"Dirty Wars" (2013)

[Koshinn]

Anyone seen it? It's up for an Oscar for best long documentary. It's on Netflix.

It's about Jeremy Scahill's journey investigating an attack in Gardez that killed civilians and was covered up, drone strikes in Yemen that were covered up, outsourcing kill lists to local warlords in Mogadishu, and Anwar Al-Awlaki's targeted killing without trial despite being an American citizen. It paints JSOC as a shadowy boogeyman organization and specifically points to ADM McRaven (current USSOCOM commander, but JSOC commander at the time of the documentary) as the one in charge... which he was of course.

Basically showing how America is utilizing special operations to kill people all over the world and cover up their mistakes with impunity/without repercussions, then showing the human impact and how America is creating the very terrorists its trying to wipe out.

Scahill, if you remember, wrote a book about Blackwater.

[mkmckinley]

I saw part of it and walked out. It's a bunch of one sided misinformation from a guy with an agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if it does win an Oscar.

[chuckman]

Scahill is hardly an objective journalist. He is well known for his generally anti-US mil work, always looking for a US boogeyman. I think he likes to screw with special ops in particular as OPSEC/PERSEC prevents any real rebuttals or counter argument.

[Honu]

that bold part right there should show you all you need to know !!!! its propaganda for one side

terrorist don't care about there own kids and use them as bombs and such !

are we perfect far from it but the same time fighting wars is messy but we are not creating terrorists they have been around since the first pedophile walked out of a cave 1500 years ago ! remember islam is about killing and destroying anyone who does not convert or make them slaves its why George Washington even had a problem with them and the massive slave problem with white slaves that nobody in history wants to talk about !!!!

and obama one the nobel peace prize while drone attacks were killing kids and not caring what he is doing so a oscar is about as worthless as a nobel prize these days


Anyone seen it? It's up for an Oscar for best long documentary. It's on Netflix.

It's about Jeremy Scahill's journey investigating an attack in Gardez that killed civilians and was covered up, drone strikes in Yemen that were covered up, outsourcing kill lists to local warlords in Mogadishu, and Anwar Al-Awlaki's targeted killing without trial despite being an American citizen. It paints JSOC as a shadowy boogeyman organization and specifically points to ADM McRaven (current USSOCOM commander, but JSOC commander at the time of the documentary) as the one in charge... which he was of course.

Basically showing how America is utilizing special operations to kill people all over the world and cover up their mistakes with impunity/without repercussions, then showing the human impact and how America is creating the very terrorists its trying to wipe out.

Scahill, if you remember, wrote a book about Blackwater.

[Outlander Systems]

Seen it. Hated it.

Smelled like propaganda/axe-grinding.

War *IS* dirty. Reach down, verify male nutsackius, and soldier on.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Schall is a doucehbag.

[Eurodriver]

Everything said so far I agree with.

...but to ignore that we are creating terrorists by our foreign policy (especially drone strikes) is to only stick our head in the sand. Malala speaks from personal experience.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Everything said so far I agree with.

...but to ignore that we are creating terrorists by our foreign policy (especially drone strikes) is to only stick our head in the sand. Malala speaks from personal experience.

It's a lose/lose on that front. If we don't act, they create terrorists. If we act. We create terrorists. That said, I don't think that drone strikes should be our primary means of targeting terrorists. I think that ODA's should be used instead. Less dead civilians that way, IMO.

[Honu]

ditto :)

IMHO the drone strikes are to try to make Americans who are not informed think the white house is doing something ? they do work at killing major downside we get no intel when they are used



It's a lose/lose on that front. If we don't act, they create terrorists. If we act. We create terrorists. That said, I don't think that drone strikes should be our primary means of targeting terrorists. I think that ODA's should be used instead. Less dead civilians that way, IMO.

[Iraqgunz]

I hate to break it to everyone, but the Muslim jihadists don't need help from us in creating terrorists. They radical Imams and mosques are already accomplishing that. Let's also not forget that we didn't fly aircraft into Mecca or Medina. We didn't blow up 243 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Beirut or kill Saudi servicemembers at their barracks with a truck bomb. Are we perfect? Far from it. But, to be quite honest there are people in the world that need killing.

As for the Blackwater book, most of those in the know realize that it was a book full or garbage and it played great with the We don't need no stinking contractors crowd.

[Scoby]

I read Scahill's Blackwater book. Didn't get very deep into it to determine which side he was on. Seemed blatantly biased to me. I tend not to trust opinions that fall so far on one side.
I also finished Erik Prince's book about Blackwater, Civilian Warriors a few weeks ago. He of course leaned the other direction.

