American Sniper

I was at a salon recently having my hair trimmed when the stylist, in the midst of discussing how the cut would look, asked if I had seen the movie “American Sniper”. She was a white, middle-class, middle aged woman who didn’t appear to be the type who would like ‘war’ movies. Before I had a chance to answer, she said she had just seen it and thoroughly enjoyed it. The movie made her so proud to be an American, that the main character (Chris Kyle) was a real hero, and that we needed more like him. She added that she thought those who spoke out against the movie were un-American and were people who hated the U.S. in general and the American military in particular. I was waiting for her to call them communists or Muslim sympathizers, but she changed the subject when I responded that I hadn't seen it.

Nor do I intend to.

I had read Chris Kyle’s book and knew, based on what he said in his autobiography, that he was anything but heroic. He thought shooting people was fun and it was why he served four tours of duty in Iraq. The hair stylist talked about how brave Kyle was, how it showed what a family man he was because he missed his wife and children while serving overseas, and how the movie was an honest portrayal of a real American. Hogwash! That may have been in the movie, but that isn't what he wrote in his book.

Maybe he just ‘misremembered’ things, like NBC’s Brian Williams, but there were a lot of things Kyle lied about, not just in his book but also when he was interviewed on TV; his claim that he shot looters in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, his gunning down two men who attempted to car-jack him at a gas station outside Dallas, his made-up story about punching out former Governor Jesse Ventura in a San Diego bar, his phony dedication to his family as he related to why he wanted to go back to Iraq…(it wasn't because he wanted to serve his country. It was because killing savages was fun!) All were investigated, some even went to court, and found to be untrue. Based on what was in his book, I wondered what this woman found heroic about him. I didn't ask her though because it was clear any response that questioned the authenticity of the movie would upset her…and she had scissors in her hands.

But I was curious; would she consider the people who executed death row inmates heroic? They were killing people who seemingly deserved it, just like Kyle claimed he did, and they at least had the bravery to face those they killed. How about the Japanese soldiers who hid in caves or trees and shot American soldiers and marines wading ashore during the invasions of Japanese islands such as Okinawa or Iwo Jima, or Japanese-controlled islands like Peleliu or Tarawa, knowing they would be blasted out of their sniper’s hideout? What about the 19 men aboard the airliners hijacked on 9/11? Were their actions heroic, especially in light of the fact that they knew ahead of time they would die? What constitutes a hero? It certainly isn’t shooting people from a rooftop a half a mile away.

I went online and found several websites that reviewed movies. I chose eight of them that had watched American Sniper and had video reviews longer than five minutes. I also read six reviews of the movie. Those fourteen covered the spectrum; from a one star rating, or didn't like it, to five stars and loved it. Every one of them said the movie only follows the book in the broadest sense of the term; it leaves out key elements that were essential to the story line, and that the movie made Kyle look far more sympathetic and conflicted than he actually wrote in the book.

Warfare has been a lifelong interest of mine, because it is a human-caused disaster. Human beings make a choice to go to war and kill other human beings. Unlike a hurricane, earthquake or volcanic eruption, it’s something that could have been avoided. I study the reasons it was not, the methods used to kill the enemy, the campaigns, and the people who are drawn in and changed by it. Heroic things can happen in wartime, but killing people is not heroic. It is barbaric and, frankly, little more than government-sanctioned murder. One of my main areas of study is aerial combat and the pilots who served, especially in World War One. I am deeply interested in why they chose such an unusual, novel, and in many ways terrifying way to fight. But none of them are my heroes. Nothing they did was heroic. It was their job. The concept of the ace simply meant they were very, very good at their job of killing. Some men did show noble characteristics, such as French ace Georges Guynemer, who refused to shoot down German ace Ernst Udet when he saw his guns were jammed. Or Captain James McCudden of the RFC, who would not ambush an opponent. In hindsight, those traits were probably court-martialable because the point was to prevent the enemy from achieving any future success. But these men decided they would not let war turn them into cold-blooded killers just because it could.

Some of the savages Chris Kyle wanted to kill

Chris Kyle showed no such inclination. He reveled in killing, calling any Iraqi a ‘savage’, whether they were ones he was about to shoot or not. He relished the competition with other snipers and found it motivated him to kill even more. Not because the enemy was a threat, but because someone was getting close to his number of kills. It’s eerily similar to the two Japanese officers whose competition during the Rape of Nanking China in 1937-38 was covered by Japanese newspapers like it was a sports match. The two officers had a ‘friendly’ rivalry to be the first to behead 100 captured Chinese.

Is this the kind of soldier we are turning out anymore? This is the legacy that the hair stylist found so fantastically American and worthy of her adulation. But the ‘American Sniper’ is how we are now viewed around the world. Some may think that it’s good, for others to fear us because we might show up in their country and shoot their citizens from distant rooftops. I think what it is doing is making the old notion of the ‘ugly’ American even uglier, more dangerous, and an evil influence in the world. That’s not a nation or a legacy to be proud of.

Atheists 9/11 cross lawsuit dismissed

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Atheists that could have affected the 9/11 remembrance display. They had hoped to ban the steel beam cross taken from the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 13, 2001 from being put in the museum as part of the memorial to the 9/11 victims.

Christians assume it is a victory for their beliefs at the federal level, but it is not. The decision does not mean Christian symbols need to be afforded special consideration, that Christianity trumps all other religions, or that whatever Christians want should be deferred to. It’s because allowing the cross in the museum is a devastating indictment of their god. Without any evidence, Christians have decided that the cross was god’s way of showing how much he loves us even in moments of trial and tribulation, and they are desperate for acknowledgement of their religious beliefs. That is why they want the cross in the 9/11 memorial, not realizing that it shows that god, A) Didn’t know what was going to happen, B) Didn’t care what happened, or C) Doesn’t exist. (If they existed, what creator would be that ignorant, capricious or malevolent?) Some could argue that 9/11 shows the believers of Allah triumphed over the believers in Jehovah since it was Muslim extremists who successfully brought the Towers down. And what did Jehovah do? According to the Christians, he sought to console us with basically a scavenger hunt in the debris. So inclusion of the cross at the memorial symbolizes: ‘Nothing protected the people who died here. A vivid imagination doesn’t change what transpired. Only the gullible worshipers of a made up supreme being find this metal crossbar meaningful.’

As a side note, how hard is it to find crossed steel beams in high rise structures? If the building didn’t contain any crossed members and the fallen debris fused and formed a cross, that might be more interesting, but it wouldn’t prove anything. Christians so want god and Jesus to be real, anything, even a human-constructed cross beam, gives their beliefs validity.

Atheists pursued the lawsuit, correctly perceiving that Christians would assume god was giving them a sign that in the middle of tragedy, all would be okay, that death was not final, that the cross' presence in the ruins shows we’re a Christian nation, and that all need to come to Christ through the cross. See, if you're from outside of the Christian faith; you're out of luck...god only favors Christians.

If their god was real, Christians have to concede he watched over the destruction of the World Trade Centers, the strike on the Pentagon, and the deaths of around 3000 people, did nothing to prevent any of it, and then showed his love - after the fact - by arranging one of the thousands of steel crossbeams in the mountains of WTC rubble to be discovered looking vaguely like the cross Jesus was reputedly killed on. That way, all would be inspired by its presence and know god loves us. Does this strike anyone else as absolute madness?

And yet the atheists are the ones who are considered crazy and need to explain their irrational belief.