The Demonization of Chris Kyle

[URedskin54]

Chris Kyle's Iraqi muslim interpreter:

"When we had a
sniper mission, he would watch the targets. Then, sometimes I would go take
care of something and he was never afraid that I was returning with my M4 and
grenades. And not just Kyle, all the SEALs I worked with.


Kyle said I trust Johnny Walker with my life. When I came to America, I
got invited to Chris's book signing in La Jolla.


When Chris saw me at the event he left everyone and just came up to me
and hugged me. Because he hadn't seen me since 2007 and thought I could have
died and had no idea where I was. After he signed the book, he was going to
speak. Ten seconds into his speech, he said I am not an American hero. Johnny
Walker is the American hero and then he made me stand up.


Then, he said that I saved more SEALs' lives than him. Pointing at me,
and I am an Iraqi Muslim. So how is this racist?


Sometimes I would forget to bring an MRE to a sniper mission. Chris
would share his MRE and he would talk about family. If he was racist towards
Muslims why would he share intimate details of his life with a Muslim? I don't
see that in any way as racist. I think the ones calling Chris Kyle racist are
racists.


If you're going to call Chris Kyle racist, then call me a racist too.
At times we were on the base, Kyle would laugh with the other Iraqi soldiers
and joke with them. Again, why would a racist engage in that behavior?


The insurgents had a $50,000.00 bounty on my head. Every time Chris
Kyle killed an insurgent he saved my family, and the innocent Iraqi families
too. Why would a racist man protect me and innocent Iraqi families?


People should be respecting and honoring him. It
hurts Taya, his brother, his dad, his children, his whole family and everyone
in the SEAL community when people say such things about a man like Kyle. He
treated me, an Iraqi Muslim, like a brother. So everyone needs to give him the
respect that he fully deserves, and finally let the man rest in peace."

LINK

 

[TUMe]

Again great points by 54. When he started this thread it wasn't about a movie, it was about an American Military man being trashed by the likes of Michael Moore. In a combat zone, which WATU refers to, it isn't about ideology it's about team work. If the next guy does a poor job, it puts you in more danger and if he does a good job it makes you a little safer.

Note too, that they guide talks about planning. It wasn't just a case of "let's go kill a few today." As I said before, they were targeting high value people. Leaders or people with key skills. Combat is brutal, but it isn't stupid. An expert sniper doesn't make a trip out just to kill an Iraqi Beatle Bailey.

.
This post was edited on 1/31 7:26 AM by TUMe

 

[URedskin54]

Thanks, Me. Not usually something I'd care about (soldiers are murderers is not an unusual thing to hear from a college professor these days). But for some reason this one struck a nerve.

Also, lots of respect for your service. You fought a much tougher war than I.

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by URedskin54:
Thanks, Me. Not usually something I'd care about (soldiers are murderers is not an unusual thing to hear from a college professor these days). But for some reason this one struck a nerve.

Also, lots of respect for your service. You fought a much tougher war than I.

Thanks. All who serve give some, some give all. Fortunately, neither of us gave all.

 

[WATU2]

... "the left demonizes a soldier" Are you talking about the movie (which is not the soldier, it's the misrepresentations in a movie) or something else? Do you believe that the American public neatly divides into just two camps: left and right?

As for the drones, the focus should be the executive branch. No matter who is in office, the executive will work to increase its power. Our founding fathers recognized that all too well. They Declaration of Independence is a diatribe against a King who ignores parliament and its citizens overseas. The Constitution is expressly set up to limit his powers and term.

The fear of creating an office of the President that could morph into a monarchy was also a key concern. Yet we may well have a Clinton and a Bush in the next Presidential election. Have to wonder how well that's working.

No one really knows much about our drone program because it has been shrouded in secrecy by both Democrats and Republicans in the executive and most of Congress. The expanded use of secrecy by any president should be resisted, especially the over use of 'national security' as an excuse to prevent oversight, present evidence in court, or to break the law until caught.

Originally posted by lawpoke87:
Odd to me that the left demonizes a soldier risking his life in a war zone doing what he is trained and commanded to do but barely bats an eye when our commander in chief chooses to kill truly innocent civilians in drone strikes because they are near the intended target of the missile strike. I just want consistency.

