Michael Moore trashes "American Sniper"

[TreVader]

It appears the out Palestinian shill can not even read the link that he posted.

Israel has crossed the Suez before the 22 October cease fire in the '73 war
The Arabs have asked the UN for cease fires, not the other way around.
Lebanon asked for a ceasefire in '06
Please provide links to the contrary

Sharon Crossed the suez, but the MAJORITY of the Bar Lev line (in the Sinai, which as you so adeptly read on a map as east of the Suez) remained in Egyptian hands. The Egyptians were still very much in control of more territory than Israel when the ceasefire happened. But nice try, you semi-retarded Hasbara troll!

Here is a direct quote from the article you claimed you had read, then told me to read:

Final situation on the Egyptian front
Despite Israel's tactical successes west of the canal, the Egyptian military was reformed and organized. Consequently, The Israeli military position became "weak" for different reasons, "One, Israel now had a large force (about six or seven brigades) in a very limited area of land, surrounded from all sides either by natural or man-made barriers, or by the Egyptian forces. This put it in a weak position. Moreover, there were the difficulties in supplying this force, in evacuating it, in the lengthy communication lines, and in the daily attrition in men and equipment. Two, to protect these troops, the Israeli command had to allocate other forces (four or five brigades) to defend the entrances to the breach at the Deversoir. Three, to immobilize the Egyptian bridgeheads in Sinai the Israeli command had to allocate ten brigades to face the Second and Third army bridgeheads. In addition, it became necessary to keep the strategic reserves at their maximum state of alert. Thus, Israel was obliged to keep its armed force-and consequently the country-mobilized for a long period, at least until the war came to an end, because the ceasefire did not signal the end of the war. There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."[217] For those reasons and according to Dayan, "It was therefore thought that Israel would withdraw from the west bank, since she was most sensitive on the subject of soldier's lives." The Egyptian forces didn't pull to the west and held onto their positions east of the canal controlling both shores of the Suez Canal. None of the Canal's main cities were occupied by Israel; however, the city of Suez was surrounded.
Egypt wished to end the war when they realized that the I.D.F canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe.[218] The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[16] The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo, which worried Egypt.[16]

I would accuse you of being intellectually dishonest but I think you are far too dumb for that. You're just a simpleton who doesn't read.

Israel has no need to go into Lebanon unless it is to respond to something done to it.

Lol. Try actually reading the fucking article JUST ONCE. It's not that hard, you an clearly read my posts. I know it hurts your clouded hateful mind that the Israelis might not be the supermen you think they are, but try to get a grip on reality! Christ, you are so deluded:\

 

[TreVader]

Cabri, I'm bookmarking this thread for future reference. So much ownage, on YOU specifically. Try reading next time, maybe

 

[Brovane]

I would accuse you of being intellectually dishonest but I think you are far too dumb for that. You're just a simpleton who doesn't read.

Lol. Try actually reading the fucking article JUST ONCE. It's not that hard, you an clearly read my posts.

He's all about murdering vietnamese , and he feels that murdering those people makes him somebody special.

Wasn't this the sniper with the most confirmed kills in US history? That guy was from vietnam. Unless somebody overtook him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[B]Carlos_Hathcock[/B]

this is the guy I thought the movie was about.

Why don't you back away slowly from your keyboard for a while.....

 

[TreVader]

Why don't you back away slowly from your keyboard for a while.....

Brovane, the difference between my mistake there and Cabri's here is I acknowledged I was wrong and corrected myself. Cabri has yet to do that. I did read the article and it was an understandable mistake to mix up Hathcock and Kyle because as of a few years ago "the most deadly US sniper" was a title held by Hathcock.

You can clearly see that Cabri not only did not read the article, he even told me to read it! An article that totally refuted every word he said.

Care to argue actual points, or should we keep rehashing my one mixup to take attention away from Cabri's epic failpost?

 

[Brovane]

Brovane, the difference between my mistake there and Cabri's here is I acknowledged I was wrong and corrected myself. Cabri has yet to do that. I did read the article and it was an understandable mistake to mix up Hathcock and Kyle because as of a few years ago "the most deadly US sniper" was a title held by Hathcock.

You can clearly see that Cabri not only did not read the article, he even told me to read it! An article that totally refuted every word he said.

