Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Sniper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FTCS
    replied
    Have just finished reading the book. It appears that you have a problem with his comment about fun. To tell you the truth I did not see any reference to this, I am not disputing you; it is just that I obviously passed over it without paying any attention to it. Obviously it did not register with me as it obviously did with you. Does this mean I "have some growing up to do"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    I'd keep debating the point with you, but that's pointless. You have had the proof pointed out post after post, yet still refused to accept it.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    This is a military focused forum. Correct nomenclature always applies.
    This is a civilian, commercial forum for the discussion of military history. Proper ENGLISH ALWAYS APPLIES. So far you have failed to show any proof of what you assert. Try using your brain and come up with something that corroborates what you say. Please stop sidetracking this thread with a non existant argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    This is a military focused forum. Correct nomenclature always applies.

    The book and the tv show the other night about the author were both interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by FTCS View Post
    Maybe I am old school (US Navy 1961-1981), but from my experience you do not:
    1. Call a member of the Marine Corps in or out of uniform a solider unless you wanted to start a brawl
    2. Call a member of the Navy or Coast Guard a soldier unless you wanted to start a brawl

    Now I do not have anything against members of the Army and am not attempting to belittle their branch of the military. As far as I am concerned a soldier is a member of the Army.

    If civilians want to call members of the US Armed Forces "soldier" so be it I really don't care, I just consider the source
    Yes but in this case Kyle refers to himself as a soldier and as I pointed out the definition says he is right. Soldiers, sailors and marines have all kinds of talk among themselves I don't pretend to be a part of that and I never will. This is not a military forum so I will feel that civilian dictionaries apply here.

    None of this is what I would prefer this thread to be about so I would really rather discuss the book or Kyle.

    Leave a comment:


  • FTCS
    replied
    Maybe I am old school (US Navy 1961-1981), but from my experience you do not:
    1. Call a member of the Marine Corps in or out of uniform a solider unless you wanted to start a brawl
    2. Call a member of the Navy or Coast Guard a soldier unless you wanted to start a brawl

    Now I do not have anything against members of the Army and am not attempting to belittle their branch of the military. As far as I am concerned a soldier is a member of the Army.

    If civilians want to call members of the US Armed Forces "soldier" so be it I really don't care, I just consider the source

    Leave a comment:


  • Andy H
    replied
    From the BBC today;-

    A young cowboy from Texas who joined the elite US Navy Seals became the most deadly sniper in American history. In a book published this month he provides an unusual insight into the psychology of a soldier who waits, watches and kills.
    Full article here:-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16544490

    Abu El Banat

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    You don't read many military books do you? Also, you seem to not understand that capitalized words are used for emphasis. It doesn't matter that it's all caps, all lower case, or a mix. You still don't get that a sailor, though he may fight on land, is still a sailor, and no matter how much you wish otherwise, still isn't a soldier. What don't YOU understand about this?

    I understand completely. I understand that a soldier is someone who fights in the military, or more specifically with an army (wanted to make sure you weren't saying Army as in U.S. Army...since you fall into the habit of misprepresenting everything that has been exchanged here) and an army is an organized military force equipped for fighting on land. So, by definition Kyle is a soldier. Any SEAL, as they are a specialized type of fighter would be trained as a soldier and termed as such by anyone wishing to use english correctly. Additionally Kyle was fighting with Army and Marine units. I also understand that you have nothing to back up your claim of what a soldier is or is not. You have made no attempt to bring a dictionary citing to back up your claim. I understand that you have not because you know you will fail. I further understand that your military service makes you and expert on very little, certainly not the proper use of the english language. I understand that you think if you make the claim over and over again you will think you are right...this couldn't be further from the truth.

    I have in my house 50 to 60 books of military history or science. I've read most of them and many others through the years. I also own a dictionary and know how to use it. I'm also educated and far from stupid. How about you?

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    You already went there. Please explain how "This time I am going to politely ak if you were injured to the head at any time in your life?" is supposed to be taken?
    A number of times during this exchange you have asked me to offer proof of some kind that Kyle would kill people despite the fact that I had made no such claim. I thought your inability to understand this point (made more than once) might be due to some form of mental handicap, perhaps the result of injury. Is it?

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    That's what I'm trying to figure out, and you keep dancing around. You see, this is a direct statement and accusation."Men like this will come home and seek out the high of combat and killing in some form here stateside." I'm calling you out on this statement because it perpetuates stereotypes and you continue to fail to support this claim.

