by George Green
Recently Ron Paul, who is routinely intentionally misinterpreted by leftist and neo-conservatives alike, made a tweet that sound resonate more loudly than the twisted implication implied by many in the media. Rather than painting blame the Congressman, and frequent candidate for president, was making a philosophical point and one that should be considered regarding the violent acts America commits when it prefers, but denounces at others. Serving the American government in no way justified Chris Kyle's murder. Yet serving foreign governments is a justification used by the American government to murder people, even American citizens, without due process today.
Chris Kyle was a decorated veteran who had gone on several military tours ostensibly to defend his country. The fact of the matter today however is that while he served his duty honorably, he was a weapon to be wielded by the United States government which has continually used people like Kyle to carry out its objectives in open defiance to the rules of war. Kyle, who commercialized on the concepts of killing unsuspecting individuals in his book 'American Sniper', wasn't killed for his actions serving his country; he was killed by a disturbed fellow soldier. Yet America today believes people should die for their ideas, or actions supporting pretty much anyone it disagrees with.
A hot debate in America is about the proliferation of deadly weapons that can quickly kill innocent people with no warning. If America is interested in outlawing such things then why is it producing them? Isn't that what snipers with 160 kills they received awards for do for a living? Isn't that a lifestyle Kyle promoted himself? Isn't that the same lifestyle countless American video games promote? But America doesn't want to ban people who are successful murderers, people who promote a lifestyle of murder, or mentally ill people like the man who murdered Chris Kyle; they want to ban weapons as easy to use to defend against murder as to engage in it.
Were it not for chance; Chris Kyle would be alive today the celebrated hero who 'took out' his mentally disabled acquaintance. He would be called a hero.
Certainly when Paul claims that following a Christian lifestyle rather than reveling about the spilled blood of foes would have resulted in a very different life for Kyle he's correct, but there's no guarantee it wouldn't still seen him unsuspectingly murdered. Especially if Kyle had recanted on the use of violence to embrace Christian pacifism he could be understood to be a threat to the United States and murdered the same way that SEALS like Kyle murdered Osama Bin Laden, collecting no evidence to prove he was an immediate threat, and denying any agency to oversea bringing Bin Laden to justice. He would be in the same 'its okay to kill SOME Americans' situation Anwar al-Aulaqi, and the other American Citizens of his family who had at best vague connections to any violence and were murdered non-the-less.
America mourns for the slayer they so jubilantly taught to slay at far less than a moment's notice. America promotes a subjective world-view where even murdering unsuspecting countrymen is sometimes justified, as long as the president doesn't like them. America lauded the 160 deaths the man they trained to kill managed, and cries for the one caused by another they trained to do the same managed. Two men of the sword, died by another of the sword but the weapon wasn't the guns in their hands; it was the ideology instilled in them by a maniacal government bent on subjective justice that caused one of the three to turn on the rest. Paul's comments, while perhaps inappropriate in the death of any unsuspecting individual, are a mere sober statement of that fact. One should deeply consider that had Kyle's fellow soldier murdered him on the president's order he might well receive awards for it. Objectively; Kyle lived by the sword and died by it.