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by WATU2:
... "the left demonizes a soldier" Are you talking about the movie (which is not the soldier, it's the misrepresentations in a movie) or something else? Do you believe that the American public neatly divides into just two camps: left and right?

As for the drones, the focus should be the executive branch. No matter who is in office, the executive will work to increase its power. Our founding fathers recognized that all too well. They Declaration of Independence is a diatribe against a King who ignores parliament and its citizens overseas. The Constitution is expressly set up to limit his powers and term.

The fear of creating an office of the President that could morph into a monarchy was also a key concern. Yet we may well have a Clinton and a Bush in the next Presidential election. Have to wonder how well that's working.

No one really knows much about our drone program because it has been shrouded in secrecy by both Democrats and Republicans in the executive and most of Congress. The expanded use of secrecy by any president should be resisted, especially the over use of 'national security' as an excuse to prevent oversight, present evidence in court, or to break the law until caught.

Its amazing how much of that I agree with. The first paragraph is a bit beyond reality though.

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by WATU2:
... "the left demonizes a soldier" Are you talking about the movie (which is not the soldier, it's the misrepresentations in a movie) or something else? Do you believe that the American public neatly divides into just two camps: left and right?

For the one thousandth time, the original thread was about the left demonizing the man, not about a critical review of the movie.

In fact, the country is not completely split as to left and right. However, the voices we hear demonizing the real person are from professional members of the political left, not from average citizens. If one takes issue with what Michael Moore or Sean Hannity says they are not saying America is all left or all right. But those types are all left and all right.

You clearly want to channel the discussion into being an argument about a movie. If so start a thread about the movie. This thread started by 54 was about a person: Chris Kyle. Most of us don't know enough about him to reach a complete opinion of the man but there seems very little reason to call him a coward since, as you point out ,not everyone has been in a war zone.

This post was edited on 2/1 7:51 PM by TUMe

 

[URedskin54]

And to be fair, over the last few days I have seen asinine comments made by extremely fringe libertarians. Not surprising at all from the Paulestinians. I hate their naivete as much as I do an aging leftist hipster's. The difference is they get roundly made fun of and denounced by the rest of the right. Besides Michelle Obama and Jane Fonda(what?) there has been hardly a peep from the left. They prefer to ignore it altogether and change subject, kind of like what kept happening in this thread.

 

[rabidTU]

Let me address the movie for a moment and about how Eastwood nuanced some of the action and the scenes. When I first saw the movie, I didn't think about how the opening scene should be judged. But on second thought I saw the dilemma CK faced and why he HAD to take the boys life. The dilemma was that the boy was coerced by his mother to be a martyr and would die anyway and the childs duty was to take the american soldiers with him. To CK, his only recourse was to prevent the killing of his soldier brothers by taking the boys life (who was going to die anyway by his own hand). So what would you do if you were CK? Would you allow the event to occur as the boy was commanded by his mother because if he shoots the boy it is a repugnant act to take that childs life?

TBH, there are very few movies and directors that would confront that and do it in such a shocking way. But how else was that supposed to be portrayed? No, Clint Eastwood was very brave in the way he showed that in the same way any killing is protrayed in any left leaning movie to motivate the viewer.

Like all great filmakers, CE made us all think about our morality. Thats what the movie was about. In that way, its almost anti-war. Every movie should make us think in that way.










This post was edited on 2/1 11:30 PM by rabidTU

 

[old_goat_23]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Dissing an inaccurate movie is far different from demonizing an individual. This review makes that point.

If one only sees the world in two colors: (conservatives and liberals) and demonizes one of those....well, that hides a lot of variables.. Frankly I think the world and people are composed of a much broader spectrum. Unfortunately that view leads to more complexity and less simple answers.

The Vox review misses the entire point of the movie ...... which is to "bring to life" the book by Kyle. The book may or may not have rewritten the Liberal view of this particular slice of history but it absolutely does not "rewrite history" because it is not presented as history. Beyond that, to say that a liberal view of Iraq is somehow more accurate than a guy who was there is pretty darned entertaining.