    Well this is the first time you've put it in a reasonably intelligent manner. Earlier you tried to get me to offer proof that he would kill people. You do see the difference, don't you. I don't know how experienced you are at discussion/debate on forums like this but it is a common tactic of some to get their adversary to prove an arguemnt/assertion he never owned. It is also common for some people to say "you said such and such" when their adversary never did. This is what you were doing.

    As for backing up the claim, I already have. Kyle immediately showed the signs of a physilogical problem immediately after leaving combat and was medicated for this. He admits to excessive alcohol abuse and during his years in the service (10) he was arrested more times than I have been in my entire life (0) for drunken brawls. Chemicals are relased in the body with certain activities and when we ingest certain substances. It is common for people to become addicted to a combat high just as they become addicted to heroin, sex, alcohol, gambling and certain foods. Taking one away is often made easier by introducing/increasing one of the others. Smokers that quit might gain weight, go to an AA meeting and watch the consumption of nicotine and caffeine. This should be obvious and one can find much written about it. Do I really need to bring in studies to talk about what happens to G.I.'s returning home and the effects of combat? Do you know nothing of PTSD? Be sure I hope Kyle is able to tone down his lifestyle; his business venture as a sniping instructor may be the outlet he needs to do just that. I really don't think I need to bring studies in to this discussion, anyone with a decent amount of intelligence, insight and experience understands what I am saying. Perhaps as a soldier and vet you are oversensitive to the opinion I am offering but I think as you grow older and mature a bit more you will not over react so much.

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    I'm guessing that you know missionary life as well as you know military life, which is to say not very well.
    Well, you have done nothing to show that my knowledge of military life is insufficient. You pretend to be an expert on word usuage simply because you are a soldier. What you guess is meaningless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    Editors and publishers employ fact checkers before endorsing a book. You, of course are not a fact checker either and have made no attempt to offer any proof of your assertion. Yes, I posted the definition, someone who serves in an army (not capitalized) and I went on to define an army by the same dictionary; "an organized military force equipped for fighting on land." What don't you understand about this? You are wrong. As for being a soldier I didn't know that this gave you training in word definitions and usage. Is your job in the army to write?
    You don't read many military books do you? Also, you seem to not understand that capitalized words are used for emphasis. It doesn't matter that it's all caps, all lower case, or a mix. You still don't get that a sailor, though he may fight on land, is still a sailor, and no matter how much you wish otherwise, still isn't a soldier. What don't YOU understand about this?


    Are you really going to go there? I am not going to get this childish; I will leave that to you. (You might check your own spelling before casting the first stone.)
    You already went there. Please explain how "This time I am going to politely ak if you were injured to the head at any time in your life?" is supposed to be taken?

    Once again I don't know what you are trying to say here. It is a struggle trying to understand you. I don't know why you are trying to argue this point unless you think you have to defend Kyle and other G.I.'s from attack. Do you see this as an attack...is that why you are trying to argue whatever it is you are trying to argue. From what I read I don't think you really know what you are trying to say so please work on it. If you continue along this babbling pointless path I will not waste my time responding.
    That's what I'm trying to figure out, and you keep dancing around. You see, this is a direct statement and accusation."Men like this will come home and seek out the high of combat and killing in some form here stateside." I'm calling you out on this statement because it perpetuates stereotypes and you continue to fail to support this claim.

    I mentioned organized religion because there are many cases where those involved in organized religions, missionaries for example, are sheltered and naive about the realities of the world.
    I'm guessing that you know missionary life as well as you know military life, which is to say not very well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maczek
    replied
    Sailor? Soldier? Killer fair enough?!

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    Yes. He is wrong, as are his Editors and publisher. They aren't fact checkers, I don't know why you expect them to be. I don't know why you are arguing with me as to what the definition of a soldier is. You posted it yourself. Someone who serves in an Army. An Army isn't a Navy. SEAL>Sailor>Navy(or Coast Guard now that I think about it). Seems pretty obvious to me, but then again, as an actual soldier, I guess I have a clue as to who would and who wouldn't be properly labeled a soldier.
    Editors and publishers employ fact checkers before endorsing a book. You, of course are not a fact checker either and have made no attempt to offer any proof of your assertion. Yes, I posted the definition, someone who serves in an army (not capitalized) and I went on to define an army by the same dictionary; "an organized military force equipped for fighting on land." What don't you understand about this? You are wrong. As for being a soldier I didn't know that this gave you training in word definitions and usage. Is your job in the army to write?