Care to argue actual points, or should we keep rehashing my one mixup to take attention away from Cabri's epic failpost?

What points of Cabri's post's were epic fail?

 

[rommelrommel]

Israel could conventionally occupy much of Syria but "blow it up"? lol it's on the border, what would they blow it up with? Ever heard of fallout? Where do you get these silly ideas that countries "blow up" each other? You sound like a 10 year old talking about foreign policy.

I was referring to the semi regular air strikes against Syrian nuclear facilities and attempted transfers of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. And I never suggested that they would blow up all of Syria, but good straw man attempt.

 

[John Connor]

http://deadline.com/2015/01/michael-moore-american-sniper-oscars-clint-eastwood-selma-1201353007/

He sounds like a BF4 noob. "Snipers are cowards". But he's trashing U.S. snipers. That's bad, right? I think his Twitter might get bashed for this.
In principle, I agree with him that shooting people and invading is bad, but we live in a bad world where others will do bad to us unless we BAD them first.

https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/556988226486169600

LOLs he gets owned

Jabba The Hutt needs to keep that commie fat mouth shut. Otherwise we should air drop his ass into Iraq where he belongs.

 

[frowertr]

Jabba The Hutt needs to keep that commie fat mouth shut. Otherwise we should air drop his ass into Iraq where he belongs.

Pretty much this. Kyle is a hero. To call him anything else means you have no idea what it means to have liberty and freedom.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Pretty much this. Kyle is a hero. To call him anything else means you have no idea what it means to have liberty and freedom.

So someone who claims to have executed Americans on American soil is a hero to you? Who has manifactured a history for himself that has been in many instances proven to be completely untrue is the kind of man you think should be held up as an example?

 

[bshole]

Pretty much this. Kyle is a hero. To call him anything else means you have no idea what it means to have liberty and freedom.

If your definition of hero encompasses publishing lies about a public figure to sell more books for your own personal enrichment, then you are correct. There is no doubt that Kyle was a fantastic sniper. There is also no doubt that Kyle was extremely ethically challenged. He certainly was no role model.

It strikes me as somewhat nauseating that a person would write a book for personal profit that talks about nothing other than all the people he killed. How far we have come from the "geatest" generation.

The ability to kill lots of people in a 3rd world country has utterly nothing to do with liberty and freedom. That is a really weird point.

 

[Brovane]

It strikes me as somewhat nauseating that a person would write a book for personal profit that talks about nothing other than all the people he killed. How far we have come from the "geatest" generation.

With this statement you have just confirmed that you have no clue what was written in the book and have never read the book yourself.

 

[John Connor]

Have the audio book myself.

 

[cabri]

for those that want a map
Link
Shows where Sinai is w/ respect to the Suez and the rest of Egypt.

The JPG shows what happened in the '67
Israeli forces had crossed the Suez and were driving toward Cairo.
Egypt's forces were being cut off.

Egypt had no real chance at control of the Sinai and wanted to save the army from being destroyed.

Israel offered the Sinai back in return for peace 5 years later. Egypt accepted.

 

[bshole]

With this statement you have just confirmed that you have no clue what was written in the book and have never read the book yourself.

That is correct. I have never read the book or even a synopsis of the book.

 

[smackababy]

That is correct. I have never read the book or even a synopsis of the book.

And, yet you still feel the need to bash the content, of which you know nothing?

 

[CitizenKain]

Pretty much this. Kyle is a hero. To call him anything else means you have no idea what it means to have liberty and freedom.

Nope, he was human garbage and we are better off now that he is dead.

Have the audio book myself.

What, did Kyle use too many big words for you?

 

[cabri]

Nope, he was human garbage and we are better off now that he is dead.

Everyone has their own standards and requirements/expectations on what a person is and should do.

People will also judge you based on your standards

 

[moonbogg]

Nope, he was human garbage and we are better off now that he is dead.




What, did Kyle use too many big words for you?

Can you take a moment to just let me know how awesome my thread is? I'd appreciate that.

 

[bshole]

And, yet you still feel the need to bash the content, of which you know nothing?

If your only claim to fame is killing a shitload of people and you publish a book with the byline "the autobiography of the most LETHAL sniper in US military history" on the cover; that is enough for me to make judgements about your chararcter......... self absorbed, uncompassionate, arrogant, no sense of decency, etc....