The book "American Sniper" is the perception and opinion of one man involved in a difficult situation. Yup, Kyle had an ego. Sure, he viewed (as do all members of NSW) people outside of a small band of highly trained and elite "operators" to be lambs heading to slaughter. Absolutely he viewed the people he was shooting as "evil". He most definitely viewed Iraq as payback for 9-11.

Vox, of course, skips the whole concept that the movie is based upon the book and instead chooses to take a stance immersed in propaganda that attempts to paint the movie as, uh, propaganda. I suppose if your view is always immersed in the propaganda of the left you have no choice but to view everything through that filter. Predictable but sad.

Nobody beyond Chris Kyle (and those who witnessed the events) can tell us if the book was accurate. The movie can only be as accurate as the book. The review is pure propaganda which is pretty darned funny considering its premise.

Thanks.

 

[old_goat_23]

Here is a link to the thoughts one recently retired SEAL (who was on TEAM 3 with Kyle) have on this topic. Rorke is a solid guy (All American Lacrosse player at Syracuse, many years in the teams) with an interesting take.

Enjoy.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rorke-denver-the-united-states-of-american-sniper-1422316204

 

[Clong83a]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Agreed that standards should apply to all. No question.

The topic, however, was American Sniper, and apparently they had that part right. It's far more worrying to me than the topic of MLK because it perpetuates poor decision making in the future. Just as fictional Jack Bauer helped convince a large part of our population (and apparently at least some on this board) of the false efficacy of torture, mis-portraying near current events in Iraq and making cartoonish villains out of all Iraqis will only contribute to more errors of judgement driven by popular misconceptions.

Maybe Selma will fuel dangerous misconceptions too, but at the moment that doesn't worry me as much.

I was against the war in Iraq and still believe it was a bad decision. But I sure didn't think the film portrayed all Iraqis as some sort of cartoonish villians. I thought it showed a state that was basically in anarchy, where it was very hard to tell who might hurt you, and very hard to get any local cooperation due to a fear of the warlords and a lack of any kind of central authority. Isn't that essentially the way it was?

I thought it was a pretty nuanced film, and if anything, I left the movie more sympathetic to the innocent bystanders in Iraq than before. I don't know or pretend to know exactly how factual it was when it comes to portraying Chris Kyle's exploits or mental state, but I thought it showed him as a sympathetic character who did not necessarily WANT to kill people, but volunteered because he thought it was the right thing to do for his country. People can second-guess that if they like, but I didn't think it showed him as some kind of hate-filled killer. Quite the opposite. If someone watches this film on either side of the aisle and interprets it as a glorious kill-fest action film that vilifies Iraqis, then they are an idiot.

 

[rabidTU]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I have a legal question for some of you lawyers about the murder trial of C Kyle.

Evidently, the killer and a friend of his smoked pot the morning he killed CK and the other veteran. Is that some kind of attempt at an insanity plea? If the killer is under the influence of drugs, is that a way of avoiding the death penalty? Could he get off using that defense?

 

[old_goat_23]

Won't even try to comment on the legal issues. On the other hand .......

A lot of the narrative surrounding Routhe is BS. He was never deployed in combat, never had to deal with enemy fire, IEDs or having his buddies killed and does not have "PTSD". That term and diagnosis is used a lot since it became a legitimate disability to the VA and DOD. Good way to get benefits but not something typically experienced by fobbits.

Ruthe's parents lied to Kyle regarding his "illness" which was instead a drug addiction and some pre-existing psychological conditions (diagnosed psychotic and had threatened suicide). As the trial progresses I hope some of that comes out. Had Kyle understood the real issues involving Routhe he would never have taken him to a shooting range and provided him with a weapon. Really a sad situation and Routhe's parents share a lot of the blame.

Thanks.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

nm

 

[URedskin54]

Originally posted by old_goat_23:
Won't even try to comment on the legal issues. On the other hand .......

A lot of the narrative surrounding Routhe is BS. He was never deployed in combat, never had to deal with enemy fire, IEDs or having his buddies killed and does not have "PTSD". That term and diagnosis is used a lot since it became a legitimate disability to the VA and DOD. Good way to get benefits but not something typically experienced by fobbits.

