entertainment

Group says 'American Sniper' film spurs threats against Muslims

82 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

82 Comments
Login to comment

“Nice to see a movie where the Arabs are portrayed for who they really are - vermin scum intent on destroying us,” said one Twitter post collected by the ADC.

Anything to hide the real atrocities of the banksters.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

I think this group should worry more about IS giving them a bad name, not a Clint Eastwood flick that really just speaks to it's choir, older American males. American Sniper is hardly a worldwide movement.

15 ( +19 / -4 )

Mr Eastwood onve again making PR for the Tea Party. Gloryfying a mass murderer... Nice going USA.

-16 ( +6 / -22 )

Exactly Harvey, this group needs to look at its fellow members for the reasons why they are getting threatened and abused, but instead they choose to blame clint eastwood and others.

8 ( +11 / -4 )

StormR,

You're blaming the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee for the threats and abuse they're receiving?

By that rationale, MLK had it coming too, then?

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

He lived by the gun and he died by the gun.

Life is twisted. All those years in Iraq, shooting and killing, what he thought was the enemy turned on him. In the end, he was killed by a fellow American. His story is not the only one like that. Many have returned from Iraq only to be killed in the Good Ol U.S. of A.

That's the thanks most of them get.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The movie is a character piece, not a propaganda film. Unfortunately, many people want to use the film as a trampoline to talk about anti-Muslim rhetoric, the Iraq Conflict, or how much they hate George Bush.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

“Hate and bigotry have no place in the important dialogue that this picture has generated about the veteran experience.” - Jack Horner, a spokesman for Warner Brothers.

So Warner had this discussion: What about the impact of a "hero's tale" whose central character kills Muslims who are all evil, whose counter fictional villain is a homicidal Muslim who never existed and the central message is 'you're either with killing or you're a pussy."?

And after consulting with their lawyers, speaking with Mr. Eastwood before production, and considering the impact of 'Sniper' on audiences and the relationship with the faithful of Islam, Warner green lighted production and now rakes in multi-millions. Talk about blood money.

Warner Brothers' answer is: "The “dialogue” about 'Sniper' shouldn't include hate or bigotry and is very naughty and if it does because, you know, like, we're not the crazy kids who see the picture and want to, like, you know, kill people because of their, like, you know, religion and stuff."

Note to Warner Brothers: You're right! No one could have seen this reaction as a possibility. So, like, you know, mistakes were made but it's not like, you know, anything Warner could imagine.

Hey! It's just like, you know, the Bush/Cheney production of 'BushWars'. Just keep repeating: "It's Only A Movie, It's Only A Movie, It's Only A Movie"

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Perhaps this group could show some solidarity with the Goto family and speak out against Islamist extremists. This group is a well known supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. It is a spin off of CAIR which also has been in trouble lately with their unsavory connections.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Right...as always Muslims try to portray themselves as the victim. Smh.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The danger THEY are facing,..gotta love it. Smh.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

There can't be too many more erotic words in the English language than 'American Sniper' for certain Americans. Eastwood knew he was onto a winner with the title alone. That said, older, more revered and 'inspired' sources of division and discrimination are books that can be found in many homes and in places of worship. No Clint Eastwood flick could come close.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Look you guys, how can Muslims go out and massacre non Muslims, enslave them, rape them, make them submit, and not look bad to the world, unless they can claim victim status to fool the world until they can dominate it.....in reality they feel perfectly justified to do such things by their god and prophet, as he did such things too. So, how could it be wrong, really, in their eyes?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I like the fact that this film is annoying all the lefty advocates of some sort of happy-clappy multiculturalism. I have the greatest respect for Chris Kyle.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Why don't the islamimic leaders denounce the Taliban, boko haram, Al-Qaida, ISIS and others. That's a much better start than to attack a Hollywood movie.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

volland

Mr Eastwood onve again making PR for the Tea Party. Gloryfying a mass murderer...

More like the ADC playing defense for Islamic extremism by smearing Chris Kyle's service.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It's almost laughable that propaganda to get people to join the military, or at least hate a particular enemy, is being lauded as Oscar worthy. Just like Dark Zero Thirty... Just like the Hurt Locker...

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

@JWithers!

Exactly! Exactly! Exactly! You nailed it.

That's what people keep missing about this film, many of whom who have not seen it. He goes to the Middle East, shoots his enemy from many yards away, believing he is protecting his people and saving his country from this nameless violent enemy with no morals and uses senseless violence.

When in fact, the land he is protecting and those he knows well is what kills him because he couldn't see the real danger right in front of him, a danger he didn't need a rifle scope to see. His own fellow soldiers and his own country also is filled with senseless violence and violent people with no morals.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

America is not run by the Taliban, maybe close call would be the so called Tea Party but, if Muslims in the USA feel scared or threatened by this movie, the propaganda spewing out of FOX NEWS etc...we should all be worried, not only Muslims in the USA.

-6 ( +1 / -8 )

"he was killed by a fellow American" - JWithers - 09:20

Fact check: "Kyle was killed by a disgruntled U.S. veteran at a Texas gun range in 2013." - article

This is probably the most complicated and richly strange part of Mr. Eastwood's tale. How can "fellow American" be substituted for "disgruntled U.S. veteran". This Ouroboros of American Democracy, Military and Political experience cannot have a better disquieting. Mr. Eastwood may well ask for another bit at the apple.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

SERIOUSLY.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How ironic that under the heading MOST POPULAR this story about Muslims complaining about "violent threats" due ot a Hollywood movie comes in at number 3 while number 2 is a story of a hostage being killed in the name of Islam and number 1 is about the efforts of Japan to have another hostage released before he is also butchered.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

MarkG

Why don't the islamimic leaders denounce the Taliban, boko haram, Al-Qaida, ISIS and others. That's a much better start than to attack a Hollywood movie.

