Tragic Death for American Military Hero

[RLENT]

Maybe he was convinced his targets were a threat to him and his fellow soldiers.

... all while failing to bother examining the ethics and morality of even being there in first place ?

... I was only following orders ...​

 

[Pilgrim]

Do you recognize irony when you type it?

Speaking of mental health, it's accepted that Kyle was an expert on being 'lethal', [because rattlesnakes can't talk], but I'm wondering why he thought he had the qualifications to treat someone suffering from a mental disorder. 'Been there & done that' works for alcoholics, but mental illness is a whole 'nother kind of problem, and amateurs have no business 'treating' it, no matter how well intentioned.
If Kyle was dabbling in therapy for PTSD, he died of his own hubris.

As "HIS" way of bonding and mentoring. That in no way indicates that it was the correct way or the safe way. As your article states, "*PTSD is very commonly associated with a number of other conditions that are regularly attached to violence . . .". A proper and complete diagnosis would be the first step in determining the type of treatment deemed safe and effective.

Was Kyle qualified to make these determinations? We don't know at this point; however, we do know that he showed great hubris. This type of arrogance and bravado can become a fault that leads to poor decisions that a more humble person may not have made.

His "hubris" being a contributing factor to putting him in danger is a reasonable conclusion and certainly not uninformed.

The post to which I referred taken in context, is blatantly uninformed - and that's an understatement. PTSD patients obviously benefit from "been there, done that" group therapy. Also, there's a big difference between arrogance and self confidence - hubris is the wrong word in the first place. It's sheer speculation why this nut case was on the range with Kyle, but it's likely he was referred to Kyle and was not a personal acquaintance.

 

[RLENT]

Correct me if I'm wrong. PTSD does not mean that you will have a violent outburst, nor is it likely. It is but one of a whole host of possible symptoms. Most sufferers of that disorder aren't violent time bombs.

Sounds correct to me ...

 

[cheri1122]

The post to which I referred taken in context, is blatantly uninformed - and that's an understatement. PTSD patients obviously benefit from "been there, done that" group therapy.

I don't know whether it's "obvious" or not - it would seem so, but then lots of things that look obvious turn out not to be quite what was thought, but IF it's true that PTSD patients benefit from any sort of group therapy, it would be therapy that's conducted by a person trained to do so. To the best of my knowledge, Kyle had no such training or credentials, therefore he had no business conducting therapy sessions, no matter how well intentioned.

Also, there's a big difference between arrogance and self confidence - hubris is the wrong word in the first place.

Hubris seems precisely the right word to describe one who thought his many successes qualified him to succeed at helping people with a mental disorder.

It's sheer speculation why this nut case was on the range with Kyle, but it's likely he was referred to Kyle and was not a personal acquaintance.

What you refer to as "sheer speculation" has been quoted by several people with knowledge of the situation, which is more support than you have for the [irrelevant] speculation you tacked onto it.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't know whether it's "obvious" or not - it would seem so, but then lots of things that look obvious turn out not to be quite what was thought, but IF it's true that PTSD patients benefit from any sort of group therapy, it would be therapy that's conducted by a person trained to do so. To the best of my knowledge, Kyle had no such training or credentials, therefore he had no business conducting therapy sessions, no matter how well intentioned.

It may not be obvious to you, but to anyone who bothers to check out the link I provided or knows anything about the problems faced by returning vets can recognize the obvious. There can be no doubt that group therapy is beneficial for PTSD sufferers.

"Group psychotherapy is likely the most beneficial psychotherapy method for PTSD, especially for military personnel and veterans. Group treatment is practiced in VA PTSD Clinics and Vet Centers for military veterans and in mental health and crisis clinics for victims of assault and abuse."

Psychotherapy Treatment for PTSD | Psych Central

Hubris seems precisely the right word to describe one who thought his many successes qualified him to succeed at helping people with a mental disorder.

Call it what you want - but the idea that his unique experiences during and after a highly successful military career might qualify him to help people with PTSD is a BLINDING GLIMPSE of the obvious. But the implication that he was trying to act as a doctor or licensed therapist is way off base. The range activity was for the bonding / mentoring that occurs between vets, which is a part of the therapeutic process.

