MovieChat Forums > Dirty Wars (2013) Discussion > good review by Douglas Valentine

good review by Douglas Valentine


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/07/dirty-wars-and-the-cinema-of-se lf-indulgence/

"Dirty Wars is a post-modern film by Jeremy Scahill, about himself, starring himself in many poses...

Initially, there is no mention that journalist Jerome Starkey reported what happened in Gardez. JS is too busy establishing himself as the courageous super-sleuth. As we drive along the road, he reminds us how much danger he is in. Two journalists were kidnapped here, he says. This area is “beyond” NATO control. He must get in and out before nightfall or the Taliban will surely kill him like the Capitalist dog he is.

In my drinking days, we referred to this type of behavior as grandiosity. Telling everyone how you defied death, so the guys would talk about your exploits in the bars, and the girls would fall at your feet. For JS, this formula is working – a visit to his Facebook page reveals scores of 'Millennial girls' wringing their hands and fretting for his safety as he strides across America's secret battlefields in search of the truth. His carefully crafted Wiki bio furthers the legend."

reply

That's right. When you want to distract people from the message, attack the messenger.

reply

The message is crap. War means killing. There is no way around that. This BS about due process for American citizens in hostile lands is sheer lunacy. Pray tell, how one is supposed to arrest someone(who is armed and surrounded by others who are armed) in hostile territory? If an American points a gun at me I will do my best to eliminate that threat. Natural law supersedes your Constitutional law.

The problem with Scahill is that he isn’t much of a thinker. He is an ideology. He thinks in one track and that’s it. He condemns this operations without considering the issue from a military perspective. He scolds in pious tones people bearing responsibilities and possessing knowledge he does not possess.

War crimes? Such things do not exist. Oh, sure laws of war do “exist” but only on paper. Since no one in the history of the world has ever really followed them I think it is safe to say that they don’t mean anything at all.

I have to wonder about people like you who ignore the vast “crimes” of terrorisms and focus solely on US “crimes”. I also wonder what you think would happen if the US surrendered to your rather fantastic vision of strict observance of humanist principles. Do you seriously think we would be better off? I can confidently say that we would not be. We would still know death, still know the killing of innocents, and still know the violation of human rights.

“But it wouldn’t be us doing it.” That’s cold comfort to those being terrorized, killed, and maimed. Oh and it most likely would include Americans on American soil. But hey, we should be subjected to such acts because of your moral qualms. We should all ignore the natural instinct to defend ourselves just so the US can live up to an impossible standard in your head.

reply

Natural law supersedes your Constitutional law.

War crimes? Such things do not exist.

Oh, sure laws of war do “exist” but only on paper. Since no one in the history of the world has ever really followed them I think it is safe to say that they don’t mean anything at all.



Therefore by your argument, terrorists are perfectly legitimate in using their tactics on the US.

Then you should never complain about 9-11. As that makes you a hypocrite. what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

if terrorism tactics are OK for America to use on its enemies, then its perfectly OK for Americas enemies to use it on America.

reply

Jeremy Scahill did not direct this film. And placing a particular individual front and center in a documentary is method regularly employed by Michael Moore and John Pilger, they do it to themselves, are they attacked by CounterPunch for it.

I haven't seen this movie (yet) but I have read Scahill's book on Blackwater and seen this movie of his: www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-eZ1x_qRAQ, neither of which put any emphasis on Scahill at all.

Since CounterPunch is a leftist publication there is only one logical reason behind this smear: jealousy, which is just pathetic.

In all things have no preferences

reply