Screening of "American Sniper" Cancelled at UMD

[fonzob1]

The University of Maryland recently cancelled a screening of the film "American Sniper" due to pressure from the Muslim Student Association (MSA), which produced a petition claiming the film inaccurately portrays stereotypes of Muslim people. For those who saw the movie, do you believe it does in fact stereotype Muslims in general, or that the film was simply portraying specific characters within the context of the true story?


The Washington Post's story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...test-american-sniper-derail-campus-screening/

Allen West's response:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/incom...sociation-canceling-american-sniper-incoming/

 

[Locutus of Bored]

For it to "inaccurately portray stereotypes of Muslim people," there'd have to actually be a fully-fledged Muslim character in the film, instead of how they're actually portrayed, which is as moving duck hunt targets for a bigoted sociopath given a rifle and a carte blanche license to kill any "military aged male" (which ranges from children to the elderly) stuck in the combat zone. I'd take more offense at the total devaluation of Muslim/Iraqi lives than the accuracy of lack thereof of any stereotypes in the paper thin depictions of Muslims in the film.

That being said, there is an uncomfortable escalating tendency on college campuses to ban any film, comedian, speaker, etc. who a segment of the student body disagrees with, which I don't see as a good trend in the long run. Couldn't the screening of the film have been used as an opportunity to talk about the very concerns I mentioned above, and how to improve on the depiction of Muslims onscreen? Or couldn't it have been used as a means of discussing the rules of engagement vis-à-vis "military age males" in Iraq, which continues to this day in our drone strike policies, sometimes resulting in deaths of scores of innocents? Or you could talk about how war/police actions can cause you to dehumanize your enemy and the civilian populace, and how those feelings can come home with you. Any number of issues could have used the film as a jumping off point for a productive dialogue even if you disagreed with the film itself, but I have a feeling that won't happen now because the tendency is to suppress rather than address.

 

[fonzob1]

So, in your estimation, the film does not portray any "fully-fledged" Muslims in it at all? What constitutes a "fully-fledged" Muslim?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So, in your estimation, the film does not portray any "fully-fledged" Muslims in it at all? What constitutes a "fully-fledged" Muslim?

I wouldn't know, because what I said was "fully-fledged Muslim character". Emphasis on the character part, not the Muslim part. I then provided even more context by saying "paper thin depictions of Muslims in the film", to make it clear that I was talking about how poorly the Iraqi characters were handled, not defining what it means to be a Muslim, which is a really odd interpretation to take away from my post.

My point was that the Muslims/Iraqis in the film were given such short shrift that there was barely time for them to even have definable characteristics before Chris Kyle either shoots them or bursts into their homes and violently intimidates them into risking their and their family's lives.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, in your estimation, the film does not portray any "fully-fledged" Muslims in it at all? What constitutes a "fully-fledged" Muslim?

I'm sure Locutus is perfectly able to speak for himself (and indeed he was, but I'll submit my post anyway, as an independent viewpoint), but I'll observe that what he said was that there was no "fully-fledged Muslim character": that's fully-fledged character. On the face of it, and as he elaborated, that means that they were merely plot-devices and hardly characters at all. It was not at all as you read it.

I agree that it's a shame that controversial films can't be screen and discussed. I wonder whether one factor motivating just going straight to the nuclear option of banning is the belief that screening somehow implies endorsement.

 

[fonzob1]

Yeah, I definitely misread that. It is true that the film did not focus much on developing the Muslim characters in it. The movie's focus was on Chris Kyle's war experiences, so it's not totally unexpected that the film would highlight some of the very worst behavior in those characters. Fallujah was a blood bath.

 

[urbandefault]

For it to "inaccurately portray stereotypes of Muslim people," there'd have to actually be a fully-fledged Muslim character in the film, instead of how they're actually portrayed, which is as moving duck hunt targets for a bigoted sociopath given a rifle and a carte blanche license to kill any "military aged male" (which ranges from children to the elderly) stuck in the combat zone. I'd take more offense at the total devaluation of Muslim/Iraqi lives than the accuracy of lack thereof of any stereotypes in the paper thin depictions of Muslims in the film.

