Writer Compares Chris Kyle To Mass Murder

[Shadow Wolf]

That is strictly your and other like minded individuals opinion and nothing else.

What is an opinion of it? The US government has sent people to where it does not belong to kill people. This is a fact. The US government has toppled governments and installed puppet dictators. This is a fact. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter if the state sanctions it or not, killing is killing and war is state sanctioned murder, as non-combatants are killed more frequently than combatants. Again, this is not an opinion but fact.

 

[Ingledsva]

That is strictly your and other like minded individuals opinion and nothing else.

But it isn't just opinion.

Our Military has been brought up before US committees to answer to such charges. For instance, We know for a fact Bush put us in an illegal war - wrong group. We murdered lots of innocent civilians in that debacle. We know from our History, that we helped certain people to topple their legit government, putting them in as puppet dictators, and providing weapons so they could murder their own people, which they turned around and used on us.

Where is this idea that the US is perfect, coming from?

We murder and rape everywhere our troops are located, which is why Bush kept us out of the International G8 accord on sexual violence in conflict zones. It is also why the Japanese people protested, and asked that their government remove our troops and bases from their land.

*

 

[esmith]

What is an opinion of it? The US government has sent people to where it does not belong to kill people. This is a fact. The US government has toppled governments and installed puppet dictators. This is a fact. Killing is killing. It doesn't matter if the state sanctions it or not, killing is killing and war is state sanctioned murder, as non-combatants are killed more frequently than combatants. Again, this is not an opinion but fact.

Again you are taking the far left opinion view. You have no legal grounds to base your opinion on. You may not like what the US has done, but your opinion is only that an opinion. Yes non-combatants are killed when military action is taken The taking of a human lives are a result when opposing military forces are engaged. It is always hoped that non-combatants are not killed or injured, but that is not always possible. The only time in recent history when non-combatants were not killed or injured was during WWII in the Pacific theater. As long as man is alive there will be armed conflicts and there will be collateral casualties; either live with it or it will eventually consume you.

 

[esmith]

But it isn't just opinion.

Our Military has been brought up before US committees to answer to such charges. For instance, We know for a fact Bush put us in an illegal war - wrong group. We murdered lots of innocent civilians in that debacle. We know from our History, that we helped certain people to topple their legit government, putting them in as puppet dictators, and providing weapons so they could murder their own people, which they turned around and used on us.

Where is this idea that the US is perfect, coming from?

We murder and rape everywhere our troops are located, which is why Bush kept us out of the International G8 accord on sexual violence in conflict zones. It is also why the Japanese people protested, and asked that their government remove our troops and bases from their land.

*

You say that President Bush put the US in an illegal war. Just where are you getting your legal advice from, a Cracker Jack box? Congress authorized both Iraq conflicts. Read my above comment about non-combatant casualties and pay close attention to the last sentence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The only time in recent history when non-combatants were not killed or injured was during WWII in the Pacific theater.

Where did you get that from? The US government bombed Japanese cities, slaughtered civilians, and opened the gates of Hell in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The violence was so severe that the US government even killed POWs, many of which were American POWs. There were hospitals and schools that were leveled. When your own generals acknowledge that they would be the ones hanging had the Allies lost WWII, it says a lot in how violent, bloody, and criminal your actions were. Even back then US generals such as MacArthur and scientists such as Einstein, and many more, were decrying the use of the atomic bomb as a war crime, a crime against humanity.

 

[esmith]

Where did you get that from? The US government bombed Japanese cities, slaughtered civilians, and opened the gates of Hell in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The violence was so severe that the US government even killed POWs, many of which were American POWs. There were hospitals and schools that were leveled. When your own generals acknowledge that they would be the ones hanging had the Allies lost WWII, it says a lot in how violent, bloody, and criminal your actions were. Even back then US generals such as MacArthur and scientists such as Einstein, and many more, were decrying the use of the atomic bomb as a war crime, a crime against humanity.