Ruthe's parents lied to Kyle regarding his "illness" which was instead a drug addiction and some pre-existing psychological conditions (diagnosed psychotic and had threatened suicide). As the trial progresses I hope some of that comes out. Had Kyle understood the real issues involving Routhe he would never have taken him to a shooting range and provided him with a weapon. Really a sad situation and Routhe's parents share a lot of the blame.

Thanks.

+1 sadly most PTSD claims are like this.

 

[old_goat_23]

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing but respect for anybody who serves and all deserve the benefits that they earned. It is just that all of the PTSD claims take resources away from those who have real disabilities. The abundance of diagnoses also make the concept of PTSD seem to be some horrific psychological problem that is really common amongst veterans. Kind of like the "baby killer" meme from the Vietnam era, painting all GWOT veterans with the PTSD brush allows society to dump them all in a box and mark it "do not open".

Hope that made sense and my apologies for veering off topic for the thread.

 

[URedskin54]

No need to apologize. Your opinion almost exactly matched mine on that subject.

 

[HuffyCane]

PTSD isn't just a combat related injury. Yes, there are a lot of under motivated people that join the volunteer army and look for ways to subsidize their inertia. Labelling everyone who didnt see combat who suffers from PTSD as a free loader or unpatriotic isn't really fair. You can get PTSD from a bad car accident or even a lengthy divorce or domestic violence incident. Most of them are functional. That's the theory and the science. However, as a practical matter, I would rather have them out of the way and getting benefits than endangering the lives of other soldiers if they fail to hold it together under pressure.

As for Mr. Kyle, he and his wife have proven themselves to be liars and frauds over and over again. I really do not see the fascination with him. Or even the need for this thread. If the premise of the book is "confirmed kills" and you've already been proven to be a liar about Texas shoot outs at gas stations, Katrina shootings, and the Ventura trial, you have to wonder who is doing the counting and just exactly how truthful his stories are. Im sure his kill record is very high, but does it reach the heights that he and the military claim? It certainly wouldn't be the first time a Zaytsev had been created by a government desperate for good news. Just exactly how accurate are those body counts in the after action reports in Vietnam, particularly post 1968? Especially when you and your widow claim that they are giving all the proceeds of their book to veterans, but you can only prove you have given $52,000 to close friends of the $6 million, kept the rest, and failed to even consider starting a non-profit until called on it under oath. The book and Kyle is a fraud that Madoff would be proud of.

Sorry. America loves hero worship. But it can find better than this guy ... at least that is my view from the right of Attila the Hun on the political spectrum. Michael Moore was right for once, but for all the wrong reasons.


This post was edited on 2/21 1:54 PM by HuffyCane

This post was edited on 2/21 1:55 PM by HuffyCane

 

[URedskin54]

Do you even know how a kill is "confirmed?" Your response is rambling and a little unhinged, not to mention factually questionable and completely unrelated to what was taken issue with. You also go off on a tangent about ways to have PTSD that aren't combat related, which is to say you're debating something that isn't being argued. We're talking about people who claim PTSD for combat when they never saw any. Routh lied and told his parents and doctors that combat messed him up, which lead to a false diagnosis. That's the way most of these claims go. They shouldn't receive benefits, they should be kicked out of the military.
This post was edited on 2/21 5:37 PM by URedskin54

 

[HuffyCane]

Feel free to attack the messenger. It still won't set aside a jury's finding that Chris Kyle knowingly lied in his book multiple times.

Yes, I'm aware how kills are "confirmed." They aren't. There is no official US military protocol for confirming "kills." After action reports, completed by the shooter himself in most cases, may or may not include a confirmation of the details of the action by his spotter, another soldier, a superior officer, or even civilians in some cases. Mr. Kyle admitted publicly, under oath, that approximately 160 of his kills were "confirmed" by someone else. That's about 60% less of what he claims, and its unknown if all of those "confirms" were by someone else. He's a liar. If he wasn't a liar, why would his estate's legal team send pre-production demand letter after demand letter to Warner Bros. and Eastwood demanding editorial review of the screenplay and promising legal action if any portion of the film depicted Mr. Kyle in a way they did not pre-approve?