Interesting synopsis. How about a full review?

 

[BillJ]

Offensive to Muslims? Probably, as its about a man given a green light to execute them. A film like that should probably be seen as offensive if it's about doing that to any group of people.

But I don't think it is something that should be stopped from being shown. Like Locutus said above, they should use it to open a dialogue.

 

[fonzob1]

Offensive to Muslims? Probably, as its about a man given a green light to execute them. A film like that should probably be seen as offensive if it's about doing that to any group of people.

But I don't think it is something that should be stopped from being shown. Like Locutus said above, they should use it to open a dialogue.

It was a war. Everyone had a "green light" to kill someone.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

How about a full review?

Well, reviewing American Sniper beyond how it related to its depiction of Muslims wasn't really the point of this thread, but okay.

I'm a great admirer of Clint Eastwood as an actor and filmmaker, and I think he's demonstrated the ability to depict of more nuanced view of characters on both sides of a conflict with his companion films Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. While it still captured the ugliness of war and atrocities on both sides, it also made sure to humanize the Japanese characters in both films and didn't resort to solely depicting them as either monsters or paper thin characters barely worthy of serving as anything more than targets for American soldiers.

American Sniper has many of the best qualities of his films: the cinematography is outstanding (the Cobra helicopter flying alongside the sandstorm for instance). There are some amazingly tense scenes like when he has to decide whether or not to shoot the kid with the RPG —something which never happened in the book (the incident with the woman at the beginning was adapted from the book though)— and when the Iraqis and foreign fighters are surrounding the Marines and SEALs perched on the roof. The exploration of how Chris Kyle dealt with his PTSD and how it affected his home life was quite good; the incident with the dog at the party in particular, and the scene where he's returned to the states but he's unable to cope with coming back home.

I think Bradley Cooper gave an outstanding performance, as did Sienna Miller as his Kyle's wife.

My primary issues with the film are that it's utterly unquestioning of our motives for being in Iraq, just like Chris Kyle himself, which can somewhat be forgiven in that it's telling the story based on his perspective from the book, and that it completely whitewashes most of the more negative aspects of Chris Kyle's personality and views in order to depict him in a more heroic light, which is not as forgivable in that his views are openly stated in his book. He's a unquestioning, nationalistic, violent, bigoted, Christian supremacist, sociopathic killer given free rein to indulge his proclivities by our government, and the film acts as a blatant apologism for his actions.

It barely touches on his beliefs by showing his crusader tattoo and having him refer to the Iraqis as "savages," but the depth of those hateful beliefs from his book are left totally unexplored. The man literally thought he was fighting a new crusade, and lamented the fact that he couldn't kill more Iraqis because those pesky rules of engagement (which set a ridiculous low bar as is) inhibited his ability to kill with impunity. Leaving aside all that, the man was a noted liar who was called out and caught in his lies on several occasions, which is another reason why his account should not be given an unquestioning transition to the screen.

So, on a technical and acting level, the film was quite good. As a piece of historical art and a depiction of the real Chris Kyle rather than the whitewashed caricature shown onscreen, it failed miserably. I think in the grand scheme of things, the latter holds a greater weight for me.

Satisfactory? Or were you not expecting me to have actually read the book and seen the film before commenting, and thought you had me in a "gotcha!" moment there? While we're at it, what's your opinion on the subject matter of the OP, by the way?

 

[Gaseous Anomaly]

How about a full review?

Well, reviewing American Sniper beyond how it related to its depiction of Muslims wasn't really the point of this thread, but okay.

I'm a great admirer of Clint Eastwood as an actor and filmmaker, and I think he's demonstrated the ability to depict of more nuanced view of characters on both sides of a conflict with his companion films Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. While it still captured the ugliness of war and atrocities on both sides, it also made sure to humanize the Japanese characters in both films and didn't resort to solely depicting them as either monsters or paper thin characters barely worthy of serving as anything more than targets for American soldiers.

