Does the movie 'American Sniper' cause a rise in anti-Muslim threats?

ashdoc · Jan 26, 2015

Clint Eastwood's American Sniper film has 'caused rise in anti-Muslim threats' - Americas - World - The Independent

Redhawk · Jan 26, 2015

More than 100 offensive messages have been collected by ADC [American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee] as part of their evidence for the increase in hateful messages and threats. One Twitter post read: "Nice to see a movie where the Arabs are portrayed for who they really are – vermin scum intent on destroying us."

Only 100+ offensive messages? Come on, America! You can do better than that!

abingdonboy · Jan 26, 2015

Chris Kyle was a bloody serial killer who bragged about killing black looters during Hurricane Katrina and the thrill he got from shooting brown Iraqis. One has to wonder why he has so many confirmed kills, because he was an excellent shot or because he has next to no issue with killing any Iraqi he liked- civilian or not.

JBH22 · Jan 26, 2015

abingdonboy said:
Chris Kyle was a bloody serial killer who bragged about killing black looters during Hurricane Katrina and the thrill he got from shooting brown Iraqis. One has to wonder why he has so many confirmed kills, because he was an excellent shot or because he has next to no issue with killing any Iraqi he liked- civilian or not.

if provided a sniper rifle, no retribution and a hostile environment you too will turn into a beast

Neo · Jan 26, 2015

American Sniper illustrates the west's morality blind spots

From GuantÃ¡namo Bay to King Abdullah, beneath our talk of defending civilised values lies a deep hypocrisy

Gary Younge
The Guardian, Monday 26 January 2015

Say what you like about the film American Sniper, and people have, you have to admire its clarity. It's about killing. There is no moral arc; no anguish about whether the killing is necessary or whether those who are killed are guilty of anything. "I'm prepared to meet my maker and answer for every shot I took," says Bradley Cooper, who plays the late Chris Kyle, a navy Seal who was reputedly the deadliest sniper in American history. There is certainly no discursive quandary about whether the Iraq war, in which the killing takes place, is either legal or justified. "I couldn't give a flying **** about the Iraqis," wrote Kyle in his memoir, where he refers to the local people as "savages".

The film celebrates a man who has a talent for shooting people dead when they are not looking and who, apparently, likes his job. "After the first kill, the others come easy," writes Kyle. "I don't have to psych myself up, or do anything special mentally. I look through the scope, get my target in the crosshairs, and kill my enemy before he kills one of my people."

Americans are celebrating the film. It has been nominated for six Oscars and enjoyed the highest January debut ever. When Kyle kills his rival, a Syrian sniper named Mustafa, with a mile-long shot, audiences cheer. It has done particularly well with men and in southern and midwestern markets where the film industry does not expect to win big. And while its appeal is strong in the heartland it has travelled well too, providing career-best opening weekends for Clint Eastwood in the UK, Taiwan, New Zealand, Peru and Italy.

And so it is that within a few weeks of the developed world uniting to defend western culture and Enlightenment values, it produces a popular celluloid hero who is tasked not with satirising Islam, but killing Muslims. Threats to Arab and Muslim Americans have tripled since the film came out, according to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. It's not difficult to see why. "If you see anyone from about 16 to 65 and they're male, shoot 'em," wrote Kyle, describing his understanding of the rules of engagement in Iraq. "Kill every male you see. That wasn't the official language, but that was the idea."

The west does not see itself the way others see it; indeed it often does not see others at all. Solipsistic in its suffering and narcissistic in its impulses, it promotes itself as the upholder of principles it does not keep, and a morality it does not practise. This alone would barely distinguish it from most cultures. What makes the west different is the physical and philosophical force with which it simultaneously makes its case for superiority and contradicts it. Therein lies the dysfunction whereby it keeps doing hateful things while expressing bewilderment at why some people hate it. It's as though we are continually caught by surprise that others have not chosen to ignore their humiliation, pain, anger and sorrow just because we have.

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side," wrote George Orwell in Notes on Nationalism. "But he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them "¦ Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection." When these contradictions are rooted in history this sophistry can be neatly buried under time. If Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were once our allies and have become enemies, then so be it. Needs must. What's done is done. History that is inconvenient conveniently loses its legacy; an unpalatable past loses its connection to an unfortunate present. Reference to genocides and colonialism are dismissed as the fetid grievances of yore. Why keep bringing up old stuff?

