Chris Kyle: All-American Hero?

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
More and more evidence keeps coming out that the book and the movie are pure unadulterated nonsense. Or if you want to believe even part of it that you come to the inescapable conclusion that Chris Kyle was just the opposite of being a hero. That he was actually a traitor to the basic precepts which this country was founded. That Chris Kyle has been on the Christian equivalent of a religious jihad based on the nonsensical pretext that 9/11 had anything at all to do with the war in Iraq.

7 big lies ‘American Sniper’ is telling America about Iraq and Chris Kyle

The film American Sniper, based on the story of the late Navy Seal Chris Kyle, is a box office hit, setting records for an R-rated film released in January. Yet the film, the autobiography of the same name, and the reputation of Chris Kyle are all built on a set of half-truths, myths and outright lies that Hollywood didn’t see fit to clear up.

Here are seven lies about Chris Kyle and the story that director Clint Eastwood is telling:

1. The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11: One way to get audiences to unambiguously support Kyle’s actions in the film is to believe he’s there to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The movie cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq, implying there is some link between the two.

2. The Film Invents a Terrorist Sniper Who Works For Multiple Opposing Factions: Kyle’s primary antagonist in the film is a sniper named Mustafa. Mustafa is mentioned in a single paragraph in Kyle’s book, but the movie blows him up into an ever-present figure and Syrian Olympic medal winner who fights for both Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and the Shia Madhi army.

3. The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions: Multiple scenes in the movie portray Kyle as haunted by his service. One of the film’s earliest reviews praised it for showing the “emotional torment of so many military men and women.” But that torment is completely absent from the book the film is based on. In the book, Kyle refers to everyone he fought as “savage, despicable” evil. He writes, “I only wish I had killed more.” He also writes, “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn’t need me – I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” On an appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn’t “shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”

4. The Real Chris Kyle Made Up A Story About Killing Dozens of People In Post-Katrina New Orleans: Kyle claimed that he killed 30 people in the chaos of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, a story Louisiana writer Jarvis DeBerry calls “preposterous.” It shows the sort of mentality post-war Kyle had, but the claim doesn’t appear in the film.

5. The Real Chris Kyle Fabricated A Story About Killing Two Men Who Tried To Carjack Him In Texas: Kyle told numerous people a story about killing two alleged carjackers in Texas. Reporters tried repeatedly to verify this claim, but no evidence of it exists.

6. Chris Kyle Was Successfully Sued For Lying About the Former Governor of Minnesota: Kyle alleged that former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura defamed Navy SEALs and got into a fight with him at a local bar. Ventura successfully sued Kyle for the passage in his book, and a jury awarded him $1.845 million.

7. Chris Kyle’s Family Claimed He Donated His Book Proceeds To Veterans’ Charity, But He Kept Most Of The Profits: The National Review debunks the claim that all proceeds of his book went to veterans’ charities. Around 2 percent – $52,000 – went to the charities while the Kyles pocketed $3 million.

Death of an American sniper

“I am not a fan of politics,” wrote Chris Kyle, the 38-year-old former Navy SEAL sniper who was shot and killed with a friend at a Texas firing range on Saturday. Yet, in his best-selling memoir, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History” — originally published last year and currently experiencing a sales bump in the aftermath of Kyle’s death — the commando also wrote, “I like war.” The problem, as Kyle would have known if he’d read his Carl von Clausewitz, is that the two aren’t separable; war, as Clauswitz wrote, is the continuation of politics by other means.

Chances are, though, that Kyle never heard of Clausewitz; certainly there’s nothing in “American Sniper” to suggest that he ever thought very deeply about his service, or wanted to. The red-blooded superficiality of his memoir is surely the quality that made it appealing to so many readers. Well, that and Kyle’s proficiency at his chosen specialty: He boasted of having killed over 250 people during his four deployments as a sniper in Iraq. While Kyle’s physical courage and fidelity to his fellow servicemen were unquestionable, his steadfast imperviousness to any nuance, subtlety or ambiguity, and his lack of imagination and curiosity, seem particularly notable in light of the circumstances of his death. They were also all-too-emblematic of the blustering, tragically misguided self-confidence of the George W. Bush years.