American Sniper has many of the best qualities of his films: the cinematography is outstanding (the Cobra helicopter flying alongside the sandstorm for instance). There are some amazingly tense scenes like when he has to decide whether or not to shoot the kid with the RPG —something which never happened in the book (the incident with the woman at the beginning was adapted from the book though)— and when the Iraqis and foreign fighters are surrounding the Marines and SEALs perched on the roof. The exploration of how Chris Kyle dealt with his PTSD and how it affected his home life was quite good; the incident with the dog at the party in particular, and the scene where he's returned to the states but he's unable to cope with coming back home.

I think Bradley Cooper gave an outstanding performance, as did Sienna Miller as his Kyle's wife.

My primary issues with the film are that it's utterly unquestioning of our motives for being in Iraq, just like Chris Kyle himself, which can somewhat be forgiven in that it's telling the story based on his perspective from the book, and that it completely whitewashes most of the more negative aspects of Chris Kyle's personality and views in order to depict him in a more heroic light, which is not as forgivable in that his views are openly stated in his book. He's a unquestioning, nationalistic, violent, bigoted, Christian supremacist, sociopathic killer given free rein to indulge his proclivities by our government, and the film acts as a blatant apologism for his actions.

It barely touches on his beliefs by showing his crusader tattoo and having him refer to the Iraqis as "savages," but the depth of those hateful beliefs from his book are left totally unexplored. The man literally thought he was fighting a new crusade, and lamented the fact that he couldn't kill more Iraqis because those pesky rules of engagement (which set a ridiculous low bar as is) inhibited his ability to kill with impunity. Leaving aside all that, the man was a noted liar who was called out and caught in his lies on several occasions, which is another reason why his account should not be given an unquestioning transition to the screen.

So, on a technical and acting level, the film was quite good. As a piece of historical art and a depiction of the real Chris Kyle rather than the whitewashed caricature shown onscreen, it failed miserably. I think in the grand scheme of things, the latter holds a greater weight for me.

Satisfactory? Or were you not expecting me to have actually read the book and seen the film before commenting, and thought you had me in a "gotcha!" moment there? While we're at it, what's your opinion on the subject matter of the OP, by the way?

Thank you for the review. I was certain you had read the book as you are intelligent and well spoken and you wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't read the book. You and I may see things differently but I respect your opinion as you don't generally go off half cocked. I'll watch the movie only after I have read the book and then form my own opinion, but I still thank you for yours.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

^ Thanks. That means a lot.

Offensive to Muslims? Probably, as its about a man given a green light to execute them. A film like that should probably be seen as offensive if it's about doing that to any group of people.

But I don't think it is something that should be stopped from being shown. Like Locutus said above, they should use it to open a dialogue.

It was a war. Everyone had a "green light" to kill someone.

That's a rather vague and pointless statement. Of course both sides in a war are given a green light to kill the enemy. But the subtleties come from defining who the enemy is and determining how you can and cannot kill them, or whether you should.

We determined that any "military aged male" in the combat zone was an open target. I forget the exact age range, but I believe it was something like from age 14 up to age 65. So if you're a teenage boy or an old man (and any male) who just got caught up in a rapidly shifting war zone or had no ability to relocate yourself, or simply didn't want to leave the only home you'd known to be a refugee in a country torn by war and sectarian violence, you were involuntarily considered an enemy combatant and a valid target. We continue that policy with our drone strikes today, which is why it's barbarically considered legal to take out not just a terrorist leader, but his sons and neighbors and any passerby unlucky enough to be in the right age range to be classified an enemy, which given the life expectancy in these countries is most males (women aren't in for any picnic either).

I totally get that when you're in hostile territory it comes down to protecting your guys at all costs, but there's a difference in that we were the invaders; we launched an offensive war based on false pretenses. One should always treat the civilian populace in a war zone with great care, but there's an extra added responsibility to do so when you instigated the war. This is not to say that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy or anything, but we allow people to get away with worse and do nothing. Sometimes we even call them our allies.