Because ADC are not Muslim leaders. This is an Arab-American civil rights organization. As such, they are concerned that ethnic Arabs end up being categorically equated with radical Islamists. Or, in your case, implying guilt by association.

Besides, the Taliban and Boko Haram are not Arabs. Darrell Issa and Paula Abdul are.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@Plasticmonkey, very well said! Cheers!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why don't the islamimic leaders denounce the Taliban, boko haram, Al-Qaida, ISIS and others. That's a much better start than to attack a Hollywood movie.

Excellent point. Because we know, these leaders are afraid of reprisals. They haven't done enough so far and you can expect that they probably won't do more.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

An Arab-American civil rights organization has asked “American Sniper” director Clint Eastwood and actor Bradley Cooper to denounce hateful language directed at U.S. Arabs and Muslims after the release of the film about a Navy marksman.

Uh, don't take the bait on this one folks. Once again they're trying to distract and blur the lines between Arabic ethnicity and Islamic religion. There is such a thing as Arab Christians/Athiests/Agnostics etc. Arabs shouldn't have to worry about their ethnicity. Nobody can tell if a person is Muslim by just looking at them (unless of course they're in religious dictated garb).

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I did not see the movie nor checked who are the ADC. Sorry for my lack of culture (interest?) on this.

But comments here are very funny, as if all muslims in the world have a secret agreement between them lol. As if all those who do not say that they do not agree with IS are agreeing with them? Simply said any member of a religious group is responsible of what did any other member of the group? Please think before making such dumb comments...

But still, some people will not understand that statement... So just note that Arabia, Jordania, Emirates, Iran, Irak and Syria are also fighting against IS and extremists... And I do not think that these are western countries. The first victims of IS and extremists are the ones living there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Never wanted to see the movie till now.....now I gotta!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

IMO, it is difficult to make a war movie that is worth watching. Sounds like this current one tries to be an emotional John Wayne "rah rah for the good guys!" kind of movie, filled with mindless propaganda. Unfortunate, and does nothing to further our understanding of what happened with the lengthy Iraqi occupation.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"The film is a box office hit and has been nominated for six Academy Awards, including best picture."

This must really grind the teeth of this film's detractors.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"The film is a box office hit and has been nominated for six Academy Awards, including best picture." - This must really grind the teeth of this film's detractors." - comments

Warner's spokesman: "Hate and bigotry have no place in the important dialogue that this picture has generated".

The follow on is: The important dialogue is the message, or is it? Therein lies the anger part. Reactionary "tooth grinding" isn't really part of Mr. Eastwood's agenda, or was it?

If 'Sniper' makes BushWars worthy of important dialogue then Mr. Eastwood has done more than make a hero's tale. Mr. Eastwood, perhaps, has created a dialogue Bush/Cheney didn't want to undermine their campaign of plunder. That dialogue that can't be silenced no matter what Hollywood does. So maybe the "detractors" should thank Mr. Eastwood.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Meh. I can only control how I think - not how anyone else thinks. I can separate the difference between Muslims and murderers. The majority of the Muslim community is the former and a smaller subset of the Muslim community is, unfortunately, the latter. You will not find me condemning an entire religious group because of the extremists within the group. This movie (which I haven't felt the urge to go see) nor any other form of media is going to get me to believe that the Muslim population as a whole is bent on murdering anyone who doesn't believe like they do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This movie (which I haven't felt the urge to go see) nor any other form of media is going to get me to believe that the Muslim population as a whole is bent on murdering anyone who doesn't believe like they do.

Well apparently the far Left would like you to believe that their political adversaries (conservatives) think all Muslims are murderous thugs. However, no one else does - that includes conservatives.

By the way, the movie was great!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I saw the movie for educational purposes.

Utter brainwashing. Chris Kyle, in real life wasjust another misinformed America soldier, going 4 times to war and you still havent figure out your master is the enemy? But I guess there are a lot of people thinking 911 was not a false flag

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"I saw the movie for educational purposes." - comments

Love to read what the viewer learned, details? Please.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Utter brainwashing.

That's upper opinion.

Chris Kyle, in real life wasjust another misinformed America soldier, going 4 times to war and you still havent figure out your master is the enemy?

Master. Why is it that the far left always, always have to say far out there, outrageous accusations without ANY proof or merit.

But I guess there are a lot of people thinking 911 was not a false flag

Yeah, we just don't know who did it. Hey.....it was probably Israel or the US attacked itself, am I right so far?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I saw the movie for educational purposes.

And obviously did not learn anything.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If ever the direction of a film and the shape of a particular narrative of US history, as written by, say, the fiction set on Fox News, could come together, then American Sniper is it.

Eastwood’s choice of conflict is excruciatingly cruel, an example of naked force exercised on false pretences. It was a war that commenced with a deception, marshalled against the dictates of international law.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) said in a letter to Eastwood and Cooper that its members had become targets of “violent threats” since early last week, before “American Sniper” went into general release."

How many non-muslims have become the vivictims of ACTUAL VIOLENCE by ACTUAL MUSLIMS? Hmm. Bombings, terrorist attacks, more bombings, countless terrorist attacks, more bombings...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How many non-muslims have become the vivictims of ACTUAL VIOLENCE by ACTUAL MUSLIMS? Hmm. Bombings, terrorist attacks, more bombings, countless terrorist attacks, more bombings...

so you feel that it's appropriate that these Muslims who have done nothing wrong are deserving of death threats simply because they share a religion with some terrorists?