A self-described “regular redneck,” Kyle grew up in Odessa, Texas, and spent his youth hunting, collecting guns and competing in rodeos until he found his life’s purpose in the Navy SEALs. “American Sniper” lovingly recounts both the rigors of the special-operations force’s training program and the extravagant hazing to which new members are subjected. (Kyle was handcuffed to a chair, loaded up with Jack Daniel’s, stripped and covered with spray paint and obscene marking-pen tattoos by his buddies on the night before his wedding. Presumably his bride got the message about whom he really belonged to.)

When the action-hungry commando finally got to Iraq during the initial push of the war in 2003, he was confronted for the first time with the soldier’s prime directive: to kill the enemy. In Nasaria, Kyle shot his first Iraqi (an incident that opens the book), a woman he spotted on a road pulling a grenade from her clothing to throw at an advancing Marine foot patrol. “I don’t regret it,” he writes. “The woman was already dead. I was just making sure she didn’t take any Marines with her.”

It is both cruel and perverse to reproach soldiers for killing the enemy when that’s what they’re sent to war to do, and when they do so in defense of their own lives and the lives of their comrades. Nevertheless, you can expect soldiers to kill and still recoil when they kill blithely and eagerly. In “American Sniper,” Kyle describes killing as “fun” and something he “loved” to do. This pleasure was no doubt facilitated by his utter conviction that every person he shot was a “bad guy.” Fallujah and Ramadi, where he saw the most action, were certainly crawling with insurgents and foreign Islamist militants, and Kyle swears that every man he picked off with his sniper rifle was manifestly up to no good. But his bloodthirstiness and general indifference to the Iraqis and their country don’t suggest that he was highly motivated to make sure.

“I don’t shoot people with Korans,” Kyle retorted to an Army investigator when he was accused of killing an Iraqi civilian. “I’d like to, but I don’t.” Later in “American Sniper,” he announces, ... “I hate the damn savages,” he explains. What does matter most to him are “God, country and family” (although much of the friction in his marriage arose from his ordering of those last two items). ...

In Kyle’s version of the Iraq War, the parties consisted of Americans, who are good by virtue of being American, and fanatic Muslims whose “savage, despicable evil” led them to want to kill Americans simply because they are Christians. (Later in his service, Kyle had a blood-red “crusader cross” tattooed on his arm.) While he describes patriotism as the guiding force in his life, Kyle’s patriotism is of the visceral, Toby Keith variety. It consists of loving America — specifically, being overwhelmed emotionally by the National Anthem and flag, and filled with a desire to dedicate one’s life to such symbols — rather than a commitment to tangible democratic principles, such as civilian oversight of the military. That Iraqis, too, might have been patriotically motivated to defend their own country against foreign invaders like himself does not appear to have ever crossed Kyle’s mind.

As for Americans, they come in two varieties: “badasses,” of which Navy SEALs are the premiere example, and “.” The latter could be anyone from congressmen who impose onerous restrictions on, say, a SEAL sniper’s freedom to shoot anyone he deems a “bad guy,” to journalists who present unflattering reports on military activities. The recurring designation of “bad guy” suggests just how profoundly Kyle’s view of the conflict was shaped by comic books and video games, where moral inquiry takes a back seat to heroics, exhibitions of skill, gear and scoring. (In Ramadi, Kyle and another sniper, egged on by their superiors, hotly competed to be the one to officially kill the most people.)

In the world of the video game, there’s no difference between a reason to kill people and a pretext for doing so; the point of the game is to kill, and the reason (they’re “bad guys”) is just an excuse. In real life, the reason is everything (unless, that is, the killer is a psychopath). A soldier almost always has an excellent reason: protecting himself and his comrades. But when soldiers are part of an invading army, the more thoughtful among them usually end up asking why they and their buddies have been put in mortal danger to begin with. That’s why so many Iraq War memoirs resolve in bitterness and betrayal. The heroism and sacrifice of the troops were very real, but the war itself was based on lies.