I think between the two, the real truth is in there somewhere.

Don't care much for Scahill.

[thopkins22]

Schahill is anti-war, but he is certainly not partisan. Generally he goes after Obama and the left much harder than he ever did against Bush.

I find his work to be very valuable in an age where everything is catering to either the LCD amongst us or the inflated egos of poorly educated politicos. You don't have to agree with him to find value in his reporting.


IG, that's very true but they'd say we've been keeping brutal dictatorships in power in the middle east for the past fifty years at the expense of their people(which is true.) Anyone who's thought that the protesters in the Ukraine are fighting to get out from under the thumb of Putin(although apparently with the goal of winding up under someone else's,) should consider that there are places we've kept neatly in control for decades...often at the expense of democracy, freedom, and lives.

Be aware that I'm not knocking contractors nor the wisdom of them(I have several good friends who I respect that worked in Iraq for years, and generally feel that a more focused military is a very positive thing,) I'm not knocking going to Afghanistan or Iraq(though it's clear that it's past time to go ahead and come home,) nor am I even saying that we shouldn't keep relatively brutal regimes in power across the world. But we have to recognize that those actions have consequences.

People only resort to suicide terrorism upon feeling that other options for removing what they view as an occupying force are exhausted. Until Iraq peaked, Sri Lanka had the record for the most suicide bombings in the world...not a Muslim thing. Certainly once every few years an evil asshole will manage to do something on his own, but at what point is it any different than a lone gunman shooting up a school? Certainly we recognize that gun control can't stop madmen from doing insane and evil things...what makes us think that invading a country filled with people without the will, ability, or drive to do such a thing will stop the handful that does? I'm not sure I see the endgame in any of this.

Years ago Michael Scheuer stated that the way to end this was a combination of removing ourselves from their politics, their world, their lives, and simultaneously killing those at the top with very little regard to the loss of innocent life. He may have been on to something.

[ABNAK]

I hate to break it to everyone, but the Muslim jihadists don't need help from us in creating terrorists. They radical Imams and mosques are already accomplishing that. Let's also not forget that we didn't fly aircraft into Mecca or Medina. We didn't blow up 243 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Beirut or kill Saudi servicemembers at their barracks with a truck bomb. Are we perfect? Far from it. But, to be quite honest there are people in the world that need killing.


Spot the f*** on! Saved me some typing.

[ABNAK]

Schahill is anti-war, but he is certainly not partisan. Generally he goes after Obama and the left much harder than he ever did against Bush.

I find his work to be very valuable in an age where everything is catering to either the LCD amongst us or the inflated egos of poorly educated politicos. You don't have to agree with him to find value in his reporting.


IG, that's very true but they'd say we've been keeping brutal dictatorships in power in the middle east for the past fifty years at the expense of their people(which is true.) Anyone who's thought that the protesters in the Ukraine are fighting to get out from under the thumb of Putin(although apparently with the goal of winding up under someone else's,) should consider that there are places we've kept neatly in control for decades...often at the expense of democracy, freedom, and lives.

Be aware that I'm not knocking contractors nor the wisdom of them(I have several good friends who I respect that worked in Iraq for years, and generally feel that a more focused military is a very positive thing,) I'm not knocking going to Afghanistan or Iraq(though it's clear that it's past time to go ahead and come home,) nor am I even saying that we shouldn't keep relatively brutal regimes in power across the world. But we have to recognize that those actions have consequences.

People only resort to suicide terrorism upon feeling that other options for removing what they view as an occupying force are exhausted. Until Iraq peaked, Sri Lanka had the record for the most suicide bombings in the world...not a Muslim thing. Certainly once every few years an evil asshole will manage to do something on his own, but at what point is it any different than a lone gunman shooting up a school? Certainly we recognize that gun control can't stop madmen from doing insane and evil things...what makes us think that invading a country filled with people without the will, ability, or drive to do such a thing will stop the handful that does? I'm not sure I see the endgame in any of this. Retribution, painful retribution, i.e. a smackdown bad enough to warrant thinking twice before ever doing it again.

Years ago Michael Scheuer stated that the way to end this was a combination of removing ourselves from their politics, their world, their lives, and simultaneously killing those at the top with very little regard to the loss of innocent life. He may have been on to something.

I hate to say this, as it's not an ethnic or racial thing, but more of a cultural thing: some cultures need to be ruled with an iron fist. I wasn't a firm believer in that until the last 7 years or so. Be careful what you ask for when talking "democracy" in a culture that sees things way differently than us, especially in what we would regard as religiously fanatical terms. I would say that the more secular a culture is the more a "democracy" may work but even that isn't always guaranteed either. Unchecked graft and corruption (and to be certain there's a tad in our country too) is often the downfall of secular democratic attempts....but "that's how it's done" in those cultures.