"He returned home an American hero, and he died a hero. Kyle, 38, and Littlefield, 35, were killed on Saturday, Feb. 2, 2013, by a troubled veteran they were reportedly trying to help cope with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He wasn’t trying to “treat” the troubled vet, he was simply trying to be a brother to a fellow serviceman who was having a hard time. Kyle proudly talked about regularly taking soldiers suffering from physical or emotional issues on hunting trips and other outdoor activities to provide comradery, friendship and support."

The Real Legacy of Chris Kyle: A ‘True American Hero’ Who Devoted His Life to Serving Others | TheBlaze.com

What you refer to as "sheer speculation" has been quoted by several people with knowledge of the situation, which is more support than you have for the [irrelevant] speculation you tacked onto it.

That statement doesn't make much sense, since the only thing unsupported and "sheer speculation" I offered was related to why Routh would be on the range with Kyle and Littlefield in the first place. If you think this little detail is "irrelevant", fine. As of this afternoon TX authorities haven't offered an official explanation, but others continue to speculate:

"What was intended as an effort to aid a fellow veteran turned deadly when Eddie Ray Routh, 25, is alleged to have unexpectedly shot both of his would be mentors in the back and escaped in Kyle's stolen Ford F250 pickup truck.
The rumor circulating within the close-knit SEAL community is that the motive was anger over exposing Routh as a fraud. According to the as yet unconfirmed rumor, Eddie Routh is alleged to have exaggerated his service in the Marines to claim hazardous service among the ranks of the elite Scout Snipers..."

For the entire article: Former SEAL Chris Kyle, America's Deadliest Sniper, killed for exposing a Fraud? - Washington DC Government careers | Examiner.com

Bottom line is, the implication that Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield got ambushed as a result of their arrogance and carelessness is just laughable. These good and decent men were trying to help to help someone they thought was a fellow veteran in need, who turned out to be a homicidal maniac that should have been in an institution. No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[RLENT]

That statement doesn't make much sense, since the only thing unsupported and "sheer speculation" I offered was related to why Routh would be on the range with Kyle and Littlefield in the first place.

Well, no ... it wasn't the only thing you offered (in this thread) that was unsupported (a habit seem you seem rather inclined to ...)

You asserted that those actively participating in an illegal war of aggression in Iraq (which was based on lies) were somehow "defending the Constitution" ...

It is a statement, which aside from being unsupported, is simply ludicrous on its face, given the facts of the matter ...

I guess we can all conclude that since you offer no argument or facts to support your assertion, that you either have no argument to make, or are simply incapable of doing so ...

In any event, thanks for the chuckle ...

In the future you might wish to post such specious drivel in a more appropriate thread ... perhaps the one I started:

http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/57508-gop-lunacy-parade-continues.html

 

[Humble2drive]

It may not be obvious to you, but to anyone who bothers to check out the link I provided or knows anything about the problems faced by returning vets can recognize the obvious. There can be no doubt that group therapy is beneficial for PTSD sufferers.

Thank you Dr. Pilgrim but nothing you have provided makes your conclusion obvious. Even the article you refer to states that it is "likely". PTSD therapy protocols are still being developed.

Call it what you want - but the idea that his unique experiences during and after a highly successful military career might qualify him to help people with PTSD is a BLINDING GLIMPSE of the obvious.

There you go again. Obvious? Military service does not a therapist make unless perhaps someone is blinded by a hero complex.

Here is one protocol that shows promise and it does not involve firing guns at a gun range. Quite the opposite:

Two years ago, as part of a program for her PTSD, she started to meditate.

Today, her only treatment is the meditation. She meditates two times a day for 20 minutes each time.

"There's no question to me that meditation has changed my life. On a scale of one to 10, my symptoms went from a 10 to a two to three on a given day," said Boughton.

10News - Meditation, yoga may offer answers for PTSD, combat stress: Camp Pendleton class teaches meditation - 10News.com - News

 

[layoutshooter]

Every one is different. Meditation will work for one person while an hour on the range for another. There is no one answer. MANY vets hunt and fish as part of their "therapy" for PTSD, they ENJOY it and feel better after being able to do things that they enjoy.

The biggest problem is the continued heavy use of psychotropic drugs. It has to be stopped. There is just no excuse for drugging rather than treatment.

 

[Pilgrim]

Thank you Dr. Pilgrim but nothing you have provided makes your conclusion obvious. Even the article you refer to states that it is "likely". PTSD therapy protocols are still being developed.