All such questions about the origin of wars amount to “politics,” and they’re a bummer if what you really want is to read about exciting house-to-house battles, amazing long shots made with lovingly described high-end weapons and anecdotes celebrating the strutting prowess of elite American commandos. To get that sort of book, you need that oxymoronic thing, an unthoughtful writer. “American Sniper,” which was produced with two ghostwriters, is a work that would never have existed were it not for Kyle’s own glamorous, mediagenic reputation because he sure wasn’t going to produce it on his own; you get the impression that he exerted enormous efforts not to reflect on what happened in Iraq and why. You’ll find no mention of Abu Ghraib, the WMD fraud or the pre-war absence of al-Qaida operatives in these pages.

Kyle’s account of his return home suggests that it was not just the rationale for the invasion that messed with his simplified, sentimentally patriotic conception of the Iraq War. He went from one drunken brawl to another, including an alleged altercation with Jesse Ventura. Kyle’s description of that led to a libel suit: Ventura says the fight never happened. The former Minnesota governor has always forthrightly expressed his opposition to the Iraq War, but Kyle claimed that Ventura had insulted American troops. To judge by other passages in “American Sniper,” Kyle doesn’t seem to have understood the difference, or to have considered the possibility that opponents of the war also wanted to save American lives. War and politics: difficult to separate even when you’re hellbent on denying the connection.

Kyle finally sobered up. (It was totaling his pickup that did it, but he also missed one of his kids’ birthday parties because was in jail for a bar fight.) By all accounts, he had begun to wrestle with the war’s toxic legacy, establishing a nonprofit that donated in-home fitness equipment to veterans suffering from the physical and psychological toll of battle. Kyle’s dedication to his fellow fighters was admirable and selfless, and exercise can be great therapy. Still, the preference for activity over rumination and consideration remained a persistent theme.

Eddie Routh, the veteran who shot Kyle and his friend Chris Littlefield, had reportedly been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his experiences in the war. In the immediate aftermath of Kyle and Littlefield’s murders, many people expressed incredulity at the notion of taking a person troubled with PTSD to a firing range. One-time presidential candidate Ron Paul provoked a firestorm of criticism by questioning this choice and tweeting, “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” (Word of advice: Twitter, like video games, is not an appropriate forum for complex argument.) In fact, controlled exposure to triggering stimuli is an established treatment for PTSD. It works much like phobia therapies that have patients, under a therapist’s guidance, first imagine and then gradually encounter the objects of their fears. Over time, the triggers can be desensitized.

But Routh also appears to have had other underlying mental health and substance abuse issues. He’d been hospitalized multiple times for threatening to kill both himself and family members. He may have had problems that pre-existed his service or that were exacerbated by it. Furthermore, there’s no indication that Routh was receiving any kind of psychotherapy or that Kyle and Littlefield had run the firing range idea past a therapist who was familiar with his case. Why should they? What would some egghead, like the brass and the politicians, who had never been [there], know about it, anyway, compared to someone like Kyle who had actually been there? Routh was not just an American, but an American soldier, a person who was by definition incapable of doing anything evil.

Jesse Ventura's reputation and livelihood were literally ruined by Chris Kyle's lies, and his children were even subjected to abuse. He won the civil lawsuit which resulted from this deliberate campaign of distortion:


Link to video.

What do you think? Is Chris Kyle someone who should be venerated? Or is he the epitome of just the opposite? Or is he somewhere in the middle?
 
I think it's pretty evident that he was a liar and borderline psychopath.

I don't blame Ventura at all for continuing his lawsuit against Kyle's estate
 
I am not familiar with the actual story of Kyle, and haven't watched the movie either.

But the 'justification' for the second Iraq was indeed was that it was supposedly tied to 9/11, same with Afganistan. That is obviously what W Bush claimed, and his minions like Blair followed suit.
(the mythical WMDs was another 'justification')
Of course there is no way that is real, but given it was the propaganda fed i do not see why it should not be in the opening sequence of this film. Although i would have expected this to be discussed (negated) later on in such a film.