The island campaigns, some but not all. Try Iwo Jima for one.
One point that you seem to disregard. How many allied and civilian casualties would there have been if the US was forced to invade the Home Islands of Japan

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The island campaigns, some but not all. Try Iwo Jima for one.
One point that you seem to disregard. How many allied and civilian casualties would there have been if the US was forced to invade the Home Islands of Japan

Probably not many since they were already defeated, already negotiating surrendering and peace, and many Japanese citizens had lost all faith in the idea of a divine and infallible emperor.

 

[Revoltingest]

Probably not many since they were already defeated, already negotiating surrendering and peace, and many Japanese citizens had lost all faith in the idea of a divine and infallible emperor.

All my friends who served in WW2 are dead now, so I can't confirm it, but they spoke of how the war was in full swing, & looked likely to continue for a long long time even after invasion of the home island. Once both bombs were dropped, that all changed. Those bombs likely resulted in a large net saving of lives, most importantly allied lives.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All my friends who served in WW2 are dead now, so I can't confirm it, but they spoke of how the war was in full swing, & looked likely to continue for a long long time even after invasion of the home island. Once both bombs were dropped, that all changed. Those bombs likely resulted in a large net saving of lives, most importantly allied lives.

Was Hiroshima Necessary?
Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

What was left of Japan's factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet.
American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:
Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

The Japanese were defeated, and they knew it, and the US government knew it. Yet the US government still dropped the Fat Man and Little Boy on them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Was Hiroshima Necessary?

I've read many analyses of the war & the bombs over the years. I've yet to see any cogent argument that they didn't end what would've otherwise been a long & deadly war. Was it "necessary"? No. We'd have eventually won. But was it worth it? Yes. Our lives were worth more than the enemy's, but we coincidentally saved many of theirs too.

Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.
What was left of Japan's factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet.
American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that kthe country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.
In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:
Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...
In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

A surrender which left militarized Japan intact, & capable of becoming a threat once again was unacceptable. And while their navy & air force were crushed, this ignores the cost of invasion. You don't believe this is rational, but perhaps this is because you're so horrified by nuclear warfare that you cannot apply cost v benefit analysis, eh?

So many bring up Einstein's opposition to the bomb, as though he's some inerrant prophet. Pish posh! He, safely ensconced in civilian life, had the luxury of being in no way affected by the duration of the fighting. The guys on the front lines had a more compelling perspective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've read many analyses of the war & the bombs over the years. I've yet to see any cogent argument that they didn't end what would've otherwise been a long & deadly war. Was it "necessary"? No. We'd have eventually won. But was it worth it? Yes. Our lives were worth more than the enemy's, but we coincidentally saved many of theirs too.

A surrender which left militarized Japan intact, & capable of becoming a threat once again was unacceptable. And while their navy & air force were crushed, this ignores the cost of invasion. You don't believe this is rational, but perhaps this is because you're so horrified by nuclear warfare that you cannot apply cost v benefit analysis, eh?

So many bring up Einstein's opposition to the bomb, as though he's some inerrant prophet. Pish posh! He, safely ensconced in civilian life, had the luxury of being in no way affected by the duration of the fighting. The guys on the front lines had a more compelling perspective.

I also mentioned General MacArthur, who was opposed to using it. Paul Nitze, Secretary of the Navy, deemed it unnecessary. General Marshall was also against its use. Fleet Admirals Leahy and Nimitz were opposed to it. General MacArthur and General Marshal were also opposed to it. Even Eisenhower felt very uneasy about using it, and wrote he felt it was unnecessary to save American lives. The numerous scientists opposed to its use were hardly the only ones opposing it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I also mentioned General MacArthur, who was opposed to using it. Paul Nitze, Secretary of the Navy, deemed it unnecessary. General Marshall was also against its use. Fleet Admirals Leahy and Nimitz were opposed to it. General MacArthur and General Marshal were also opposed to it. Even Eisenhower felt very uneasy about using it, and wrote he felt it was unnecessary to save American lives. The numerous scientists opposed to its use were hardly the only ones opposing it.

No doubt there were those who opposed the bombs or had doubts. But this is argument by voting. I go with the argument that we intended to invade if Japan didn't surrender, & that invasion would cause greater loss of US soldiers. It's a value judgement that our soldiers matter more than their people.
For ref:
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Arguments in Support
Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[columbus]

Getting back to the OP.