This is not to blame the soldiers on the ground, with the exception of those who committed illegal acts. I place the blame firmly on the Bush Administration, the politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress who went along with everything, and the media for failing in their duties to investigate and inform. I make a special exception for Chris Kyle because he quite clearly enjoyed killing Iraqis and loved to share that fact, so fuck him.

Kyle was a school tower or Blue Caprice trunk sniper given a blank check to kill and a war zone where his killer tendencies unfortunately earned him praise. Every time Kyle went on a shooting spree, I half expected to see this pop up from the bottom of the screen; that's how inconsequential the deaths of hundreds of Iraqis was treated in the film.

​

 

[fonzob1]

^ Thanks. That means a lot.

Offensive to Muslims? Probably, as its about a man given a green light to execute them. A film like that should probably be seen as offensive if it's about doing that to any group of people.

But I don't think it is something that should be stopped from being shown. Like Locutus said above, they should use it to open a dialogue.

It was a war. Everyone had a "green light" to kill someone.

That's a rather vague and pointless statement. Of course both sides in a war are given a green light to kill the enemy. But the subtleties come from defining who the enemy is and determining how you can and cannot kill them, or whether you should.

My point was that Chris Kyle was not the only individual, in the context of the film, who had a blank check to kill. There was a rival sniper depicted in the film as well. I don't think the simple fact that the movie was about an American who was guilty of this behavior should make the film too offensive to screen at a university.

We determined that any "military aged male" in the combat zone was an open target. I forget the exact age range, but I believe it was something like from age 14 up to age 65. So if you're a teenage boy or an old man (and any male) who just got caught up in a rapidly shifting war zone or had no ability to relocate yourself, or simply didn't want to leave the only home you'd known to be a refugee in a country torn by war and sectarian violence, you were involuntarily considered an enemy combatant and a valid target.

I totally get that when you're in hostile territory it comes down to protecting your guys at all costs, but there's a difference in that we were the invaders; we launched an offensive war based on false pretenses. One should always treat the civilian populace in a war zone with great care, but there's an extra added responsibility to do so when you instigated the war. This is not to say that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy or anything, but we allow people to get away with worse and do nothing. Sometimes we even call them our allies.

True. American leaders pick and choose battles when it is convenient. Oil is a factor because we are so dependent on it.

This is not to blame the soldiers on the ground, with the exception of those who committed illegal acts. I place the blame firmly on the Bush Administration, the politicians on both sides of the aisle in Congress who went along with everything, and the media for failing in their duties to investigate and inform. I make a special exception for Chris Kyle because he quite clearly enjoyed killing Iraqis and loved to share that fact, so fuck him.

I am of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to the U.S. and ignoring him emboldened other potential enemies in the region. Have you ever heard of Georges Sada? He was a general in Saddam Hussein's Air Force. Sada claimed that WMD's were transported to Syria by air prior to America's 2003 invasion. Whether or not we were justified in invading is another debate, but Hussein was definitely a cancer.

Kyle was a school tower sniper given a blank check to kill and a war zone where his serial killer tendencies unfortunately earned him praise. Every time Kyle went on a shooting spree, I half expected to see this pop up from the bottom of the screen; that's how inconsequential the deaths of hundreds of Iraqis was treated in the film.

Bad apples. Every society has them.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

My point was that Chris Kyle was not the only individual, in the context of the film, who had a blank check to kill.

If we're setting the bar for our own behavior based on the rules of war Syrian jihadist snipers adhere to (a composite character made up for the movie out of different reports from the book), we're in big trouble.

I don't think the simple fact that the movie was about an American who was guilty of this behavior should make the film too offensive to screen at a university.

Like I said, I agree with you on that part. I don't think the film is quite as bad as watching Nazi propaganda or anything (like Seth Rogan's comparison of it to the Nazi film within a film "Nation's Pride" from Inglorious Basterds, although admittedly the shooting scenes do have some similarities, like the guys falling off the roof), and you should be able to watch it and comment on it critically rather than just saying "Nanananananana, can't hear you!"

