This film wins the award for most dishonest title ever.

Good thing we've got you to set the record straight. That we've got Jeremy Scahill and a handful of other journalists out there that actually does some critical journalism with regards to american foreign policy is outrages. It simply isn't enough that pretty much the entire main-stream media is bending backwards not to find any fault with terrorizing and killing innocent people in the middle east and Africa. Thank you!
I mean, who is Scahill to actually travel to the places and speak to the victims? Better to stay put in DC or wherever like the rest of them and regurgitate Obamas declarations of how very few victims there are and how perfect the precision of the strikes are.
Oh, and yeah, Obama is the real victim here! I mean the agony he must feel everyday for having the responsibility for the safety of millions of people. Bless him!

I thought Scahill was aware of the fact that there isn't anything such as a clean war. Actually, I thought that was the very purpose of the title: that contrary to popular perception and the way it is portayed in the main stream media - as a clean war - it may be clean to americans, but that it is indeed very "dirty" elsewhere. But what do I know.

By the way, I've got a very simple question for you. The bombing is usually justified on the grounds that it has to be done to prevent the potential killing of american people, right? Well, does that reasoning apply to, say, Pakistanis? There is nothing "potential" about the killing of Pakistanis, we've got a clear record of that happening. So would it be okay for Pakistan to bomb America?

OP some of what you say makes sense. the problem is that in the past, we the people, knew for the most part what our govt. was doing. we were more informed. we cared more; we were more involved. today, we're not involved and we're not informed. we're constantly being lied to. the avg. person has no idea what the govt. is doing abroad and also at home. this film attempts to inform people, that's all.

i disagree with you that you think all wars are dirty. even during war there are rules. we used to follow some of those rules albeit we've done some pretty heinous things in the past and we're still doing them. today, we follow no rules. you act as if we've done bad things in the past but somehow today we're a better behaved nation?

also, and most important, all of this is completely unnecessary. the war on terror is a for profit lie that is being utilized for empire expansion, resource confiscation, military build up, the trampling of our constitution and the stripping of our civil liberties.

it's the same as the war on drugs. they are both bogus wars that can never be won and in fact are never meant to be won. they are meant to be ongoing because they feed and nourish the power of the state and special interests such as the military industrial complex.

your argument, that people should not listen to jeremy, that they should only listen to so called "experts" is garbage. it's an attempt to draw people away from the real truth. it's an appeal to authority or experts, which is an attempt to make people not think for themselves, rather to continue trusting a criminal, lying, deceiving govt. that routinely murders, kills and destroys innocent people around the world, including here in the US.

don't be a sucker and think you're somehow on the winning team, that it's okay because it doesn't affect you, that you somehow benefit from all this. you don't.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK

1- Since you acknowledge that "all wars are dirty", the title "dirty wars" can't logically be dishonest. It doesn't matter much: had the title been "the cleaner wars", the msg would remain the same. It might actually have been catchier, and therefore attract more viewers.

2- "America has long history of using morally questionable measures": true, but (a) Does it justify perpetuating such measures (b) We're talking about a war that cannot be won bc you can't win a war on concepts (be them terror, drugs, poverty etc) but it can be argued that such a war can and is being lost if the blowback we create results in more attacks which wouldn't have occurred if we'd taken some other course of action.
History has shown that sometimes those consequences occur many decades later (ex: toppling the Iranian gov in the 50s resulted in the hostage crisis in 1979, and in the current nuclear tensions with Iran).

3- Scahill is doing his job as an investigative reporter, unlike many others. He doesn't pretend to be an expert (academic or military). His agenda is obvious. So what?

4- "Documentaries like this, while a beneficial for starting a conversation on war and governmental secrecy, really fail to place into context the decisions being made and why": isn't it the crucial msg? We can't place it into context precisely bc of the arguably unnecessary secrecy: where are the checks and balances on the executive branch which is accumulating more and more powers (regardless of party affiliations)?
If Goering etc got a trial, why can't we do the same for terrorists? And wouldn't it be in our best interest?

5- You can't realistically expect voters to read up on military history, considering that most couldn't place Aden on a map ...
As for radical Islam, it's an interesting topic, but the key question is "how does one become radicalized?".

Is this war being fought for the freedoms of the American People?
No, becuase the American People are losing more of their rights. and freedoms everyday this war has gone on.
You fail to see that this War is being fought for PROFIT and what is worse this PROFIT is not going to the American people but only for a select few yet it cost American's money and more than that American lives!
This movie is ocreect, this war being fought in the name of AMericans YET its does not benefit Americans but only a select few.
Think about that!

I don't think the title is intended to compare this war in general or in the abstract. The title comes at a period where the White House and media report that this war is very efficient with strategic ground presence and narrow drone strikes. This image was a rebranding to separate it from Bush's disastrous handling. But despite any rebranding or the shift toward drone strikes - this war is anything but cleaner for the very reasons you state that no war can be "clean."

As for the second half of your post, that is all very interesting and would make for an interesting documentary. But it isn't the point of THIS documentary.

people like you encourage me to celebrate 9/11 every year, but i don't.

YOU ARE AS DUMB AS AN DONKEY