If gay people started making death threats against random Christians due to anger against the Westboro Baptist church, would you feel those random Christians were deserving of said death threats due to sharing a religion with the WBC?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well John Galt, why don't you do the research? It is simple. If I write down the numbers, you will not believe them.

Check out how many people in the middle-east died because of the US politics, and how many by the other muslims.

As people like you have the tendency to not even want to actually understand what others write: NO, I do not approve of those either. But it is their country! (And their oil !)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Eastwood’s choice of conflict is excruciatingly cruel, an example of naked force exercised on false pretences. It was a war that commenced with a deception, marshaled against the dictates of international law." - comments

This seems the central issue for many. The Iraq War cannot be neatly separated from the context of the occupation.

Of course, 'Sniper' is a fictionalization, or as they say, "based on a true story". But Iraq cannot be boiled down into the simple cliché distinctions of liberals, conservatives, veterans or civilians. Certainly 'Sniper' isn't of much value if that is all there is to discover and all that some take away from the theater.

The idea that Mr. Eastwood's subject can't be appreciated unless one puts all that they know of BushWars aside is as unrealistic as the assumption that America is "safer" or was ever under any attack from Iraq.

Veterans should be the most concerned because the reality of Bush/Cheney's deception is the most disturbing of betrayals. The White House sent volunteers to war (along with a phalanx of mercenaries and profiteers a much higher reward) and there is nothing but betrayal in that. As painful as this truth is, perpetuating deceptions in 'Sniper' should concern veterans even more.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If gay people started making death threats against random Christians due to anger against the Westboro Baptist church, would you feel those random Christians were deserving of said death threats due to sharing a religion with the WBC?

Who is doing all of the killing? It's all Muslims, radicals, but what religion are these people? Muslims. We are not talking about the non-violent Muslims, just the radicals and these are the people that have been causing havoc to the entire world and in EVERY continent. You don't see any on there religion doing that. Also, the Westboro Church do not and have not killed anyone, they are just obnoxious loudmouth idiots.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But you didn't answer the question, did you.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Stranger

If gay people started making death threats against random Christians due to anger against the Westboro Baptist church, would you feel those random Christians were deserving of said death threats due to sharing a religion with the WBC?

A fair reading of John Galt's statement does not even attempt to imply that he is endorsing violence against anyone. I do not mean say that I know what he is thinking but from hist statement he is simply observing the ludicrous sensitivity of a group that seems more concerned with idle threats against them as opposed to the actual violence carried out by the terrorists that share their religious affiliation.

Let's put things in perspective here. While it is certainly wrong for an innocent Muslim person or someone who may appear to be Muslim to be threatened with violence, these threats are nothing compared to the actual violence that is happening at the hands of religiously inspired Islamic extremists. Any mild threats that may be inspired by the movie pales in comparison to the importance of the story being told in the film. And if you are unwilling to admit that violence is inspired by Islam, then the ADC can hardly make the case that these non-violent threats are inspired by Eastwood's movie.

Also, if the PC crowd is intent upon requiring that everyone discussing Islamist killings be required to add the caveat that "not all Muslims are violent jihadi's ", perhaps the ADC should be required to first state that they "do not condone violence in the name of Islam" before criticizing those making idle (non-violent) threats against them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

While it is certainly wrong for an innocent Muslim person or someone who may appear to be Muslim to be threatened with violence

Ok, I'm good with you up to here, but I sense a 'but' coming...

these threats are nothing compared to the actual violence that is happening at the hands of religiously inspired Islamic extremists.

And there it is.

The fact is that innocent people who have done nothing wrong shouldn't be receiving threats, and the fact that they are is not 'nothing'. They are simply living their lives, many of them in the only country they've ever known, and they are getting threats. You may think it's nothing in comparison to other things going on, but to them I'd imagine it's a pretty big something. Always wondering when you leave the house if someone is going to hurt you, living in fear.

if the PC crowd is intent upon requiring that everyone discussing Islamist killings be required to add the caveat that "not all Muslims are violent jihadi's ", perhaps the ADC should be required to first state that they "do not condone violence in the name of Islam" before criticizing those making idle (non-violent) threats against them.

Why should they have to? I don't feel the need to put out a condemnation every time a white person does something despicable, or every time a Christian does something despicable (I was baptized Catholic).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The fact is that innocent people who have done nothing wrong shouldn't be receiving threats, and the fact that they are is not 'nothing'.

I have Muslim co-workers and I definitely do not believe they should not be subject to threats for something they have nothing to do with. Yes, it would cause them fear. But that wasn't John Galt's point. The distinction between non-violent threats in comparison to actual physical violence is substantial. There is a big difference between the threat and the fear that may come with it and the actual violence and the resulting trauma. I would also point out that there are very few discreet threats that are carried out against Muslims (at least by non-Muslims). Whereas we see Islamic extremists making good on their threats against the West on a frequent basis.

I do not see how you can make an equivalency between actual violence and threatened violence. Remember, no one is saying that it's okay to threaten anyone due to some sort of guilt by association (something the Left does to conservatives all the time by the way...). The ADC would like to lessen the seriousness of actual terrorism by drawing an equivalency to threatened acts of violence that are rarely if ever carried out.

Why should they have to? I don't feel the need to put out a condemnation every time a white person does something despicable, or every time a Christian does something despicable (I was baptized Catholic).

I was baptized Catholic also - but alas now I am not religious at all.