But what should we make of this hypocrisy when it happens in real time; when the devoutly held principle is being brazenly flouted even as it is extolled? For over a decade the US condemned human rights in Cuba even as it operated a facility in that very country, GuantÃ¡namo Bay, which openly violated those very rights.

In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, Tony Blair told a closed-door meeting of around 300 Republicans that force was necessary to confront radical Islam. The US secretary of state John Kerry described the attack as "a larger confrontation, not between civilisations, but between civilisation itself and those who are opposed to a civilised world".

One might assume that Saudi Arabia, where women can't drive and atheists are treated as terrorists, was on the wrong side of that confrontation. After all, it beheads more people than Isis and has been a key source of funding for terrorist organisations. It's certainly no fan of freedom of speech. Two days after the killings in Charlie Hebdo's offices in Paris, Saudi blogger, Raif Badawi, was flogged 50 times after being found guilty last year of insulting Islam. His calls for more political and religious freedom left him with a sentence of 10 years in jail, and 950 more lashes to be administered at a rate of 50 a week.

But when the nation's leader, King Abdullah, died last week Kerry hailed him as "a man of wisdom & vision. US has lost a friend & Kingdom of #SaudiArabia, Middle East, and world has lost a revered leader", while Tony Blair tweeted: "He was loved by his people and will be deeply missed."

Pointing out these hypocrisies justifies nothing. Seeking to understand the source of hate does not equate to condoning hateful acts, regardless of who is committing them. But reflecting on that source is a precursor for a level of self-awareness that is both clearly lacking and clearly needed. Human rights are not a western value, but a universal one that is imperilled when people pick and choose whose humanity they are prepared to respect and protect and hope nobody will notice.

The Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano once told me that the apparent reluctance to learn from the past scared him. "My great fear is that we are all suffering from amnesia," he said. "I wrote to recover the memory of the human rainbow, which is in danger of being mutilated."

Who, I asked, is responsible for this forgetfulness? "It's not a person," he explained. "It's a system of power that is always deciding in the name of humanity who deserves to be remembered and who deserves to be forgotten "¦ We are much more than we are told. We are much more beautiful." We are much more alike than we are told, as well.

Kyle was a young, working-class man who was losing direction in life when he saw people he identified with being senselessly killed on the other side of the world (according to the film he was radicalised by the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998) and decided to sign up to go and kill them back. Sound familiar? "I don't see too much grey," he wrote. "If I had to order my priorities, they would be god, country, family." He was every bit as much a jihadi in uniform as his nemesis, Mustafa, was a soldier in casual wear.

American Sniper illustrates the west's morality blind spots | Gary Younge | Comment is free | The Guardian

Redhawk · Jan 27, 2015

On February 2, 2013, Kyle and a companion, Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed at the Rough Creek Ranch-Lodge-Resort shooting range in Erath County, Texas,[36] by 25-year-old U.S. Marine Corps veteran[37] Eddie Ray Routh, whom Kyle and Littlefield had reportedly taken to the gun range in an effort to help him with what they were told by his mother was post-traumatic stress disorder.[38][39]

How ironic! Kyle was shot and killed at 38 by a Marine suffering post-traumatic stress disorder.

Latika_singer · Jan 27, 2015

is only a sorry to increase the racism of people

:tsk:

abingdonboy · Jan 27, 2015

JBH22 said:
if provided a sniper rifle, no retribution and a hostile environment you too will turn into a beast

Perhaps but then I wouldn't want a movie made about me depicting me as a hero and not the monster I was. Personally I think Kyle was messed up and prejudice before he entered the military and this carried on through his career but manifested itself in terrible ways....

J20! · Jan 28, 2015

'American sniper' movie causes rise in anti muslim threats ?

Kyle was a psychopath who murdered women, children and any "military age Iraqi male" he could get on his scope. What he claims he did after hurricane Katrinah is even more despicable.

If a movie that white-washes history and promotes racial hatred like this ever came out of China or Russia, it would be called propaganda; but coming out of Hollywood, it gets Emmy nominations.

What is the world coming to when an invading army kills millions of people, but its actions are glorified in violent movies that encourage more young men to join the armed forces and kill some "rag-heads".

Read his book, and you'll agree that Kyle deserved a jail sentence, not a movie glorifying his crimes.

One more fun fantasy from the movie: Kyle's first kills in Iraq were before Alqaeda was ever present in Iraq. Despite what the movie portrays, the people he killed were mostly Iraqi "insurgents" ie iraqi's who resisted the American led invasion or non combatants who had nothing to do with Alqaeda.