Anyway, films with political themes tend to be problematic.
 
1. The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11: One way to get audiences to unambiguously support Kyle’s actions in the film is to believe he’s there to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The movie cuts from Kyle watching footage of the attacks to him serving in Iraq, implying there is some link between the two.

This is debatable. I watched the film in January so my memory might be off, but if I recall correctly, it did not simply show footage of 9/11 and then cut to Iraq. Rather, it showed footage of 9/11 proceeded by several scenes spread over the course of the next year and a half, each scene labeled with dates. These scenes included Kyle's decision to marry his wife and their wedding. On Kyle's wedding day, he and his fellow troops are informed that they will be deployed to Iraq. The film then cuts to him serving in Iraq.

Though his deployment followed shortly after the 9/11 scene (which could suggest that the two were related), I think this was incidental and not intentional. The film spaced the two apart sufficiently and included dates as to make clear that 9/11 did not immediately lead to Iraq. Also, it would have been bizarre for a War on Terror/Iraq War period film that took place from 1998 - 2013 to not include a 9/11 scene. Eastwood probably didn't feel like delving too much into the period between the 9/11 scene and 2003 because that it wasn't as relevant to Kyle's sniper story.

I agree with the author on every other point. Though I don't think the 9/11-Iraq link quite had the propagandizing effect the author suggests, much of the rest of the film did. This includes its depiction of saintly soldiers, fictional villains, and its persistent justification for civilian casualties as being accidental or unavoidable.
 
a guy named Mustafa , only because killing Juba would have been too hotly contested ... Juba being the guy who supposedly like killed 300 or 500 or 600 people when ı checked it back in 2010 or so , he has now been rated down to 37 according to Wikipedia ... Zaitsev at least has a solid record before and after claiming this Koenig guy ...
 
This is debatable. I watched the film in January so my memory might be off, but if I recall correctly, it did not simply show footage of 9/11 and then cut to Iraq. Rather, it showed footage of 9/11 proceeded by several scenes spread over the course of the next year and a half, each scene labeled with dates. These scenes included Kyle's decision to marry his wife and their wedding. On Kyle's wedding day, he and his fellow troops are informed that they will be deployed to Iraq. The film then cuts to him serving in Iraq.

Though his deployment followed shortly after the 9/11 scene (which could suggest that the two were related), I think this was incidental and not intentional. The film spaced the two apart sufficiently and included dates as to make clear that 9/11 did not immediately lead to Iraq. Also, it would have been bizarre for a War on Terror/Iraq War period film that took place from 1998 - 2013 to not include a 9/11 scene. Eastwood probably didn't feel like delving too much into the period between the 9/11 scene and 2003 because that it wasn't as relevant to Kyle's sniper story.
Why do you think so many "Christians" like Chris Kyle volunteered to join the army after 9/11, even though he joined earlier in 1999? Do you think it was a coincidence when they readily admit they wanted vengeance? That this is exactly how they saw the Iraq War?

Why would the flick even mention 9/11 if that wasn't the basic premise?
 
Why do you think so many "Christians" like Chris Kyle volunteered to join the army after 9/11, even though he joined earlier in 1999? Do you think it was a coincidence when they readily admit they wanted vengeance? That this is exactly how they saw the Iraq War?

Why would the flick even mention 9/11 if that wasn't the basic premise?

You're changing gears on this one. The movie itself does not immediately cut from 9/11 to Iraq. Whether or not the author of the book the movie was based on was on some kind of misguided quest for revenge or not is a whole other story.
 
Again, why is it even mentioned? Why didn't Clint Eastwood show footage of WWII or Vietnam instead? Or just shown nothing at all?

“American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem

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.