Quite naturally I do not feel you "have to" condemn something associated with any particular group that you share a common characteristic with. However, if one were to feel that we must make it explicit when condemning terrorism that we must also defend innocent Muslims from guilt by association then we should also be able to ask something similar of the ADC. This organization is going after people (Eastwood, Cooper) associated with a movie seen as condemning Islamic extremists (the same religion shared by most if not all members of the ADC). This is just guilt by association - the exact same thing they accuse others of.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"The letter said Eastwood and Cooper, the film’s producer and star, could bolster the ADC’s message of tolerance." - article

How unreasonable! Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Cooper should never ask their audience for tolerance or compassion for those they may not understand, that would undo the entire premise of 'Sniper'; "They're bad, I protect you, You're too stupid to know the difference." Talk about knocking the wind out of a blockbuster's sails. Obviously ADC has no idea how to make a buck in 'Tinsel Town'.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But you didn't answer the question, did you.

It doesn't matter what religion, Christian, Muslim. You do the crime, you do the time, if you do something whether it's in e name of religion, whatever that religion is and the sentence carries a death penalty sentence, then it should be followed out and you would be deserving of that fate, if it were handed down by a court.

@kcjapan

Coming from Los Angeles and having worked in Hollywood myself. They very well know how to make $$$$ even if you find it reprehensible. And the more the left hate it, Tinsel town will make more.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It doesn't matter what religion, Christian, Muslim. You do the crime, you do the time, if you do something whether it's in e name of religion, whatever that religion is and the sentence carries a death penalty sentence, then it should be followed out and you would be deserving of that fate, if it were handed down by a court.

I don't know what question you think you were answering, but it wasn't the one I asked:

If gay people started making death threats against random Christians due to anger against the Westboro Baptist church, would you feel those random Christians were deserving of said death threats due to sharing a religion with the WBC?

So what's your answer to that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know what question you think you were answering, but it wasn't the one I asked:

No, it's not the one you want to hear.

But as I said, we aren't talking about other religions, it's totally irrelevant. We are talking about Islam and radical Islam is the problem and how do we in the rational world deal with this growing threat.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Question avoided again.

One can only conclude it's because the answer would disprove your entire argument.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No, it proves that you don't have an argument at all, because you want to place blame on the everything else instead of where it truly belongs. And until the world and his majesty can get some balls and call it for what it really is: radical Islam, we can never start defeating these guys.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No, it proves that you don't have an argument at all, because you want to place blame on the everything else instead of where it truly belongs.

Not at all, I'll put the blame directly on where it belongs, at the foot of the terrorists who perpetuate these atrocities. And I agree, it is radical Islam, and it needs to be eradicated.

Now do you care to answer the question:

If gay people started making death threats against random Christians due to anger against the Westboro Baptist church, would you feel those random Christians were deserving of said death threats due to sharing a religion with the WBC?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, but that's beside the point

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No, that is the point. Let's review the commentary so far:

If gay people started making death threats against random Christians due to anger against the Westboro Baptist church, would you feel those random Christians were deserving of said death threats due to sharing a religion with the WBC?

Who is doing all of the killing? It's all Muslims, radicals, but what religion are these people? Muslims.

When the innocent Muslims who have done nothing wrong complain about threats they are receiving due to their being Muslim, the justification is that "Muslims radicals are doing all the killing, and they are Muslims", but if Christians were to complain about threats due to their being Christian, it's wrong.

It's a double standard, and prejudiced.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but if Christians were to complain about threats due to their being Christian, it's wrong. It's a double standard, and prejudiced.

But that's the thing "IF" there is NO if and we are not talking about Christians. Trying to equate the 2 is a complete nonsense. No one would buy that, maybe if you had a large segment population of Christians being victimized, you might have a more valid point. Also, society can't help itself NOT to be prejudiced towards Muslims or should I say, Islam religion. And where are the moderates? Why are they not coming forward denouncing the atrocites that the radicals have been carrying out on many innocent people. They are almost completely silent on this issue and that's very disturbing and because of all this and what's been happening all over the world, people are indeed more prejudiced towards the religion, it can't be helped.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Trying to equate the 2 is a complete nonsense.

No it's not. In both cases we are talking about persecuting the majority due to the actions of a small minority. It's an apples to apples comparison, with the only difference being the type of apples.

where are the moderates? Why are they not coming forward denouncing the atrocites that the radicals have been carrying out on many innocent people.

Too much faux-news for you. The moderates do denounce every atrocity after it happens. They just ignore that reporting on faux-news.

They are almost completely silent on this issue

No, faux-news is silent on reporting the denunciations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those Muslim s are out there and on the news but the radicals make for better copy/sales.

In the end image sells and Muslims apologising sells not well SD it don't the established stereotype/enemy picture.

Europe 192x-193x all over again and was repeated later on and still continues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No it's not. In both cases we are talking about persecuting the majority due to the actions of a small minority. It's an apples to apples comparison, with the only difference being the type of apples.

No one is doing that. The majority of people know who is exactly doing the killing and it isn't the moderates. And that small minority is actually turning the entire world and causing a lot of chaos. That minority in Yemen, most of Europe and throughout the ME is the center core of the problem. Tell what you said to the thousands of people that were touched by the brutality of these minorities.

Too much faux-news for you. The moderates do denounce every atrocity after it happens. They just ignore that reporting on faux-news.

Oh, NO you don't, I live not far from one of the largest Mosques in the West coast CA. and I very seldom hear anything. This has nothing to do with FOX and EVERYTHING to do with the general Muslim population is not vocal enough. Why is it, you liberals always have a thing with FOX? ROFL When you give that much recognition to a news network for or against, shows the power and relevancy it has.