    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    Well, you see here in post #3 you are being very specific and definite as to what people like the author do. "Men like this will come home and seek out the high of combat and killing in some form here stateside."Clearly you have NOT said he will come home and kill civilians., But, you aren't saying possible something else. You aren't saying maybe something else. You aren't being vague or giving leeway. You are talking the high from combat (which can be duplicated) and from killing (which do you really think can be duplicated without taking lives?). And you finish that with a dark statement, "Think about what that means." See, I'm trying to figure out what that means, but you keep changing what it can possibly mean.
    This is a bit hard to understand. You say I am specific in what I think Kyle will do but I don't recall ever giving specifics about what I thought he would do. Please give me an example of what I specifically said he would do. You jumped to conclusions a number of times and I pointed out that I never said he would kill people (one example). Please, do tell me what you are trying to say here because it makes little sense.

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    (and a quibble, since you took a jab at me by insinuating I'm retarded or something. Spell check will make you look better. )
    Are you really going to go there? I am not going to get this childish; I will leave that to you. (You might check your own spelling before casting the first stone.)

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    I know I haven't seen and experienced it all. I haven't said otherwise. I'm curious why you remark about organized religion putting blinders on me. My posts haven't been the ones saying he will seek to replicate his physiological experiences, haven't reproved his prior alcohol use or hope he doesn't gamble or do illegal activities. It would seem that you perhaps aren't as open as your unorganized religious self would like to believe?
    Once again I don't know what you are trying to say here. It is a struggle trying to understand you. I don't know why you are trying to argue this point unless you think you have to defend Kyle and other G.I.'s from attack. Do you see this as an attack...is that why you are trying to argue whatever it is you are trying to argue. From what I read I don't think you really know what you are trying to say so please work on it. If you continue along this babbling pointless path I will not waste my time responding.

    I mentioned organized religion because there are many cases where those involved in organized religions, missionaries for example, are sheltered and naive about the realities of the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    The word "soldier" is often used as a generic term. I have also heard "Special Forces" used generically which it shouldn't in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    He's wrong? His editors are wrong? His publisher is wrong? His co-authors are wrong? But you are right? That's how it works? Really? How about Oxford dictionary? They say a soldier is "a person who serves in an army." (Some definitions say anyone who serves in the military.) So what is an army we need to ask. The same dictionary say an army is "an organized military force equipped for fighting on land." My guess here is that you have some problem admitting you are wrong no matter how much hard evidence is stacked in front of you. You go on pretending you are right.
    Yes. He is wrong, as are his Editors and publisher. They aren't fact checkers, I don't know why you expect them to be. I don't know why you are arguing with me as to what the definition of a soldier is. You posted it yourself. Someone who serves in an Army. An Army isn't a Navy. SEAL>Sailor>Navy(or Coast Guard now that I think about it). Seems pretty obvious to me, but then again, as an actual soldier, I guess I have a clue as to who would and who wouldn't be properly labeled a soldier.



    This time I am going to politely ak if you were injured to the head at any time in your life? I went out of my way to point out to you that I was not saying anything definite, that there were many ways he might seek to repeat the combat high in a healthy manner. Did you read that and choose to ignore it? Did you not understand it? I'm done copying and pasting my words to you...that seems to be ineffective. I know you can read, that is obvious. Is comprehension the issue? Fear?
    Well, you see here in post #3 you are being very specific and definite as to what people like the author do. "Men like this will come home and seek out the high of combat and killing in some form here stateside."Clearly you have NOT said he will come home and kill civilians., But, you aren't saying possible something else. You aren't saying maybe something else. You aren't being vague or giving leeway. You are talking the high from combat (which can be duplicated) and from killing (which do you really think can be duplicated without taking lives?). And you finish that with a dark statement, "Think about what that means." See, I'm trying to figure out what that means, but you keep changing what it can possibly mean.

    (and a quibble, since you took a jab at me by insinuating I'm retarded or something. Spell check will make you look better. )


    Maybe you will but if the way you read my posts is any indication you have a lot of work to do. I live with someone your age so I know it is easy to believe you are experienced and worldly but there are many things which put blinders on ones ability to accept what they see in life. Organized religion can do this, in some cases. (Should I emphasize that or would that be a waste of key strokes.)
    I know I haven't seen and experienced it all. I haven't said otherwise. I'm curious why you remark about organized religion putting blinders on me. My posts haven't been the ones saying he will seek to replicate his physiological experiences, haven't reproved his prior alcohol use or hope he doesn't gamble or do illegal activities. It would seem that you perhaps aren't as open as your unorganized religious self would like to believe?