But to focus on “American Sniper’s” depiction of Kyle is to miss the larger problems of the film. In addition to sugarcoating Kyle, the film suffers from major myopia — from a complete inability to see the larger picture. And that is why criticism of the film has to look at its director, Clint Eastwood, and the troubling ways he represents a dark, disturbing feature of the GOP mind-set.

In order to have the bigger picture we need to remember two key moments in recent Eastwood public appearances. The first took place in 2005 when Eastwood confronted filmmaker Michael Moore at the National Board of Review dinner, where both men were being honored. Moore was there for his documentary on the Iraq War, “Fahrenheit 911.” Eastwood had “Million Dollar Baby.” After Eastwood accepted his award, he directed comments at Moore. “Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common – we both appreciate living in a country where there’s free expression.” Eastwood then added: “But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera – I’ll kill you. I mean it.” The tone was I’m sort of joking, but maybe not really joking, provoking nervous laughter from both the audience and Moore himself.

Eastwood said he would kill Moore if he showed up at his door. This was his response to a film that raised much-needed conversation about U.S. gun culture. Eastwood’s reaction tells us a lot about the way that some members of the GOP treat those with whom they disagree. If you don’t agree with me on guns, I’ll just kill you.

The second event took place at the Republican National Convention in 2012 when Eastwood delivered a monologue to an empty chair, which supposedly had an invisible Barack Obama sitting in it. It was, without question, the weirdest moment of the RNC, and that’s taking into account Paul Ryan’s lying and Romney’s poor performance. While more than 30 million Americans watched, Eastwood delivered an improvised, rambling monologue that suggested that Obama was swearing at him and cursing at Romney. It left most of us watching completely bewildered.

Thankfully, though, Jon Stewart stepped in to make sense of it. On “The Daily Show,” Stewart explained that Eastwood’s performance could be understood as a metaphor for the existence of a president that only exists in the minds of the GOP.

“This president has issues, and there are very legitimate debates to be had about his policy and actions and successes and/or failures -– I mean, tune in next week –- but I could never wrap my head as to why the world and the president that Republicans describe bears so little resemblance to the world and experience that I experience. And now I know why. There is a President Obama that only Republicans can see.”

These two events taken together help explain what’s wrong with “American Sniper.” They illustrate the combination of delusion and aggressive violence that governs too much of GOP politics.

Let’s start with the delusion. The film draws a direct link between the events of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, forgetting completely that the war in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Not one of the attackers that day was in any way connected to Iraq. Thus to connect 9/11 to Iraq is delusional. Not even the Bush administration made that overt a link—at the time they claimed they went to Iraq to keep the Iraqis from using weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

But that’s not the perceptions of many who watch Fox News. As the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland reported back in 2003: “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” In their poll they found that 80 percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than any other news consumers, especially those that consume NPR and PBS.

The point is that the 9/11-Iraq link is delusional, but it is also a common link in public perceptions of those on the right who watch Fox News and clearly it is one that makes sense to Eastwood and those that think like him.

The second problem is the culture of violence. While the film tries to show Kyle wrestling at some level with some of his kills, he still very clearly divides the world into categories. As his father puts it in the film, there are wolves (those that want to kill you), sheep and sheep dogs (who have to protect the sheep from the wolves). Not only are there just three categories of life, but these categories are also defined solely by a logic of violence and aggression. In the film, Iraqis are almost all depicted as wolves, even women and children. Kyle’s first two kills are a young boy and his mother. But they posed a threat and thus needed to be killed. As Kyle later explains, he has no remorse over any of his kills, just over the lives he wished he could have protected.

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.

But the fact that the film has no nuance, no context and no subtlety should not surprise us. If anything it is a terrifying glimpse into a GOP mind-set that couples delusion with violence. We watch Kyle zero in on a pinpointed target and we are reminded of the ways that such a narrow, aggressive vision is itself a metaphor for GOP beliefs. This is a movie that’s not just about a sniper, but also about an attitude that threatens to destroy any chance in our nation for political compromise and productive debate. And that’s what makes this movie really disturbing.
 
Again, why is it even mentioned? Why didn't Clint Eastwood show footage of WWII or Vietnam instead? Or just shown nothing at all?