It would be like Clinton publishing a book with the byline "the autobiography of the most illustrious president in US political history".

The man is a POS. Fuck 'em. Which of his lies do you believe?

The 160 kills are confirmed by the Pentagon. But there are absolutely no records of, or witnesses to, the latter stories. They are, perhaps intentionally, unverifiable. But it wasn’t these fantastical tales of vigilante justice that got Kyle into legal trouble. It was another, much less exciting story—one that wasn’t just unverifiable, but verifiably false. That tale, conveyed in a mere three pages of American Sniper, has put Kyle’s widow on the hook for $1.845 million in damages. And it may soon make Kyle’s publishers wish they approached the veteran’s claims with great deal of skepticism.
Kyle’s legal difficulties emerged from a subchapter of American Sniper titled “Punching Out Scruff Face.” In it, Kyle describes beating up a former Navy SEAL (“Scruff Face&#8221 after the SEAL claims American soldiers deserved to die in Iraq. Early drafts of the book identified the SEAL as Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota and famed professional wrestler, but Kyle’s publishers removed the name for fear of a lawsuit. Nonetheless, in a radio interview following the book’s release, Kyle admitted that “Scruff Face” was Ventura, and he repeated the claim soon after on The O’Reilly Factor. American Sniper shot to the top of Amazon’s best-seller list, becoming a smash hit for its publisher, HarperCollins, selling more than 1.5 million copies by July of 2014.

There was, however, a problem: The Ventura story wasn’t true, and Ventura meant to prove it. So he took Kyle to trial, suing him—and, after he died, his estate—for defamation and unjust enrichment. In the United States, defamation cases are extremely difficult to win, thanks to the First Amendment. When allegedly defamatory statements pertain to a public figure, the plaintiff mustn’t just prove those statements were false. He has to prove the defendant made those statements with “actual malice”—that is, knowledge that they were false—or with “reckless disregard” for their falsity. Very few defamation plaintiffs can make it over the high bar of actual malice.

Ventura made it. On July 29, 2014, a federal jury returned from six days of deliberations to award Ventura $1.845 million in damages—specifically, $500,000 for defamation and about $1.345 million for unjust enrichment. (In other words, Kyle unjustly profited from defaming Ventura, and so his estate must give Ventura some of that money.) Kyle’s widow, Taya Kyle, promptly filed for “judgment as a matter of law,” asking the trial judge to reverse’s the jury’s verdict because the jury clearly got it wrong. Failing that, she asked for an entirely new trial. The judge denied both requests, defending the jury’s verdict as legally and factually justifiable. Kyle’s widow is currently appealing the decision; her odds of winning appear quite low.

But for Kyle’s publisher, HarperCollins, the nightmare is just beginning. Several months after the verdict against the Kyle estate, Ventura brought another lawsuit for unjust enrichment, this time against HarperCollins. The lawsuit explains that while Kyle is the one who defamed Ventura, HarperCollins played up those defamatory statements in order to boost its sales—and with reckless disregard to the truth of Kyle’s claims.
This suit is the second of Ventura’s one-two punch, and from here, it looks like a knockout. During the first trial, Ventura’s attorneys uncovered records of HarperCollins’ negligence in fact-checking Kyle’s book, as well as evidence that HarperCollins specifically touted the Ventura story to drum up publicity.

 

[shortylickens]

the worst thing about micheal moore is people keep paying attention to him.

He's a 50 year old kindergartner. Just ignore the guy.

 

[TreVader]

for those that want a map

Link

Shows where Sinai is w/ respect to the Suez and the rest of Egypt.



The JPG shows what happened in the '67

Israeli forces had crossed the Suez and were driving toward Cairo.

Egypt's forces were being cut off.



Egypt had no real chance at control of the Sinai and wanted to save the army from being destroyed.



Israel offered the Sinai back in return for peace 5 years later. Egypt accepted.

Yes Cabri! Please rewrite history on behalf of your Hasbara benefactors! Please!


You are a fucking tard. I'm done quoting Wikipedia to refute your idiotic lies.

Please, don't trust this asshole people. Do the research, it's not like I'm asking this idiot to take MY position. I told him to read the wiki, I'm not totally sure he can understand it tho.