So yeah, I am fully aware of how stories like Kyle's get published. And how the exploits of people like John Basilone get thrown around until the person steps up and corrects the press. I am always aware of how stories like Jessica Lynch get disseminated until she goes on Oprah and says it was all a lie. Kyle didnt do that. He doubled down and then made up a bunch of more stuff. He said he was going to donate the money to charity -- and then didnt.

Enough of the myth making please. If we need myths about snipers at all, we need only look to Gordon and Shugart, because everything they did was the actual truth -- not a myth.


This post was edited on 2/21 8:26 PM by HuffyCane

 

[rabidTU]

Well then how about not speaking ill of the dead as well as their widow and calling them liars, especially since that person is a decorated war hero who volunteered to serve his country.

I doubt there are many folks who post on this board who could withstand one single day of SEAL training. That alone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

IMO.

 

[HuffyCane]

Originally posted by rabidTU:
Well then how about not speaking ill of the dead as well as their widow and calling them liars, especially since that person is a decorated war hero who volunteered to serve his country.

I doubt there are many folks who post on this board who could withstand one single day of SEAL training. That alone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

IMO.

So if you exaggerate your service to get medical benefits, you are somehow a freeloader, but if you lie about your service, no matter how commendable, to make millions, you get a pass? I'm sorry I don't see it. And neither do most of the operators and contractors I deal with on a daily basis here in North Florida whose credentials are equal to or greater than Mr. Kyle. One of those operators, a close friend, who initially told me about Kyle lying, and who was quite vocal about Mr. Kyle, including calling him out in person at a private function, can be found at Section 60, Plot 10754, Arlington National Cemetery. Im told his funeral was the largest attended combat related funeral at Arlington in 2014 though I don't know that to be true. There certainly were a lot of people there. Generals to privates. Many of whom could not confirm or deny where they met him. And a bunch of guys in suits. I imagine if it hadn't have been raining, they would have been wearing sunglasses, if you take my meaning. My credentials are more modest, so I will go with his opinion on Mr. Kyle.
This post was edited on 2/21 11:03 PM by HuffyCane

 

[rabidTU]

If that were the case, then its still no worse than any other person trying to capitalize on their life experiences. But how do you know the facts of this? I do know one thing, Bowe Bergdhal is being haled by Obama as some kind of hero when he was obviously the opposite. I'll take Chris Kyle over that. I wasn't with Kyle and I doubt anyone else on this board was either. None of us was in the Argonne Froest in WWI or at Gettysberg in 1864 or at San juan Hill in 1898. But IMO all those folks were hero's and I won't ever disparage them in absentia in any way shape or form. If they could have capiatalized on those "deeds", more power to em.

IMO

 

[rabidTU]

BTW, someone kick me in the buttox tomorrow at the game for resurrecting this thread. I'll be the one wearing the blue "TU" hat.

 

[HuffyCane]

Originally posted by rabidTU:

If that were the case, then its still no worse than any other person trying to capitalize on their life experiences. But how do you know the facts of this? I do know one thing, Bowe Bergdhal is being haled by Obama as some kind of hero when he was obviously the opposite. I'll take Chris Kyle over that. I wasn't with Kyle and I doubt anyone else on this board was either. None of us was in the Argonne Froest in WWI or at Gettysberg in 1864 or at San juan Hill in 1898. But IMO all those folks were hero's and I won't ever disparage them in absentia in any way shape or form. If they could have capiatalized on those "deeds", more power to em.

IMO

You don't have to look far to find people with legitimate military credentials writing pieces that call into question his honesty.