No, faux-news is silent on reporting the denunciations.

No, they have more than enough reporters to cover all the news and affiliates. There hasn't been enough major in your face mainstream vocal opposition to the violence. Just small voices so far.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"Coming from Los Angeles and having worked in Hollywood myself. They very well know how to make $$$$ even if you find it reprehensible." - comments

Isn't that the GOP-Tea's job, finding Hollywood reprehensible?

Mr. Eastwood isn't reprehensible nor is 'Sniper'. Only those whose response to 'Sniper' has included Tweeting they wish to kill Muslims or those who see 'Sniper' and think that's all there is to tell about Iraq are reprehensible.

If 'Sniper' helps channel the inner bigot there is something wrong with it, but in that failing the film achieves more. It portrays the character of an individual who can no longer see anything but his obsession with killing.

From 'Sniper'

Navy Doctor: Do you ever think that... you might have seen things or... done some things over there that you wish you hadn't?

Chris Kyle: Oh, that's not me. No.

If the criticism of 'Sniper' has a central theme it is this, the unquestioning robot killer isn't admirable, it is completely reprehensible. And that's Mr. Eastwood's gift to the dialogue about Iraq. Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper' makes blind hate ok as long as George W. Bush says so and Dick Cheney's Halliburton can make a buck off it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Isn't that the GOP-Tea's job, finding Hollywood reprehensible?

Every now and then you have someone with some bit of sense to do something decent instead of towing the political line.

Mr. Eastwood isn't reprehensible nor is 'Sniper'. Only those whose response to 'Sniper' has included Tweeting they wish to kill Muslims or those who see 'Sniper' and think that's all there is to tell about Iraq are reprehensible.

Even before the movie you had people wanting to kill radicals. This is exactly how things get totally misconstrue . People like you think that if someone hates on radical Islamists, then that means, they hate all Muslims and think all Muslims are a collective entity. No one thinks that, except your ignorant uneducated jerk.

If 'Sniper' helps channel the inner bigot there is something wrong with it, but in that failing the film achieves more. It portrays the character of an individual who can no longer see anything but his obsession with killing.

With killing the Jihadists, so that he can ensure that all of his brethren can come home safely, I applaud that and at least he was focused on the mission. And for you to say, such a thing is totally irresponsible of you. You don't have ANY proof that Kyle thought that and was obsessed with killing. As I said, I do believe he was obsessed with making sure his comrades came home, all of them. I definitely believe that!

Do you ever think that... you might have seen things or... done some things over there that you wish you hadn't?

Sure do. But I will not speak for Kyle or for any other service men. We weren't there, we don't have the insights.

And dude, Stop with the Bush-syndrome, no one listens to that anymore. The WH tried it for so many years and no one could care less. And as Obama says, Let's turn the page and move forward. Remember, be consistent. If you want to blame Bush and Cheney. Don't forget to blame Obama as well for NOT helping to crush the terrorists and worse, defining what it is.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"And dude, Stop with the Bush-syndrome, no one listens to that anymore." - comments

The greatest goal of 'Sniper' lies in the comment above. The greatest hope some have cultivated is the hope no one will ever mention again the cancer of Bush and Cheney. Some will never forget how the lies of Bush/Cheney took their sons and daughters, wives and fathers.

Chiefly, among the lobotomized fans of 'Sniper', is the fear that any mention of George W. Bush and the string of lies he told to make Iraq a profit center for his friends will reveal the despicable character of greed woven into the fabric of BushWars.

In fact, 'Sniper' never mentions the actual reasons for the Iraq war. That, for the lobotomized fan, is why 'Sniper' is so satisfying. The story is told without any reality except a lust for killing. And that is what that fan likes best, lusty self righteous killing and 'Sniper' has that in spades. Better yet, remorseless killing and killing for lies George W. Bush told the American People. Some heroes these lobotomized fans have.

This is also why 'Sniper' achieves little more than propaganda. In the ongoing campaign that no one speak of very real lies of Bush/Cheney Mr. Eastwood lets his audience never have to face the truth.

Some fans even go as far as to lecture, in their small minded way, to try and silence the chief failing of 'Sniper', its complete lack of reality in the context of a war based on lies. No wonder so many fans of 'Sniper' cannot stand to hear the truth, they are fundamentally unable to know what the truth is and 'Sniper' makes that more possible for each of them.

The Islamist Gangsters have the same policy about silencing ideas they cannot accept. It seems comically deranged that anyone can prefer the sanitized ignorance of Iraq presented in 'Sniper' and it hardly makes them capable of lecturing anyone on much let alone truth. Still, none of this would be possible without Mr. Eastwood's film and he should be thanked for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The greatest goal of 'Sniper' lies in the comment above. The greatest hope some have cultivated is the hope no one will ever mention again the cancer of Bush and Cheney. Some will never forget how the lies of Bush/Cheney took their sons and daughters, wives and fathers.

But NOT once did you mention Obama's lies and there is a litany of them to go around. Let's start with Afghanistan.

Chiefly, among the lobotomized fans of 'Sniper', is the fear that any mention of George W. Bush and the string of lies he told to make Iraq a profit center for his friends will reveal the despicable character of greed woven into the fabric of BushWars.

That song is overplayed, but what about the lies of Obama, do you want to address them?

The Islamist Gangsters have the same policy about silencing ideas they cannot accept. It seems comically deranged that anyone can prefer the sanitized ignorance of Iraq presented in 'Sniper' and it hardly makes them capable of lecturing anyone on much let alone truth. Still, none of this would be possible without Mr. Eastwood's film and he should be thanked for it.