I am of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to the U.S. and ignoring him emboldened other potential enemies in the region. Have you ever heard of Georges Sada? He was a general in Saddam Hussein's Air Force. Sada claimed that WMD's were transported to Syria by air prior to America's 2003 invasion. Whether or not we were justified in invading is another debate, but Hussein was definitely a cancer.

Saddam was a genocidal maniac (mostly back when Cheney and Rumsfeld were still friendly with him in the 80s, though, and were fine with looking the other way), a persistent thorn in the side of neighboring nations (though not as much since the first Gulf War and subsequent air strikes/no fly zones destroyed most of his forces), and oppressor/killer of Shiites and Kurds in his own country, but he was no serious threat to the US.

Bad apples. Every society has them.

It's generally not a good idea to make heroes out of them, or to whitewash their actions and statements.

 

[Gaith]

Aye, wise and considered words, Locutus.

From what I've heard, the most generous defense of Eastwood's whitewashing of Kyle's sentiments was he wanted to make a more timeless, parable-like examination of the costs of killing, and that including too much of his real-life "colorful" aspects wouldn't have fit the sort of story and tone he wanted to tell. (He is a geezer and an old dog, after all.) In which case, he arguably should have fictionalized the whole thing, instead of picking and choosing and in so doing implicitly burnishing. Not having seen the movie or read the book myself, I can't judge on these particulars.

So, as you say, Muslim and Middle Eastern students have every right to criticize the movie as history and as art, but I agree that, barring overt and unmistakable racism and bigotry on the film's part, calling for the movie's banning places those same students on the side of those who favor theism over freedom of expression, and that's an ugly side to be on.

 

[fonzob1]

My point was that Chris Kyle was not the only individual, in the context of the film, who had a blank check to kill.

If we're setting the bar for our own behavior based on the rules of war Syrian jihadist snipers adhere to (a composite character made up for the movie out of different reports from the book), we're in big trouble.

I don't think the film they refused to show at UMD did that. I think it did establish a standard (although war will always be a dirty business).

I don't think the simple fact that the movie was about an American who was guilty of this behavior should make the film too offensive to screen at a university.

Like I said, I agree with you on that part. I don't think the film is quite as bad as watching Nazi propaganda or anything (like Seth Rogan's comparison of it to the Nazi film within a film "Nation's Pride" from Inglorious Basterds, although admittedly the shooting scenes do have some similarities, like the guys falling off the roof), and you should be able to watch it and comment on it critically rather than just saying "Nanananananana, can't hear you!"

Glad we agree.

I am of the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to the U.S. and ignoring him emboldened other potential enemies in the region. Have you ever heard of Georges Sada? He was a general in Saddam Hussein's Air Force. Sada claimed that WMD's were transported to Syria by air prior to America's 2003 invasion. Whether or not we were justified in invading is another debate, but Hussein was definitely a cancer.

Saddam was a genocidal maniac (mostly back when Cheney and Rumsfeld were still friendly with him in the 80s, though, and were fine with looking the other way), a persistent thorn in the side of neighboring nations (though not as much since the first Gulf War and subsequent air strikes/no fly zones destroyed most of his forces), and oppressor/killer of Shiites and Kurds in his own country, but he was no serious threat to the US.

I disagree. He was also undermining UN sanctions through the oil for food scandal and making friends in western countries through that activity.

Bad apples. Every society has them.

It's generally not a good idea to make heroes out of them, or to whitewash their actions and statements.

Fair enough.

 

[urbandefault]

How about a full review?

Well, reviewing American Sniper beyond how it related to its depiction of Muslims wasn't really the point of this thread, but okay.

I'm a great admirer of Clint Eastwood as an actor and filmmaker, and I think he's demonstrated the ability to depict of more nuanced view of characters on both sides of a conflict with his companion films Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. While it still captured the ugliness of war and atrocities on both sides, it also made sure to humanize the Japanese characters in both films and didn't resort to solely depicting them as either monsters or paper thin characters barely worthy of serving as anything more than targets for American soldiers.