The five hour deposition he gave as part of the Ventura trial before his death has been the subject of tremendous scrutiny.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to win a defamation suit against a public figure in this country? The legal standard is next to impossible. The evidentiary hurdles are tremendous. And yet someone with the credibility of Jesse Ventura managed to get a favorable verdict after hours of a war hero's widow sobbing on the stand. That doesnt happen unless you tell whoppers. And you don't find disinterested UDT guys to show up and testify as to what they observed about the encounter and forfeit their right to peacefully attend SEAL reunions for the rest of their lives, if they think he is telling the truth either. Those guys live by a code. And part of that code is not bragging about what you do. Not making crap up. It disrespects your team. Kyle did that. I just don't see how he is a "hero" and if he is, there are 1000s just like him who are going to wait until they are in 60s at the VFW to make stuff up and won't see a penny for it. I'll honor them, not him.

 

[URedskin54]

It's as if you chose not to read the rest of this thread. Kyle being a flawed person is not being disputed. Start a new thread and debate his actual imperfections if you'd like. I have no interest in it. This was about unfair criticisms of him for doing his job well and not apologizing for it. Nothing I've posted have anything to do with the Ventura incident (which may or may not have happened) or his remarks on New Orleans, which is also fair game. If you have problems with him as a person, fine. But don't pretend what you're bringing up is even being debated or that I'm perpetuating a myth.

This post was edited on 2/22 3:09 AM by URedskin54

 

[rabidTU]

I think the critics are somehow making judgements on CK that are defaming him and there's no way he can come back from the dead to defend himself. There is no evidence they knew him personally or served with him in battle. All I've heard is that most of the soldiers in his unit were complementary of him and the way he performed his service to his nation.

IMO since the man is dead, we can at least respect that! No, since the movie was so successful, yet will obviously be snubbed at the oscars because the lieberal Hollywood elites who play war in their movies but are never a real part of one, control the argument. They have a captive audience. Its a chance for them to promote the message that they are right and traditional americans who lay down their lives, lose their limbs and come back traumatized and who actually do the dirty work of war, are the moral equal of ISIS.

IMO

 

[HuffyCane]

Originally posted by URedskin54:
It's as if you chose not to read the rest of this thread. Kyle being a flawed person is not being disputed. Start a new thread and debate his actual imperfections if you'd like. I have no interest in it. This was about unfair criticisms of him for doing his job well and not apologizing for it. Nothing I've posted have anything to do with the Ventura incident (which may or may not have happened) or his remarks on New Orleans, which is also fair game. If you have problems with him as a person, fine. But don't pretend what you're bringing up is even being debated or that I'm perpetuating a myth.

This post was edited on 2/22 3:09 AM by URedskin54

I did read the thread. During my first post, I stated that Michael Moore got it right for the wrong reasons and explained what those reasons were.

You responded by challenging my knowledge of the facts and questioning my credentials, because you did not agree with the substance of my first reply to your premise. When I demonstrated that I have a greater knowledge of the facts that you perhaps do, now you claim I am off topic.

I am not off topic. The criticism of the Left on this issue is well placed, but for the wrong reasons. The Right wants to wrap itself in the flag and wave the bloody shirt. The people who control the discourse on the Right see an opportunity to manipulate American public opinion based in part on propaganda. If you buy into that argument, I believe you are mistaken. The Right should move on and focus on issues and people that matter. Not liars who got rich off their service.

 

[URedskin54]

I questioned whether you know how kills are confirmed because you're speaking with such authority on all kinds of things you have no intimate knowledge of. Made sense to question that. There's nothing cut and dried about anything you're ranting about. Until someone comes forward and says Kyle lied about kills, that's hardly worth acknowledging. I admit the possibility Kyle lied about things but realize that in most cases neither of us truly know, which is why debating it or making any definitive statements about him or his wife's actions is pointless.

You go into the whole "there's a code about not bragging about it" stuff. Sure that is a unwritten semi-rule, but not everyone really sees any of it as Kyle bragging about it. Some people do, some people don't. Some people care that he made money. Some don't. I know people who feel like your friend about it and people that don't. You say it disrespects his team, but members of his team have defended him. There's also the issue of his wife having not donated the vast majority of the profits. It looks bad but in the middle of a lawsuit(which, granted,might be entirely her husbands fault) I can understand it. Same with threatening a lawsuit to protect her husband's image. If somebody were making a movie about someone in my family I would do the same thing. I am aware that you know what you're talking about when it comes to legal issues but the case wasn't as simple as you make it sound either. By many accounts the jury had a difficult time deciding and never were unanimous. Only after both sides agreed to allow an 8-2 decision was there an outcome.