So instead of being partisan and rambling about Bush did this, Bush did that, we can't go back in a time machine and thankfully, finally, most libs are realizing that the Bush-syndrome and beating that drum is so beyond passé. The man will never be arrested nor should he be and the world and libs need to get on and find something else to beat up and stop whining about things that are totally irrelevant.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper' can be stripped of context and the result is a character study of a sociopath. Some are so convinced Bush had nothing to do with Iraq that any reference to his creation of the invasion is misplaced. 'Sniper' is about character. The reader may find some insight to that character from other sources closer to the subject.

Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, . . . a former Navy SEAL, won $1.8 million in a defamation lawsuit last year against the estate of the late Chris Kyle, the SEAL protagonist of the movie, which has sparked debate over whether snipers should be considered heroes. Ventura said Wednesday he won’t see the film partly because Kyle is no hero to him.

“A hero must be honorable, must have honor. And you can’t have honor if you’re a liar. There is no honor in lying,” - Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura

reference: http://www.mintpressnews.com/former-governor-navy-seal-jesse-ventura-wont-see-american-sniper-says-kyle-no-hero/201672/

Perhaps Mr. Ventura would include the liar George W. Bush, another example of a man with no honor. But, as vigorously noted, 'Sniper' isn't about any truth, it's about making a hero's tale from the trash heap of Bush's Iraq. Some can't forget the truth so easily, and many who lost friends and relatives find the perpetuation of 'Sniper's' lies an exercise in cheap propaganda.

Others are finding 'Sniper' a perfect chance to reignite ignorant hatred, Maybe that is why 'Sniper' is such a great film, the facts are irrelevant to the story it tells, just like the stories Bush told about Iraq, they were made for each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Michelle likes it!

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/michelle-obama-praises-american-sniper-article-1.2098028

... “While I know there have been critics, I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I’ve heard firsthand from military families over these past few years.” ...

... “The vast majority of Americans will never see these stories,” she said.

“For all those folks in America who don’t have these kinds of opportunities, films and TV are often the best way we have to share those stories,” she added.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In contrast:

"Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura also dismissed the movie as propaganda because it conveys the false idea that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. “It’s as authentic as ‘Dirty Harry,'” he said, referring to fictional movie series starring Clint Eastwood, the director of “American Sniper.” (see reference above)

Certainly no harm is done with the exchange of ideas on the value and content of a motion picture. Mr. Ventura, a former Navy SEAL, has at leaste as much credibility in his review as anyone. Maybe more.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@kcjapan

You really don't care to hear opposing views. Question: do you just want to repeat your anger or frustration with Eastwood and the previous admin. Although knowing it's an absolute waste of time and everyone, literally EVERYONE has moved on. Beating up that dead horse will not make it drink.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

everyone, literally EVERYONE has moved on

Yeah, literally EVERYONE who isn't an American republican has MOVED ON. EVERYONE!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So why then why do the libs still talk about Bush? The man is retired, not running for anything or are they hoping that some kangaroo court will put them on trail for BS? But I gusse the libs need something to keep them going.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Maybe because:

1) He was the worst president ever (not rhetoric, he literally was the worst president ever)

2) Because he started a war based on a lie, that has destroyed the region, and it's still a mess

3) Because no one has had to pay for that lie, even though they should

4) Because republicans keep banging on about how one of the best presidents in history is so bad, and obviously need a reminder about just how bad a president can be

Yeah, literally EVERYONE who isn't an American republican has MOVED ON. EVERYONE!!!

This probably would have been funnier had I written it correctly:

Yeah, literally EVERYONE who is an American republican has MOVED ON. EVERYONE!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Both sides of this issues have their pros and cons talking point. Once again turbotsat you seems to get hard on mentioning the Obamas. Sorry dude the story isn't about them. Strangerland some of your points maybe valid however I would never label former President Bush as the worst, just those around him such as the vice president. Yes there were many times that we asked ourselves why we were there. It really did not come into view until we could see all the private firms with ties to the former vice president. Firms that wired building that if you were one of the unlucky ones, you got fried taking a shower. Firms that provided the cafeterias that charged you per plate even the ones you used to cover your food 30 dollars each. Serving food only at a certain that even the enemy knew when to bomb you. As for a disgruntled America, no he was another victim of PSTD. Lies from your government, a merciless vicious enemy that is everything you told yourself not to believe and REGULAR MUSLIMS are different. Until you see those normal muslims soak a young woman in front of your compound with gas. You have the person to light in your hair sights but is told to stand down and just watch her burn. With some of you keep speaking your opinions but stop with your own facts.Those true soliders that fight wars do not glorify them.For my own personal reasons, I wished that it was not made.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

'Sniper' has been examined from many perspectives. Some wish it hadn't been. The dialogue is an important one. Many wish to silence any voice that questions BushWars. They are busy moving on from truth. These are those who are more comfortable with ignorance and lies and they enjoy Mr. Eastwood's work the most. It is very comforting to forget, it is always troublesome to remember. One might think America owes Veterans that, the truth. Mr. Eastwood doesn't, what kind of American does that make him?

One reviewer offered:

"Much has been made recently about the inaccurate representation of Chris Kyle in “American Sniper.” We’ve learned that, despite the fact that the film depicts Kyle as a hero and a martyr, the real American sniper was heartless and cruel. Rather than struggle with moral dilemmas as we see in the film, the actual man had no such hesitation and no such conscience.