The article states that group therapy is "likely the most beneficial" method of treatment for PTSD. Sounds like that's pretty well slanted to the positive side of the obvious scale. As LOS pointed out, every patient is unique and individual results from the different types of therapy will vary. But if it makes you feel good to nitpick at semantics, knock yourself out.

There you go again. Obvious? Military service does not a therapist make unless perhaps someone is blinded by a hero complex.

Did you even read the content of the post or the quote from the article? That's why I put bold emphasis on "He wasn't trying to treat the troubled vet...". It's stated more than once that Kyle and Littlefield were trying to help this guy Routh through bonding & mentoring.This is just misrepresenting what I posted for the sake of creating a contrary argument.

 

[Pilgrim]

"But in that backroom or whatever it is when God confronts me with my sins, I do not believe any of the kills I had during the war will be among them. Everyone I shot was evil. I had good cause on every shot. They all deserved to die."

You just can't make it up.

Here are some other quotes from Chris Kyle's book, American Sniper.

Regarding his first sniper kill, a woman with a grenade near a group of Marines: "It was my duty to shoot, and I don't regret it. The woman was already dead. I was just making sure she didn't take any Marines with her. It was clear that not only did she want to kill them, but she didn't care about anybody else nearby..." (pp. 3-4)

Regarding his training and assignment: "I had a job to do as a SEAL. I killed the enemy - an enemy I saw day in and day out plotting to kill my fellow Americans." (p.4)

Regarding the circumstances of taking shots: "But there were times it wasn't exactly clear, when a person almost surely was an insurgent, probably was doing evil, but there was still some doubt because of the circumstances or the surroundings... These shots I didn't take... Make an unjustified shot and you could be charged with murder...
Every confirmed kill had documentation, supporting evidence, and a witness." (pp. 149-150)

 

[jaminjim]

Maybe it would be best to just lock all returning vets in a cell until they know for positive sure the proper way to treat for PTSD. On the other hand since they are all war criminals according to some here we should just schedule them for execution upon return.

 

[layoutshooter]

Maybe it would be best to just lock all returning vets in a cell until they know for positive sure the proper way to treat for PTSD. On the other hand since they are all war criminals according to some here we should just schedule them for execution upon return.

Don't give that dufus in the White House any ideas, he is rotten enough to do it!

 

[Humble2drive]

The article states that group therapy is "likely the most beneficial" method of treatment for PTSD. Sounds like that's pretty well slanted to the positive side of the obvious scale. As LOS pointed out, every patient is unique and individual results from the different types of therapy will vary. But if it makes you feel good to nitpick at semantics, knock yourself out.

Your method of backing down from a statement is amusing: "pretty well slanted to the positive side" ?
When you criticize another member for being "blatantly uninformed" and state your position as "obvious" it becomes less about semantics and more about truth and accuracy.

Previous post by Pilgrim:

The post to which I referred taken in context, is blatantly uninformed - and that's an understatement. PTSD patients obviously benefit from "been there, done that" group therapy.

Did you even read the content of the post or the quote from the article? That's why I put bold emphasis on "He wasn't trying to treat the troubled vet...". It's stated more than once that Kyle and Littlefield were trying to help this guy Routh through bonding & mentoring.This is just misrepresenting what I posted for the sake of creating a contrary argument.

Both the article and the post failed to produce your "blinding glimpse of the obvious". Would you like to back down from that one also or are we going to refer to that "slanted to the positive" thing again.

 

[RLENT]

Here are some other quotes from Chris Kyle's book, American Sniper.

Regarding his first sniper kill, a woman with a grenade near a group of Marines: "It was my duty to shoot, and I don't regret it. The woman was already dead. I was just making sure she didn't take any Marines with her. It was clear that not only did she want to kill them, but she didn't care about anybody else nearby..." (pp. 3-4)

Regarding his training and assignment: "I had a job to do as a SEAL. I killed the enemy - an enemy I saw day in and day out plotting to kill my fellow Americans." (p.4)

None of the above addresses Kyle's moral culpability as an individual in choosing - on his volition - to participate in an illegal war of aggression.

Regarding the circumstances of taking shots: "But there were times it wasn't exactly clear, when a person almost surely was an insurgent, probably was doing evil, but there was still some doubt because of the circumstances or the surroundings ... These shots I didn't take ... Make an unjustified shot and you could be charged with murder...
Every confirmed kill had documentation, supporting evidence, and a witness." (pp. 149-150)

In evaluating these claims one has to consider the source - a self-admitted liar - along with other statements he has made that do not cast him a particularly flattering light with respect to his conduct towards civilians in Iraq.