That being said, if these were the only criticisms being leveled it wouldn't bother me because legitimate questions can be raised. I also care very little about the motivations of republicans coming to Kyle's defense. I just have a problem with people being labeled racist psychopaths for doing their jobs. There's a portion of the left that despises the military and they were bold enough to let their colors show this time.




This post was edited on 2/23 3:08 AM by URedskin54

 

[old_goat_23]

North Florida would be McDill and SOCOM. So is HuffyCane a steely eyed special operator. Who would have guessed?

Just a few comments to clarify some stuff.

PTSD is defined and diagnosed by the VA under "General Rating for Mental Disorders". It is not treated differently than any other mental issue encountered during or caused by military service. The VA is supposedly trying to establish new diagnosis standards to deal specifically with PTSD in order to weed out some of the more dubious cases. They also use the GAF Scale (Global Assessment of Function) to determine the relative level of "impairment". The issues with diagnosis of military PTSD is that it really isn't the same as suffering through a long and difficult divorce but is diagnosed using the same techniques and ratings. Things like impulse control, panic and depression are used to diagnose and rate PTSD but those symptoms may or may not be caused by military service.

"Kills" of enemy combatants are not generally confirmed in the military. "Kills" by a sniper must be confirmed by a witness. SEAL snipers do not have designated spotters (unlike Army and Marine units). They instead will have a second shooter who may or may not be in the same platoon, team or even a SEAL. One of the reasons that the SEAL sniper course is longer than the USMC and Army courses is this ability to work without a trained spotter. So, the "kills" recorded for Kyle would have been confirmed by somebody other than a closely associate spotter which reduces the potential for fraud.

I absolutely do not understand the whole Ventura law suit gig. Jesse Ventura is a liar and a fraud. He claims to have been a SEAL but in fact was a UDT guy who refused to do BUD/S and go SEAL during the Vietnam conflict. The incident between Ventura and Kyle occurred at a bar in the San Diego area called "McP's". That bar is owned by a NSW guy named Greg McPartlin. The owner as well as a host of other "regulars" testified that Kyle did in fact deck Ventura for the comments he made at Monsoor's wake. (Two bars in the San Diego area frequented by SEALs .... McP's and Danny's Palm Bar. Bad places to start a fight). Like I said, don't understand the results of the law suit but my guess is that it had a lot to do with the venue (Minnesota) and associated jury pool.

Thanks!

 

[HuffyCane]

Originally posted by old_goat_23:
North Florida would be McDill and SOCOM. So is HuffyCane a steely eyed special operator. Who would have guessed?

Not an operator. Would not claim to be if I was. I provide training in a variety of settings in the vicinity of McDill, Eglin, and occasionally, the Farm concerning specialized topics relating to legal compliance for combat personnel/high risk individuals working in a national security context as part of my private legal practice. Beyond that, we won't go into my experience and credentials in this forum.

This post was edited on 2/23 1:18 PM by HuffyCane

 

[HuffyCane]

Originally posted by URedskin54:
I questioned whether you know how kills are confirmed because you're speaking with such authority on all kinds of things you have no intimate knowledge of.

You know nothing about me.

 

[HuffyCane]

I absolutely do not understand the whole Ventura law suit gig. Jesse Ventura is a liar and a fraud. He claims to have been a SEAL but in fact was a UDT guy who refused to do BUD/S and go SEAL during the Vietnam conflict. The incident between Ventura and Kyle occurred at a bar in the San Diego area called "McP's". That bar is owned by a NSW guy named Greg McPartlin. The owner as well as a host of other "regulars" testified that Kyle did in fact deck Ventura for the comments he made at Monsoor's wake. (Two bars in the San Diego area frequented by SEALs .... McP's and Danny's Palm Bar. Bad places to start a fight). Like I said, don't understand the results of the law suit but my guess is that it had a lot to do with the venue (Minnesota) and associated jury pool.

Thanks!