At no point does the film consider the fact that the war was based on false justifications. At no point does it imagine that those in Iraq might have seen the U.S. soldiers as invaders in their homeland. At no point does it imagine that the violence suffered by our own soldiers could have been avoided if we simply hadn’t started the war to begin with. The logic of war is completely unquestioned, making this the most simplistic war film we have seen nominated for an Oscar in decades."

reference: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/american_snipers_biggest_lie_clint_eastwood_has_a_delusional_fox_news_problem/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_382327

Americans are supposed to be brave enough to face the truth, it is part of their creed, and an admirable one. How can silencing examination of the Iraq War serve that ideal except to make some few more comfortable with lies and protect a sham nobility of Bush/Cheney.

Again, thankfully, Mr. Eastwood demands examination and discussion of this dark and disturbing war of choice, a choice made on lies and sold as patriotism. 'Sniper' is the flash point, the flash, for a moment, of some recognition of the truth, the truth the film wholly avoids. How much of that truth has Hollywood forgotten to make a buck, not unlike Bush/Cheney's motives.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@stranger

Maybe because:

1) He was the worst president ever (not rhetoric, he literally was the worst president ever)

But he loved his country, didn't have a problem admitting and acknowledging who the enemy is unlike his majesty.

2) Because he started a war based on a lie, that has destroyed the region, and it's still a mess

Obama had more of our troops killed in the first 3 years of war in Afghanistan and don't forget, Obama is in part responsible for the formation and growth of ISIS.

3) Because no one has had to pay for that lie, even though they should

With the lies Obama has been telling now on a daily basis, he should be under a jail and he still has 646 days to go until the madness comes to a close.

4) Because republicans keep banging on about how one of the best presidents in history is so bad, and obviously need a reminder about just how bad a president can be

Obama surpassed Carter, that was a historic monumental achievement. Never thought it could be done, but Obama stole the crown.

This probably would have been funnier had I written it correctly:

Most of You Europeans love talking about him all the time.

Americans are supposed to be brave enough to face the truth, it is part of their creed, and an admirable one. How can silencing examination of the Iraq War serve that ideal except to make some few more comfortable with lies and protect a sham nobility of Bush/Cheney.

No one is trying to silence anything. Even if Bush/Cheney, Blair and everyone in the intel agency lied, so be it! At least we are far better off without Saddam around and NO one misses him and for that, I applaud them. Kudos!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

How unreasonable! Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Cooper should never ask their audience for tolerance or compassion for those they may not understand, that would undo the entire premise of 'Sniper'

So should the ADC ask their fellow Arabs for tolerance after every terrorist attack? Do you think that might undo the entire premise of the Fort Hood shooter? You are being more than a little absurd.

If gay people started making death threats against random Christians due to anger against the Westboro Baptist church, would you feel those random Christians were deserving of said death threats due to sharing a religion with the WBC?

No. But aren't you really just trying to draw a moral equivalency between Christian's engaged in free speech and terrorists that call themselves Muslims? Chris Kyle was targeting violent extremists attempting to kill him. The Westboro Christians are reprehensible but they are not killing people. There is no comparison. All people - homosexuals and Christians included - have a right to free speech no matter how reprehensible. People do not have a right to randomly slaughter innocents. Of course making death threats should draw scrutiny from law enforcement whether the person is homosexual or Christian but this is not analogous to terrorism. Not a good argument. Try again please.

I need to correct a mistake in my previous post of Jan. 30th. "I definitely do not believe they should (not) be subject to threats for something they have nothing to do with."

Obviously I meant, "I definitely do not believe they should be subject to threats for something they have nothing to do with."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Widening the dialogue about 'Sniper' has some civilizing effects.

Some hold there is no dialogue, as no facts are necessary to understand their history or favorite movie. Of course, those who reference sticky details are now unwelcome in discussion as they were in the naughties. These clear minded fans may be surprised to find how many are studying Bush's Wars. The truth shouldn't be buried at the cost of another disaster. Certainly, no solider deserves anything less than the truth in their sacrifice for country. Some do not agree.

Let us see who else will not be silenced. 'Sniper's' narrow view is so rich in contradiction Rolling Stone had this observation:

"Sniper is a movie whose politics are so ludicrous and idiotic that under normal circumstances it would be beneath criticism. The only thing that forces us to take it seriously is the extraordinary fact that an almost exactly similar worldview consumed the walnut-sized mind of the president who got us into the war in question.

It's the fact that the movie is popular, and actually makes sense to so many people, that's the problem. "American Sniper has the look of a bona fide cultural phenomenon!" gushed Brandon Griggs of CNN, noting the film's record $105 million opening-week box office.

Griggs added, in a review that must make Eastwood swell with pride, that the root of the film's success is that "it's about a real person," and "it's a human story, not a political one."

Well done, Clint! You made a movie about mass-bloodshed in Iraq that critics pronounced not political! That's as Hollywood as Hollywood gets."

reference: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/american-sniper-is-almost-too-dumb-to-criticize-20150121#ixzz3QMTPiNcv

How sad those who feed their minds with accepting false histories and fabrications rife in Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper'. How strange that some applaud lies. These are 'Sniper's' and Mr. Eastwood's most ardent fans. They hold lies so necessary that without them they might not admire Mr. Eastwood so deeply. Stranger and stranger this film audience becomes. Will they award the highest distinction in American film making to this work? An Oscar for the crystallization of lies?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let us see who else will not be silenced. 'Sniper's' narrow view is so rich in contradiction Rolling Stone had this observation:

So now you are quoting Rolling Stone? Are you serious? That would be like the words of "Good Housekeeping" serious.

How sad those who feed their minds with accepting false histories and fabrications rife in Mr. Eastwood's 'Sniper'.