But according to some here, the US doesn't do propaganda; when its the world's biggest propagator of disinformation. Remember Zero Dark Thirty?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

jouni · Jan 28, 2015

Vietnam and Iraq, not the finest hours of American military history, but sources for good movies. Platoon maybe the best, I have not watched AS, but I guess it is not platoon, nor Deer Hunter. Maybe more like Apocalypse now. Eastwood is a great director, I hope it is a good film. His best war film is Letters from Iwo Jima. Maybe this will be more like his Heartbreak bridge.

Redhawk · Jan 28, 2015

abingdonboy said:
Perhaps but then I wouldn't want a movie made about me depicting me as a hero and not the monster I was. Personally I think Kyle was messed up and prejudice before he entered the military and this carried on through his career but manifested itself in terrible ways....

They look for a particular mentality when selecting candidates for special forces' units. They look for real ruthlessness and the ability to achieve the objective no matter what. They look for the sort of resolve that keeps the individual going and that won't be stopped by anything. Sure, Kyle was an animal, but to be in the SEALs you have to be, otherwise you would never have been selected.

The man was a hero to many Americans because he killed America's enemies. And any soldier that kills the enemies of his country on a large scale is more often than not considered a hero. Look at the Soviet soldier Vasily Zaitsev who, like Kyle, was a sniper and who bagged over 400 Germans and was made a Hero of the Soviet Union. Was Kyle a racist? Undoubtedly. He regarded Moslem Arabs as savages, and they certainly have a history of savagery, and they were easy to kill because he regarded them as lesser, inferior people. And as he said himself, any Iraqi Arab male between 15 and 65 was fair game. And any Iraqi Arab woman who was about to detonate a bomb was also targeted by Kyle if she came into his sights, which did happen. Doubtless he would have targeted first those he could see that were holding a weapon, but then perhaps not. Anyway, he was thoroughly hated by the Moslem fanatic insurgents who put a huge price on his head. That is a pretty good indication that the was effective in killing the fanatical insurgents.

As far as having a movie made about him, Kyle was probably indifferent and couldn't care less one way or the other. People like Kyle are not glory-hounds and don't do the job for recognition and are pretty well indifferent to it when they do get it. People like Kyle do the job they do because they are good at it.

J20! · Jan 28, 2015

'American sniper' movie causes rise in anti muslim threats ?

Redhawk said:
They look for a particular mentality when selecting candidates for special forces' units. They look for real ruthlessness and the ability to achieve the objective no matter what. They look for the sort of resolve that keeps the individual going and that won't be stopped by anything. Sure, Kyle was an animal, but to be in the SEALs you have to be, otherwise you would never have been selected.

The man was a hero to many Americans because he killed America's enemies. And any soldier that kills the enemies of his country on a large scale is more often than not considered a hero. Look at the Soviet soldier Vasily Zaitsev who, like Kyle, was a sniper and who bagged over 400 Germans and was made a Hero of the Soviet Union. Was Kyle a racist? Undoubtedly. He regarded Moslem Arabs as savages, and they certainly have a history of savagery, and they were easy to kill because he regarded them as lesser, inferior people.

Bullshit! Special forces don't look for people who are ruthless ( ie killing children and their mothers, as Kyle himself admits to doing); they look for focus and capability that is above and beyond what the average soldier is capable of. Endurance, independent thinking and skill at arms are main criteria.

Kyle was selected DESPITE his mental orientation, not because of it. That he was a ruthless murderer who got thrills from killing as many IRAQIS - not enemies, but as many Iraqis as he could, regardless of age sex or conduct - is beyond doubt.

That he was a racist who considered Arabs as sub-human "savages" deserving of nothing but death completely means nothing to people like you calling him a HERO?

Vasily Zaitsev was defending his country from Nazi INVADERS who were trying to conquer his nation for "living space" for the Arlen race. Kyle WAS THE INVADER of a foreign land in an effort to control its natural resources. A judge, jury and executioner who killed both the insurgents that resisted NATO troops and innocent bystanders and civilians as long as they fit the description of "military age Iraqi males" ie from 18 to 50 year old boys and men.

Read his autobiography. Why you would call such a man, a hero is beyond me. Would you want your wife and kids at the mercy of such a "hero"?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Redhawk · Jan 28, 2015

@J20! Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say special forces look for people who would kill women and children, idiot. I said they look for people who are ruthless, that doesn't include indiscriminate killing. I know that here in Australia the SAS look for people that have a ruthless edge.

pmaitra · Jan 28, 2015