    Leave a comment:


  • JBark
    replied
    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    Have you ever heard the quote that when you are right it doesn't matter if everyone else is saying you're wrong, but when you're wrong, it doesn't matter if everyone else is saying you're right. Guess what. He's wrong. But I'll just disagree with you.

    He's wrong? His editors are wrong? His publisher is wrong? His co-authors are wrong? But you are right? That's how it works? Really? How about Oxford dictionary? They say a soldier is "a person who serves in an army." (Some definitions say anyone who serves in the military.) So what is an army we need to ask. The same dictionary say an army is "an organized military force equipped for fighting on land." My guess here is that you have some problem admitting you are wrong no matter how much hard evidence is stacked in front of you. You go on pretending you are right.

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    Believe me, I understood your position very well. You are saying he and everyone else who has enjoyed killing is going to come home and be a danger to society. Again, I'm going to ask for a study that shows this will happen.
    This time I am going to politely ak if you were injured to the head at any time in your life? I went out of my way to point out to you that I was not saying anything definite, that there were many ways he might seek to repeat the combat high in a healthy manner. Did you read that and choose to ignore it? Did you not understand it? I'm done copying and pasting my words to you...that seems to be ineffective. I know you can read, that is obvious. Is comprehension the issue? Fear?

    Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
    I like to think that having lived in 6 countries over the past 37 years and having been both a soldier and a missionary, has given me an introduction to some of the various ways humans have sought adrenalin highs. I hope that I can continue to keep gaining wisdom and life experience to reach your level of understanding.
    Maybe you will but if the way you read my posts is any indication you have a lot of work to do. I live with someone your age so I know it is easy to believe you are experienced and worldly but there are many things which put blinders on ones ability to accept what they see in life. Organized religion can do this, in some cases. (Should I emphasize that or would that be a waste of key strokes.)

    I sat and thought for a couple of seconds about whether I should try one last time to explain what I was trying to express in the first post of this thread. I think it would be a waste of time since you have had no luck at comprehending me so far nor can you even admit when you are clearly wrong. Perhaps you will be able to some day...20 years maybe?

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    Originally posted by JBark View Post
    I'll tell you what rather than use a dictionary let's go to Chris Kyle himself. He writes: "But I also witnessed the evil my targets committed and wanted to commit, and by killing them, I protected the lives of many fellow soldiers." (p379) That do it for you or do you need more proof?
    Have you ever heard the quote that when you are right it doesn't matter if everyone else is saying you're wrong, but when you're wrong, it doesn't matter if everyone else is saying you're right. Guess what. He's wrong. But I'll just disagree with you.

    I'd say you are confused in a number of ways. I reposted the quote for you and you still don't understand it. "Men like this will come home and seek out the high of combat and killing in some form here stateside."
    Seek the high of combat and killing does not specifically say he will kill anything or anybody. That is why I say "in some form." You are obviously also confused if you think killing of animals is universally acceptable. If I walk outside and shoot my neighbors dog I hope someone will take notice of this as a strange act...and illegal...and report it to the authorities. The killing of game animals is acceptable depending on where you live and the time of year.
    Believe me, I understood your position very well. You are saying he and everyone else who has enjoyed killing is going to come home and be a danger to society. Again, I'm going to ask for a study that shows this will happen.

    Everything I have read in this book indicates to me that he will seek out repition of the physiological response his body has to being in combat. If he is lucky he will find a way to do this legally and without harm to himself or others. He might go rock climbing, bungee jumping or ride roller coasters. It is my hope that he does not use drugs excessively (he admits to high alcohol use during his enlistment)gamble excessively or do things which are illegal (he mentions a number of arrests during his enlistment for fighting.) Perhaps when you have more life experience you will understand what it is I am talking about.
    I like to think that having lived in 6 countries over the past 37 years and having been both a soldier and a missionary, has given me an introduction to some of the various ways humans have sought adrenalin highs. I hope that I can continue to keep gaining wisdom and life experience to reach your level of understanding.
    I also am expressing a sincere distaste for any soldier that says they have fun killing and love it. I don't often read memoir accounts by soldiers but this is the first time I have ever read of anyone saying that. I find it extremely upsetting. I would have found a different way of expressing this if I were Kyle.
    This isn't the first time I have read it in either an autobiography or a biography, so perhaps that is why it isn't as shocking to me.

    I have known people who hated taking life to those that were indifferent to enjoying their work because it meant more Americans came home.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X