|
That's the opposite of how it really reads. He gloats about how little he feels for the Iraqis and directly says he doesn't give a poo poo about helping them and feels great about shooting them. The book has hardly any of the somber, reflective poo poo the movie pushes. It's a right wing fantasy piece.
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Yes, but they had faggy european writing on them, so of course it was covered up. But not covered up enough to, say, have the CIA or anyone stop him from writing about it in a goddamn book. That part of the book really comes off as a troubled guy trying to justify his actions and role in a bad war. Kyle goes into this whole illogical argument that Saddam knew they were coming into Iraq, so he must have hid them all beforehand, and therefore it doesn't matter that no evidence turned up, even though he found some. No one ever mentions this really ludicrous section because it probably discredits him as much as the "sniping black people in New Orleans" anecdote, and it also reveals that he probably had trouble accepting the war as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Those lies betray a bunch of racist, unduly violent views towards other people. They are not heroic. Thinking that murdering someone is something to brag about, in and of itself, is not a healthy thing. It's a horrible mentality, that in his case was used to say some types of people (Iraqis, Koran-carriers, "looters") are less human than Americans. Kyle is also pushing a false reading of a war that was done for bad reasons and caused horrible trouble. Do you see a problem with falsely glorifying a terrible, destructive policy?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 21:19
|
|