Clearly, it was very much in his own self-interest to make such claims as above ...

BTW - how is your dissertation on the Iraq War vis a vis "defending the Constitution" coming - any progress there Sparky ?

 

[Pilgrim]

Your method of backing down from a statement is amusing: "pretty well slanted to the positive side" ?
When you criticize another member for being "blatantly uninformed" and state your position as "obvious" it becomes less about semantics and more about truth and accuracy.
Both the article and the post failed to produce your "blinding glimpse of the obvious". Would you like to back down from that one also or are we going to refer to that "slanted to the positive" thing again.

Didn't back down from anything. My opinions are just that - opinions, and I've provided links to articles and reports upon which these opinions are based. If you don't understand them that's your problem. You, on the other hand provide nothing but unsupported verbal bilge and desperate attempts at counter-arguments just because you don't want to agree with anything I post. Looks like you're either out of your intellectual depth on this subject matter, or you're just one of the hate-the-military slugs that takes all your "rights" for granted so long as somebody else defends them for you. Have a nice life - people like Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield provided the services and personal sacrifices so people like you can enjoy your God-given "rights".

 

[Humble2drive]

Didn't back down from anything. . . You, on the other hand provide nothing but unsupported verbal bilge and desperate attempts at counter-arguments just because you don't want to agree with anything I post.

Our very simple disagreement was basically over wether or not Kyle was qualified to provide proper PTSD therapy. You thought your opinion was obvious and correct and I disagreed.
There was never any need for desperation and merely disagreeing with your opinion does not constitute "verbal bilge".
It is unfortunate that you seem to have taken this disagreement personally and emotionally.
If it makes you feel better, I will agree that you did not back down from your statement, you clarified it. Feel better?

Looks like you're either out of your intellectual depth on this subject matter, or you're just one of the hate-the-military slugs that takes all your "rights" for granted so long as somebody else defends them for you.

None of the above as this subject matter required very little " intellectual depth" and I am proud of my military service. There has not been a single mention on my part regarding hatred of my fellow military members in general or Chris Kyle specifically.
In fact, I agreed with Aristotle in post#5:
"Agreed, he was a valuable asset and most likely saved many American lives."
Your making an emotional conclusion that I either hate the military or take my rights for granted because I disagreed with you regarding PTSD treatment?

Have a nice life - people like Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield provided the services and personal sacrifices so people like you can enjoy your God-given "rights".

Have a nice life? Are we ending this relationship?
I don't have any " God-given" rights to give up but I appreciate every military member who has sacrificed greatly to defend my Constitutional rights.
Disagreeing with you certainly doesn't change that.

 

[Turtle]

I, too, am still curious as to how invading Iraq defended the Constitution, or our rights.

I'm thinking about approaching Fox or CBS about an idea for a new competition-based reality show: Hate-the-Military Slugs versus Military Facists. It'll be wild and wacky.

 

[RLENT]

I, too, am still curious as to how invading Iraq defended the Constitution, or our rights.

I'd be willing to bet bunches of folks are ... particularly given the lies involved in justifying our involvement ...

However, I suspect it will remain a closely guarded secret ... only capable of being shared with full initiates of the cult of "When did America ever engage in foreign "meddling" ? ...

I'm thinking about approaching Fox or CBS about an idea for a new competition-based reality show: Hate-the-Military Slugs versus Military Facists. It'll be wild and wacky.

Them Fascists may have the goose-step and that snazzy salute ... but we Slugs have the slime ...

 

[Turtle]

I'd be willing to bet bunches of folks are ... particularly given the lies involved in justifying our involvement ...

I just find it interesting that anytime the military is deployed, or anywhere the military is stationed, it's always billed as defending the Constitution and fighting for our rights, when in reality such is rarely the case. And try as I will, I cannot come up with any correlation with defending the Constitution and fighting for our rights with respect to the war in Iraq. When people use "US interests" as the justification that encompasses both categories, they generally mean "US security interests," but when you get down to it, it always ends up being US economic interests, and usually only that of a few select corporations rather than the economic interests of the US as a whole, so that doesn't really apply, either.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing how an invasion of and a war in Iraq defends our Constitution and protects our rights.

"He tried to kill my daddy,' well, at least that's honest. <snort>

 

[scottm4211]

But they look different and talk weird.