I've barely heard of Blumenthal or Kyle. I'm not big on celebrities. But if I understand the first link correctly, Kyle was in Iraq shooting Iraqis. Iraqis that posed no threat to the USA.

I am uninclined to call him a murderer. He took a job with the USA military and did it. That is very different from Lee. I blame the murders on the USA government who sent him there.

Tom

 

[esmith]

Getting back to the OP.

I've barely heard of Blumenthal or Kyle. I'm not big on celebrities. But if I understand the first link correctly, Kyle was in Iraq shooting Iraqis. Iraqis that posed no threat to the USA.

I am uninclined to call him a murderer. He took a job with the USA military and did it. That is very different from Lee. I blame the murders on the USA government who sent him there.

Tom

Well Chris Kyle was a Navy Seal that has been described as the US military's most lethal sniper. His job was to protect coalition forces in Iraq. Blumenthal is your typical left wing blogger that has a problem with differentiating between a service member that was accomplishing one of the skills sets that he was trained to do and delusional miscreants that basically kill for the shear enjoyment of killing. As far as your inane comment that members of the military are "murders"......well lets leave that unanswered.

 

[columbus]

As far as your inane comment that members of the military are "murders"......well lets leave that unanswered.

Since I didn't say that I am not surprised you prefer to leave that unanswered.

I specifically said the government. Not the folks doing their jobs as best they know how.

Tom

 

[dust1n]

I think the comparison is linked because both shooters were essentially shooting at the will of someone else, not just the fact both used rifles.

Anyways, I don't really have respect per se for either. Not sure what sort of useful comparison could be made between an essentially brainwashed 17 year old by an insane person and the military sniper who shot at the people who were in various ways fighting off a perceived occupation. Just two vastly different situations.

Anyways... I've gotten over random people saying random dumb things. I'm not sure why anyone is really being expected to defend the sentiment.

 

[columbus]

I think the comparison is linked because both shooters were essentially shooting at the will of someone else, not just the fact both used rifles.

I think that is the real point.

Kyle was doing the job he was trained for, he is not a murderer. The comparison between him and Lee is about their bosses.

Esmith doesn't want to talk about that apparently. He would rather put words in my mouth that anyone can see that I didn't say.

Tom


Eta. I can't say that I am impressed with this Blumenthal person's communication skills. What a dufous!

 

[esmith]

As far as your inane comment that members of the military are "murders"......well lets leave that unanswered.

Since I didn't say that I am not surprised you prefer to leave that unanswered.

I specifically said the government. Not the folks doing their jobs as best they know how.
Tom

Well let's take a look at what you said; breaking it down statement by statement

But if I understand the first link correctly, Kyle was in Iraq shooting Iraqis. Iraqis that posed no threat to the USA.
I am uninclined to call him a murderer. He took a job with the USA military and did it. That is very different from Lee. I blame the murders on the USA government who sent him there.
Tom

Your statement " I blame the murders on the USA government who sent him there" Your statement says that those killed by Chris were murders, do you not. By calling those deaths murders, you have to have someone who committed the murder. In a court of law a person who "hires" someone to kill someone is just as guilty as the person who actually kills someone and both parties are charged with some form of murder. Therefore by your own statement you have called Chris Kyle a murder. Now you may not have meant it that way but unfortunately your statement reads that way.

Now one other small point. You say "But if I understand the first link correctly, Kyle was in Iraq shooting Iraqis. Iraqis that posed no threat to the USA" Again you are playing fast and lose with your statement. Chris Kyle and those US military members were representing the United States and as far as I'm concerned anyone attempting to kill or bring harm against them they are bring a grave threat against the United States. Now again you may not have meant what I took your statement to mean but one must be careful in what they say or write to insure that there words are not taken outside the context that you meant. Which in this case they were.
Now your statement "Since I didn't say that I am not surprised you prefer to leave that unanswered. " The reason I didn't go further is that I have experienced basically the same attitude you and others have expressed that resulted in words and actions against me personally that has left me with a very short fuse in dealing with it and at that time I had to keep it in check. Which I still do.