American Sniper has many of the best qualities of his films: the cinematography is outstanding (the Cobra helicopter flying alongside the sandstorm for instance). There are some amazingly tense scenes like when he has to decide whether or not to shoot the kid with the RPG —something which never happened in the book (the incident with the woman at the beginning was adapted from the book though)— and when the Iraqis and foreign fighters are surrounding the Marines and SEALs perched on the roof. The exploration of how Chris Kyle dealt with his PTSD and how it affected his home life was quite good; the incident with the dog at the party in particular, and the scene where he's returned to the states but he's unable to cope with coming back home.

I think Bradley Cooper gave an outstanding performance, as did Sienna Miller as his Kyle's wife.

My primary issues with the film are that it's utterly unquestioning of our motives for being in Iraq, just like Chris Kyle himself, which can somewhat be forgiven in that it's telling the story based on his perspective from the book, and that it completely whitewashes most of the more negative aspects of Chris Kyle's personality and views in order to depict him in a more heroic light, which is not as forgivable in that his views are openly stated in his book. He's a unquestioning, nationalistic, violent, bigoted, Christian supremacist, sociopathic killer given free rein to indulge his proclivities by our government, and the film acts as a blatant apologism for his actions.

It barely touches on his beliefs by showing his crusader tattoo and having him refer to the Iraqis as "savages," but the depth of those hateful beliefs from his book are left totally unexplored. The man literally thought he was fighting a new crusade, and lamented the fact that he couldn't kill more Iraqis because those pesky rules of engagement (which set a ridiculous low bar as is) inhibited his ability to kill with impunity. Leaving aside all that, the man was a noted liar who was called out and caught in his lies on several occasions, which is another reason why his account should not be given an unquestioning transition to the screen.

So, on a technical and acting level, the film was quite good. As a piece of historical art and a depiction of the real Chris Kyle rather than the whitewashed caricature shown onscreen, it failed miserably. I think in the grand scheme of things, the latter holds a greater weight for me.

Satisfactory? Or were you not expecting me to have actually read the book and seen the film before commenting, and thought you had me in a "gotcha!" moment there? While we're at it, what's your opinion on the subject matter of the OP, by the way?

Gotcha? No, just a question. I don't really have time to play games like that. Do people do the "gotcha" thing with you a lot? Sounds like maybe so.

I haven't seen the movie yet, or read the book. So I have no opinion either way at this point.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Gotcha? No, just a question. I don't really have time to play games like that. Do people do the "gotcha" thing with you a lot? Sounds like maybe so.

No, it just seemed odd to ask for a full review of the film when that's not the point of the thread, as if you were checking to see if I was just parroting some talking point rather than forming my own opinion. If that wasn't your intent, I apologize.

 

[ichab]

The critics and the box office do not lie.Great movie about a true american hero. The fact that it pisses off some hardcore lefties is just a nice bonus.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The critics and the box office do not lie.Great movie about a true american hero. The fact that it pisses off some hardcore lefties is just a nice bonus.

Let's look at some quotes from Chris Kyle's autobiography, American Sniper:

----- Savage, despicable evil. That’s what we were fighting in Iraq. That’s why a lot of people, myself included, called the enemy “savages.” There really was no other way to describe what we encountered there.

People ask me all the time, “How many people have you killed?” My standard response is, “Does the answer make me less, or more, of a man?”

The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.


----- There’s another question people ask a lot: Did it bother you killing so many people in Iraq?
I tell them, “No.”

And I mean it. The first time you shoot someone, you get a little nervous. You think, can I really shoot this guy? Is it really okay? But after you kill your enemy, you see it’s okay. You say, Great.

You do it again. And again. You do it so the enemy won’t kill you or your countrymen. You do it until there’s no one left for you to kill.

That’s what war is.

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.


----- On the front of my arm, I had a crusader cross inked in. I wanted everyone to know I was a Christian. I had it put in in red, for blood. I hated the damn savages I’d been fighting. I always will.