[caporider]

Doesn't Scahill claim at the start of this movie that he had never heard of ADM McRaven or USSOCOM? I was incredulous that a guy who wrote a book on Blackwater did not run across USSOCOM somewhere, somehow. At the very least, this speaks poorly of his methods as a journalist.

[Iraqgunz]

ABNAK actually nailed it as well. The history of the middle east shows that from its origins they have had a need to be ruled by strongmen. Its also a good example of what happens when you have govt that is tied to close to religion. Many of the leaders who ran these countries also recognized the issues of the religious differences and especially the Sunni v. Shia issues which is why they had secular governments. There will be never be any true forms of freedom or democracy in the middle east because they don't want it and because it's not compatible with Islam.

We also supported some questionable regimes in South America and Central America and yet you don't see them hijacking planes and blowing up our embassies or interests.

[Koshinn]

Doesn't Scahill claim at the start of this movie that he had never heard of ADM McRaven or USSOCOM? I was incredulous that a guy who wrote a book on Blackwater did not run across USSOCOM somewhere, somehow. At the very least, this speaks poorly of his methods as a journalist.

JSOC. I also thought that was ridiculous.

[Eurodriver]

I hate to break it to everyone, but the Muslim jihadists don't need help from us in creating terrorists. They radical Imams and mosques are already accomplishing that. Let's also not forget that we didn't fly aircraft into Mecca or Medina. We didn't blow up 243 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Beirut or kill Saudi servicemembers at their barracks with a truck bomb. Are we perfect? Far from it. But, to be quite honest there are people in the world that need killing.

As for the Blackwater book, most of those in the know realize that it was a book full or garbage and it played great with the We don't need no stinking contractors crowd.

I'm not opposed to killing these people (BTDT), I oppose some of the methods used.

At the risk of sounding like those who wish to end all police pursuits of dangerous criminals:

With all of our advancements in technology and weaponry we should not be blowing up innocent civilians in sovereign countries (Pakistan) trying to take out terrorists.

[gun71530]

I'm not opposed to killing these people (BTDT), I oppose some of the methods used.

At the risk of sounding like those who wish to end all police pursuits of dangerous criminals:

With all of our advancements in technology and weaponry we should not be blowing up innocent civilians in sovereign countries (Pakistan) trying to take out terrorists.

That depends on your definition of innocent. Do you consider people willingly harboring terrorists innocent?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

[brickboy240]

Do you think Scahill will ever show the same grit and determination in getting to the bottom on Benghazi?

Yeah...I doubt it.

-brickboy240

[thopkins22]

That depends on your definition of innocent. Do you consider people willingly harboring terrorists innocent?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

Do you consider people attacking an invading military terrorists? It's not that clear right?

No doubt there are terrorists(let's say fanatics who genuinely want to bring an end to the secular west and bring forth a worldwide caliphate,) but they're seriously outnumbered by people fighting us because we're there. That's not to say that those whom aren't trying to hit us here aren't our enemies, I want to be clear about that. If you're a serviceman deployed in southwest Asia, please kill every dumb mother ****er who wants to harm you...and do so with glee and a smile on your face.

But as far as policy and strategy are concerned, we have to recognize that there is a difference between those willing to travel halfway around the world to kill us, and those whom are killing us a few miles from their home. They're not just different people, they act based on different motivations. Both might need a first class ticket to Allah regardless of whether or not we're at war in their country....but we must get past this belief that we're simply fighting religious fanatics who are really pissed off that our women don't wear burkas. It's counterproductive to our ability to actually win.


Do you think Scahill will ever show the same grit and determination in getting to the bottom on Benghazi?

Yeah...I doubt it.

-brickboy240
Benghazi was a story because of the ineptitude of the administration...and Hillary Clinton generally being a cold uncaring person. Very similar to their handling of the killing of UBL...the largest story of his presidency and Obama couldn't even manage to be the one to tell us. He's out of his depth as a politician. A better question would be something that's in Scahill's wheelhouse. Lybia, Somalia, and so forth...stories he told that were incredibly critical of Obama. There are videos of him absolutely destroying liberal tv hosts on Lybia. Ed Schultz, and several others have had him on expecting a democrat and finding someone who told a story that has Obama being as willing to use force as GWB, but who likes to hide it as opposed to being honest with the American people about what's going on.

I don't want to sound like I'm carrying water for this guy, I'm not. But simply because he's anti-war does not make him a Democrat, and it certainly doesn't invalidate the stories he's reported which by and large are not being told elsewhere in the media.