing was justified or necessary that's fine, but if you remove his agency you are not telling the whole story.
Your rationalization for your own contempt is bullshit. You may have enlisted, you may have worn the uniform, but you were never a soldier.

I'm glad you got out. I wouldn't want you next to me.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Your rationalization for your own contempt is bullshit. You may have enlisted, you may have worn the uniform, but you were never a soldier.

I'm glad you got out. I wouldn't want you next to me.

What contempt and what rationalization? Be specific. I have no contempt for this man whatsoever, you guys just seem to have a problem accepting that his actions in Iraq were significantly a result of his own choices. Why, I have no idea. When you make choices, an adult accepts the potential for criticism of those choices.

As for your opinion of what constitutes am acceptable member of the military, save it. I would take a thinking man who can accept responsibility for his choices over a blind flag waver any day of the week.

I'm glad I got out too though, so at least we agree on that. If you have any more righteous indignation to share because you think people are being insufficiently worshipful of the military, please do continue.
 

klinc

Senior member
Jan 30, 2011
555
0
0
The main point is it was war and he is there cause his government decided to sent him and his fellow colleagues there. He acted on orders but from the other side its seen as a American and they do not take revenge or direct anything against the American Government as its just a word which describes something in charge of a country. They will direct it at the citizens or the first one they got a name off. The people will always pay for its governments actions
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
So, does this incident extend the ban on sale to mentally unstable people to returning military vets?