----- I had trouble holding my tongue. At one point, I told the Army colonel, “I don’t shoot people with Korans—I’d like to, but I don’t.”


----- I never once fought for the Iraqis. I could give a flying fuck about them.

Now let's look at his time back home from a New Yorker article:

He went on, “Pretty soon drinking was all I did. After a while, it was hard liquor, and it was all through the day. . . . I was going downhill and gathering speed.” Just before 2 A.M. on March 5, 2010, Kyle was driving alone in central Dallas, near Love Field, when he lost control of his truck and crashed into a wooden fence, nearly ending up in someone’s swimming pool. A policeman found Kyle with “bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, breath smelling of alcoholic beverage, unsteady balance and nystagmus.” Kyle told him, “I’m stupid. I was drinking and driving. I missed the turn. It was my fault.” The officer arrested him, on a D.W.I. charge. Kyle slept in jail until the morning, when he was released. A judge later dismissed the charges.

Kyle had a knack for finding trouble in bars. Fighting, he wrote, was “a fact of life when you’re a SEAL.” Once, he was arrested after he and a friend “beat the shit out of” several “wannabe U.F.C. fighters.” He broke his hand during a brawl in a bar near Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Cops arrested him after he decked a man in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, for slapping a woman. Kyle chalked up these incidents to having “pent-up aggression.” He added, “I would rather get my ass beat than look like a pussy in front of my boys.”

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/06/03/in-the-crosshairs

Now let's look at some of his tall tales from Snopes.com:

The SEALs began telling stories, and Kyle offered a shocking one. In the days after Hurricane Katrina, he said, the law-and-order situation was dire. He and another sniper travelled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceeded to shoot dozens of armed residents who were contributing to the chaos. Three people shared with me varied recollections of that evening: the first said that Kyle claimed to have shot thirty men on his own; according to the second, the story was that Kyle and the other sniper had shot thirty men between them; the third said that she couldn't recall specific details.

Had Kyle gone to New Orleans with a gun? Rumors of snipers — both police officers and criminal gunmen — circulated in the weeks after the storm. Since then, they have been largely discredited. A spokesman for U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, told me, "To the best of anyone's knowledge at SOCOM, there were no West Coast SEALs deployed to Katrina." When I related this account to one of Kyle's officers, he replied, sardonically, "I never heard that story." The SEAL with extensive experience in special-mission units wondered how dozens of people could be shot by high-velocity rifles and just disappear; Kyle's version of events, he said, "defies the imagination."
________________________________________

The second claim involved a similar measure of street justice purportedly meted out by Kyle to what many would deem deserving recipients. In that tale, Kyle was nearly the victim of a carjacking at a gas station, but the deadly sniper was quicker than his would-be assailants: he drew and fatally wounded the unnamed men.

The story got odder, though, when police responded to the situation (in some accounts, Kyle called for intervention from the Department of Defense; in others, police discovered his special privileges when they checked his identification and received a mysterious message in response). An iteration of the rumor was promulgated by a New Orleans news outlet after the release of American Sniper, in which both the claims made by Kyle and their built-in lack of verifiability were questioned:
[W]riter Michael McAffrey is far less kind. He excoriates Kyle and reporters who have failed to question Kyle's bogus stories ...

Kyle also told a story about killing a pair of carjackers in Texas and then dialing up the Pentagon for the law enforcement officials who arrived at the scene. That's another story that nobody — no police, deputy, coroner or witness — has been able to confirm. McAffrey writes, "Just like he didn't shoot two car jackers in the middle of nowhere Texas, and he didn't shoot looters in the aftermath of Katrina. None of those things are true ... but that doesn't mean there aren't people who desperately need them to be true."
________________________________________

While those claims were both extraordinary and by their very nature difficult to corroborate, the third was both a bit more high-profile and (eventually) involved a celebrity. In his autobiography, Kyle described a moment of defending the honor of SEALs against someone who'd impugned them at an unimaginably inappropriate time: while they were mourning the loss of a fellow SEAL at a bar:

Kyle wrote in his 2012 book, "American Sniper," that he punched out a celebrity while mourning the death of Navy SEAL and future Medal of Honor recipient, Master at Arms 2nd Class Michael Monsoor.