I agree that Ventura has no credibility. I've never seen him claim to be a SEAL, but he was a UDT guy. The members of his class that remained in the military after the distinction between UDT/SEAL was abolished were reclassified as SEALs. Or at least, that's what Ive been told. Many SEALS don't view the UDT/SEAL as a distinction, especially amongst combat vets. Several SEAL related publications routinely refer to UDT guys who served in advance of the Normandy invasion as SEALs. So its more of male member evaluation in many cases. Yes, there is a difference. In some cases it is minor, in others there is a huge difference. You obviously know much more about that than I. He does get gigged for refusing further training to avoid combat in Vietnam and should be pilloried for that given the public image he tries to portray.

As for the owner of the bar, he recanted his original statement and publicly urged the trial to go forward after Kyle refused to accept a settlement offer which included a statement that the fight never happened.

The lawsuit was originally filed in MN state court against Kyle. Kyle's legal team could have removed it to California where the incident occurred or Texas where Kyle resided based on personal and subject matter jurisdiction. They declined to do so and removed the case on their own motion to federal court in MN. So if they were concerned about an unfavorable jury pool, they are the worst lawyers in the world. I would think every one in MN knows Jesse Ventura as the former governor that screwed up a lot of things in that state and has made a fool of himself ever since. If anything, the jury pool would favor Kyle and that's probably why they kept the lawsuit where it was tried. As for the witnesses, their were an equal number of people with ties to Kyle that said it happened and as there were people with ties to Ventura that said that it did not happen. The jury agreed with Ventura and an appeals court found that the jury had competent and substantial evidence to reach their verdict. Seems cut and dried to me, especially when you consider Ventura, a man in his 60s, was supposedly knocked to the ground, but did not have a mark on him in photographs taken by friends during the days afterward.


This post was edited on 2/23 2:06 PM by HuffyCane

This post was edited on 2/23 2:12 PM by HuffyCane

 

[rabidTU]

Originally posted by rabidTU:
BTW, someone kick me in the buttox tomorrow at the game for resurrecting this thread. I'll be the one wearing the blue "TU" hat.

Ok, noone kicked me at the game, so I'm going to wear my favorite royal blue dress next game and you can all pinch me.

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

I think we are all pretty much on the same side here about honoring our vets/hero's. The real enemy on the home front are the millionaire hollywood idiots that won't honor the troops that die for them and their right to play army instead of live it.

Hollywood is made mostly of fakery. In its essence, acting IS fakery. They "play" a part that isn't them and if they get approval/votes from the other fakers, they are honored and get more opportunities to fake again and again. In its essence thats what the Oscars really are.

 

[WATU2]

I almost missed reading this part of the thread. Thanks for posting, Huffy.

 

[old_goat_23]

Huffy, thanks for the clarification and further commentary. We will just have to disagree on both Kyle and the Kyle/Ventura situation. I have first person sources but (as you are well aware) the whole "eye witness" thing tends to be unreliable.

SEALs versus UDT swimmers. The UDT/SEAL Association considers anyone who was a UDT swimmer before the advent of NSW to be an "honorary" SEAL. They also consider other individuals (SWCCs, guys who deployed with SEAL Teams) to be qualified for membership. However, the UDT guys never earned a Trident so the distinction gets to be less of a "member measuring" contest and more one of definitions. UDT teams were abolished in the 1990s with all members either going to SDV units, BUD/S or back to the blue water navy. (You will see a similar situation with Army Rangers and Green Berets versus some of the groups like Raiders and Alamo Scouts in WW2 ..... a lot of the guys are considered to be honorary Green Berets.)

The difference in Ventura's case is that at the time he was in UDT the Navy was begging guys to go to BUD/S and go SEAL. He refused. He either did or did not deploy (Ventura claims that his records are either "screwed up" or "purged" depending on interview) with Team 1 in Vietnam and either did or did not see combat as a UDT swimmer. He does and has claimed to be a SEAL numerous times (in fact, he made that claim in the introduction to his two season TV show "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" each and every episode). Kyle may have been self aggrandizing but Ventura is, well, much worse.

Thanks!