Here is what actually happened, straight from peer reviewed Wikipedia instead of a Hasbara propaganda puppet like Cabri

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Final situation on the Egyptian front

Despite Israel's tactical successes west of the canal, the Egyptian military was reformed and organized. Consequently, The Israeli military position became "weak" for different reasons, "One, Israel now had a large force (about six or seven brigades) in a very limited area of land, surrounded from all sides either by natural or man-made barriers, or by the Egyptian forces. This put it in a weak position. Moreover, there were the difficulties in supplying this force, in evacuating it, in the lengthy communication lines, and in the daily attrition in men and equipment. Two, to protect these troops, the Israeli command had to allocate other forces (four or five brigades) to defend the entrances to the breach at the Deversoir. Three, to immobilize the Egyptian bridgeheads in Sinai the Israeli command had to allocate ten brigades to face the Second and Third army bridgeheads. In addition, it became necessary to keep the strategic reserves at their maximum state of alert. Thus, Israel was obliged to keep its armed force-and consequently the country-mobilized for a long period, at least until the war came to an end, because the ceasefire did not signal the end of the war. There is no doubt that this in total conflict with its military theories."[217] For those reasons and according to Dayan, "It was therefore thought that Israel would withdraw from the west bank, since she was most sensitive on the subject of soldier's lives." The Egyptian forces didn't pull to the west and held onto their positions east of the canal controlling both shores of the Suez Canal. None of the Canal's main cities were occupied by Israel; however, the city of Suez was surrounded.

 

[Subyman]

If your only claim to fame is killing a shitload of people and you publish a book with the byline "the autobiography of the most LETHAL sniper in US military history" on the cover; that is enough for me to make judgements about your chararcter......... self absorbed, uncompassionate, arrogant, no sense of decency, etc....

It would be like Clinton publishing a book with the byline "the autobiography of the most illustrious president in US political history".

The man is a POS. Fuck 'em. Which of his lies do you believe?

Yes all combat veterans should shrink into a hole and should never talk about their service nor write about it.

He didn't join the military to get that title so he could cash in on a book deal. He wrote about his feats after his service. Many people would be interested in this man's career. Nothing wrong with writing about it.

 

[Brovane]

Yes Cabri! Please rewrite history on behalf of your Hasbara benefactors! Please!


You are a fucking tard. I'm done quoting Wikipedia to refute your idiotic lies.

Please, don't trust this asshole people. Do the research, it's not like I'm asking this idiot to take MY position. I told him to read the wiki, I'm not totally sure he can understand it tho.


Here is what actually happened, straight from peer reviewed Wikipedia instead of a Hasbara propaganda puppet like Cabri

Funny how you left off the last couple of sentences in the Wiki when doing your latest quotes. I have re-posted so everyone can view the complete statement out of the Wiki.

Egypt wished to end the war when they realized that the I.D.F canal crossing offensive could result in a catastrophe.[218] The Egyptian's besieged third army could not hold on without supply.[16] The Israeli Army advanced to a 100 km distance from Cairo, which worried Egypt.[16]

 

[TreVader]

Funny how you left off the last couple of sentences in the Wiki when doing your latest quotes. I have re-posted so everyone can view the complete statement out of the Wiki.

The third army was besieged and probably would have been destroyed, that doesn't change the fact that Egypt had reconstituted it's positions and was very much capable of defending Cairo. Third army? Not so much.


I missed the end paragraph, my apologies. You must recognize that my post was accurate, if lacking in the total picture. Cabri literally pulls shit straight out his ass and flings it at his keyboard and calls it fact.

Why are you not refuting his bullshit and instead are focusing on doing your best to discredit me (not possible because wiki agrees with me that Egypt was in a strategically sound position)? Try to see stuff for what it is and not through your jaded Zionist glasses.

 

[Screech]

Trevader, you may be interested in quoting this post and filling out the following form correctly.

On the Wikipedia page for the Yom Kippur War, the result is listed as a

[ ]Israeli Military Victory
[ ]Egyptian Military Victory
[ ]Syrian Military Victory

I'm sure you will be able to complete this assignment easily.

(now yes, everyone knows that the war with Egypt was basically a draw for Israel; Israel and Egypt basically traded equally worthless land and both potentially put their troops in an unsavory, potentially indefensible position. Hence they both were inclined to seek peace because there was no point in fighting further. But to somehow claim that Egypt won the war because they got back their land five years after the fact is laughable)