Kyle did not identify [the celebrity] by name in the book, but said that he swung at the individual after he "started running his mouth about the war and everything and anything he could connect to it." That included President George W. Bush and deployed SEALs, who "were doing the wrong thing, killing men and women and children and murdering," the man said, according to Kyle's book.

Kyle alleged that he tried to get the man — identified only as "Mr. Scruff Face" — to keep it down, and he responded by saying the SEALs in the bar "deserve to a lose a few." The man eventually took a swing at him, Kyle alleged, and all hell broke loose.

"Being level-headed and calm can last only so long," Kyle said in his book. "I laid him out. Tables flew. Stuff happened. Scruff Face ended up on the floor."

Yet again, the story eventually developed another intriguing twist when Kyle elaborated upon it during a 2012 appearance on Fox News channel's The O'Reilly Factor. During that segment, Kyle claimed the previously unnamed individual he described was none other than Jesse Ventura, the former professional wrestler, governor of Minnesota, and member of the Navy's Underwater Demolition Teams during the Vietnam War era.

While the claims about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the carjacking incident were met with some general disbelief, the mention of Ventura's name introduced a separate credibility issue for Kyle in the form of a lawsuit filed by Ventura against Kyle after the latter's appearance on O'Reilly's show. After Kyle died in 2013 the suit continued against his estate, and a jury eventually found Kyle's estate had improperly profited from claims made by the decedent that had no basis in provable fact and awarded Ventura $1.8 million dollars in damages:
Legal experts said Ventura, a former Navy SEAL, had to clear a high legal bar to win, since as a public figure he had to prove actual malice. According to the jury instructions, Ventura had to prove with "clear and convincing evidence" that Kyle either knew or believed what he wrote was untrue, or that he harbored serious doubts about its truth.

[Ventura attorney David Bradley] Olsen said Kyle's claims that Ventura said he hated America, thought the U.S. military was killing innocent civilians in Iraq and that the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" had made him a pariah in the community that mattered most to him — the brotherhood of current and former SEALs.

Olsen said inconsistencies in testimony from defense witnesses about what happened the night of Oct. 12, 2006, were so serious that their stories couldn't be trusted. He also pointed out that people who were with Ventura that night testified that the alleged confrontation never happened. And he said Ventura would never have said any of the remarks attributed to him because he remains proud of his and his parents' military service.
...

Moreover, the single claim of this group that stood a legal test of its veracity failed: Kyle's claims about Jesse Ventura were sufficiently non-provable that a jury (deliberating in a country that, by and large, holds a large measure of respect and pursuant leeway for American servicemen) saw fit to award damages to Ventura totaling seven figures, even with the knowledge that Kyle himself hadn't lived to see the sanction and the damages would be levied against his widow and other beneficiaries of his estate.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/kyleclaims.asp

So your "true American hero" is an unquestioning and unrepentant killer who thought he was fighting a crusade against "savages" (which includes anyone carrying a Koran). If he didn't have the lucky break of a free-fire warzone where he could kill all male brown people ages 14-65 with impunity, it's not difficult to imagine him killing people back home given his rage and sociopathic lack of remorse or morality.

We see this in his lies, too, like the carjacking and Katrina stories. Either you believe his stories about Katrina to be true, in which case he's responsible for dozens of murders of US citizens (not surprisingly, brown people again), or he's the kind of piece of shit who likes to lie about murdering poor desperate black people dying from hunger and dehydration in a disaster. Great guy!

Then he felt it was so important to lie about beating up Jesse Ventura that he got his wife sued.

Also, let's not mention his DWI and frequent bar brawls in pursuit of demonstrating what a badass he is.

Chris Kyle is a sociopathic bigot given free rein to kill, not a hero. He did some good things with his assistance with soldiers with PTSD, but that doesn't erase all the bad.