“American Sniper’s” biggest lie: Clint Eastwood has a delusional Fox News problem

As noted, W Bush specifically named 9/11 as tied to the war on terror (supposedly) against first Afganistan and then Iraq. IIRC only after this first line was causing huge problems (due to being messed up) was the subsequent lie invented about Iraqi WMDs.

So to include 9/11 there, by itself, seems perfectly reasonable, albeit not with the meaning that really 9/11 was caused by Iraq or other such fairy-tales.

*

Furthermore, without 9/11 it is far less likely that the US would have declared massive wars to Afganistan and Iraq.
 
Furthermore, without 9/11 it is far less likely that the US would have declared massive wars to Afganistan and Iraq.
"Far less likely"? :lol:

Um, exactly.:rolleyes:

You can't even discuss the second war in Iraq without mentioning 9/11 and how it was deliberately misused to kill over 200,000 people. How the real "wolves" weren't the Iraqi people who had the temerity to fight their invaders.
 
"Far less likely"? :lol:

Um, exactly.:rolleyes:

Uh, yeah? :mischief:

When was the last time (even) the US had a back-to-back invasion of two countries in the space of a year or something? Obviously the horror/hate caused by the (not tied to Iraq or Afganistan) 9/11 events was what made such an overwar-attitude viable even for a US government.

Not seeing what the problem is there? No one here is saying that those countries were to blame for 9/11. But 9/11 served as the ideal pretext for warmongers.
 
So you are agreeing with me instead of apparently disagreeing?
 
Why does everyone keep taking American Hardscoper so seriously? It's an action flick, nothing more, nothing less. Unless I am woefully uninformed and it's being shown on American screens as an accurate documentary?
 
No, you are the one agreeing with me :D
Well, next time I suggest you quote the person with whom you disagree. :lol:

Why does everyone keep taking American Hardscoper so seriously? It's an action flick, nothing more, nothing less. Unless I am woefully uninformed and it's being shown on American screens as an accurate documentary?
Well, it is supposed to be a biographical film that accurately portrays an ostensible auto-biography, which we now know is simply not the case in regard to either one.

Were The Green Berets and Heartbreak Ridge "action flick(s), nothing more, nothing less"? Or were they also attempts to propagandize and glorify similarly disgusting acts?

Was American Sniper deserving of six Academy Award nominations?

Isn't glorifying war and making heroes out of apparent war criminals a major part of the problem with our warmongering culture?
 
Well, next time I suggest you quote the person with whom you disagree. :lol:

Well, it is supposed to be a biographical film that accurately portrays an ostensible auto-biography, which we now know is simply not the case in regard to either one.
Guess I did my digging before I watched it. I already knew it wasn't accurate from a cursory reading of introductions to the film. I'm just watching it for the shooting and explosions.

Was American Sniper deserving of six Academy Award nominations?

Three of them were for technical aspects. I don't see why a film's political stance affects those.
 
Guess I did my digging before I watched it. I already knew it wasn't accurate from a cursory reading of introductions to the film. I'm just watching it for the shooting and explosions.
I'll eventually watch it for the very same reasons. But I'm going to wait until I don't have to directly pay for it. Clint has already made far too much money glorifying warmongering.

Three of them were for technical aspects. I don't see why a film's political stance affects those.
Good point. I guess editing the sound of an action adventure flick is deserving of an award hardly anybody really cares about.

But best picture and best adapted screenplay? :crazyeye: So much for Hollywood being a bunch of leftists...
 
Hollywood might be a bunch of leftists, but I've heard the Academy is filled with old white men. No points for guessing their political orientation.
 
Why does everyone keep taking American Hardscoper so seriously? It's an action flick, nothing more, nothing less. Unless I am woefully uninformed and it's being shown on American screens as an accurate documentary?
Well, every bit of I guess entertainment can colour the viewer's perception of the world. And with that in mind "glorifying" the wars in the middle east can be pretty devastating.
 
Top Bottom