Were you on the battlefield? Are you a Sniper? What gives you the moral authority to make that kind of assessment?

How strange that some applaud lies. These are 'Sniper's' and Mr. Eastwood's most ardent fans. They hold lies so necessary that without them they might not admire Mr. Eastwood so deeply. Stranger and stranger this film audience becomes. Will they award the highest distinction in American film making to this work? An Oscar for the crystallization of lies?

I think you are just angry and want to vent. Personally, I hope Clint does more or at least Hollywood can show the other side of war. Kudos.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"Personally, I hope Clint does more or at least Hollywood can show the other side of war." - comments

That would be the money counting rooms of Mr. Cheney's Halliburton, that would be beautiful.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Will they award the highest distinction in American film making to this work? An Oscar for the crystallization of lies?

What are these "lies" in the movie that have you so upset?

The Left is furious because the movie is a huge hit and it is not about what they think it should be about. They think it should be about the myth that President Bush lied America into war - and not about an enlisted man who did his job extraordinarily well and has overcome the trauma that four deployments had on him and his family.

This is a ridiculous criticism of the movie. It is akin to saying that the movie Pearl Harbor is full of lies because it does not criticize FDR for his internment of Japanese-Americans.

Face it Lefties, you are wrong and are simply exposing your hatred of the rank and file military men and women.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"What are these "lies" in the movie" - comments

When children watch 'Sniper' they see a really cool guy who shoots really bad guys, and a child, but that's really cool because shooting guys and a woman is really cool, because they're evil. And then they go tweet they want to shoot guys and that's cool too, because children love 'Sniper', he's cool.

When grown ups watch 'Sniper' they think. And most grown ups think:

"At no point does the film consider the fact that the war was based on false justifications. At no point does it imagine that those in Iraq might have seen the U.S. soldiers as invaders in their homeland. At no point does it imagine that the violence suffered by our own soldiers could have been avoided if we simply hadn’t started the war to begin with. The logic of war is completely unquestioned, making this the most simplistic war film we have seen nominated for an Oscar in decades"

reference: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/americansnipersbiggestlieclinteastwoodhasadelusionalfoxnewsproblem/?utmsource=zergnet.com&utmmedium=referral&utmcampaign=zergnet_382327

Some read these comments and imagine the Veteran shouldn't be thinking about lies. And some Veterans can't stop thinking about lies, because they're grown ups and will forever pay the price for Bush's lies. That's the difference between children and grown ups. Grown ups think and children think killing is too cool to spoil with thought. Think about it, or don't, that's cool, who wants to ruin a really cool movie?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

When children watch 'Sniper' they see a really cool guy who shoots really bad guys,

I have to ask, how do you come up with such lame arguments? This movie is rated R. So no kids are seeing the movie now. Admittedly, when it comes out on DVD and is pirated on the internet a lot of underage people will see it. But then you will have to explain how this movie is any different than any of the other war movies out there in which children can see all of the same "cool" and indiscriminate Hollywood carnage. Children could care less about the politics. All you are concerned about is the lack of Left wing spin in it. You are so used to Hollywood propaganda films that you do not realize it is possible to tell a biopic without embedded messages from your political party. Besides, what about all of those WWII films? I can think of very few that say a word about the internment camps. But then you probably don't care because FDR was a Progressive.

The logic of war is completely unquestioned, making this the most simplistic war film we have seen nominated for an Oscar in decades"

If Chris Kyle were the President or a member of Congress you might have a good point here. But since he was not a decision maker like Bush, Hillary Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry (all supporters of the war), I hardly see how you can insist that Kyle's biography include his political view of the war. He was a member of the military before 9/11. Whether he supported the war or not it was his job to go just like any service member regardless of political affiliation. Besides, the military is supposed to be non-political and his job was to do as he was ordered just as members of the military do now under a Democrat president. I haven't even read or seen anything that even suggests that Kyle was a political activists of any kind. Your logic about Kyle's role in the war is lacking. Where do you get your reasoning skills from, Rachel Maddow?

Think about it, or don't, that's cool, who wants to ruin a really cool movie?

You really do not understand the military at all. Anyway, why not think about the fact that there are numerous films that deal with the Iraq war from the perspective of the Left as you insist. American Sniper isn't one of those films because it isn't political. I would submit that the reason this movie is so much more popular than those Left wing propaganda films is because it is focused on the military mans view of the war. There is an enormous interest in that aspect of war. Apparently, you do not care to learn anything about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Footnote to history:

"A recent study estimates there were 461,000 war-related "excess" deaths in Iraq between 2003 and mid-2011. If true, President George W. Bush may be responsible for the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein was. But Bush is not solely culpable. We live in a democracy where the people elect the government, and therefore citizens cannot escape the blame for what it does. In that sense, it is not just Kyle who pulled the trigger. We all did."

reference: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120763/american-sniper-clint-eastwood-biopic-misrepresents-chris-kyle

Americans have a lot at stake when facts are relegated to footnotes and truth is clouded in the fog of war. Since all Americans are responsible for their government, no one is exempt from responsibility.

'Sniper' tells its story and many find value it that. Some are still asking the important questions that put 'Sniper' in Iraq.

Sadly, the answers to those questions are the disturbing lies of Bush/Cheney and the results appear above. Apparently, The New Republic places the weight of those lies on all Americans but it has already been noted, the Veteran has paid the highest price for the truths some no longer want to hear. Veterans know all too well the truths of Iraq. If 'Sniper' validates those questions, as their costs are so forcefully exhibited, then, again, Mr. Eastwood must be thanked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites