• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Homeland: Season 3 - |Pledge Allegiance|

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

foxtrot3d

Banned
You know something that bothers me? Saul's lack of interaction with the President of the US in the show, he is the fucking Acting Director of the CIA after a major enemy attack. And the fact that he is running this super secret operation which so far as we know the President hasn't been briefed on is really concerning. Most especially since the operation he is conducting is illegal. How so you say? Well you see contrary to most movies the CIA does not and is not allowed to operate within the U.S. that is a job for the FBI. At least last season with the whole tracking of Brody and grabbing Abu Nazir there was a joint CIA/FBI taskforce handling the operation but again this is the FBI's job they would have primary jurisdiction in a situation like that.

So Carrie, Saul, and Quinn conducting an operation like this by themselves as the CIA is wholly illegal. Also, you'd think the President would like to know that Iran is probably behind the attack and that we may be able to track their top intelligence official who planned it.
 
A

AngmarsKing701

Member
foxtrot3d said:
You know something that bothers me? Saul's lack of interaction with the President of the US in the show, he is the fucking Acting Director of the CIA after a major enemy attack. And the fact that he is running this super secret operation which so far as we know the President hasn't been briefed on is really concerning. Most especially since the operation he is conducting is illegal. How so you say? Well you see contrary to most movies the CIA does not and is not allowed to operate within the U.S. that is a job for the FBI. At least last season with the whole tracking of Brody and grabbing Abu Nazir there was a joint CIA/FBI taskforce handling the operation but again this is the FBI's job they would have primary jurisdiction in a situation like that.

So Carrie, Saul, and Quinn conducting an operation like this by themselves as the CIA is wholly illegal. Also, you'd think the President would like to know that Iran is probably behind the attack and that we may be able to track their top intelligence official who planned it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was thinking about this the other day as well. At this point this show has so completely jumped the shark that hopping aboard a whale makes logical sense.
 
B

Blader

Member
foxtrot3d said:
Yes most likely, but that still wouldn't make him a terrorist. Terrorism is specifically defined as the use of violence against (keyword here) a civilian population for the purpose of advocating some type of political change or action (think 9/11). The CIA would not fall into this definition as a "civilian population/target" it is more akin to a military command and control center. Afterall, it wouldn't be terrorism if the US bombed the Iranian spy agency nor is it called terrorism when we destroy terrorist training camps.

Remember, the Iranians are responding in the show to the US support of the Israelis bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear power centers. Thus, the Iranians bombing of the CIA is more akin to a cover strike of retaliation, or sabotage as part of a larger guerrilla war and would not be classified as terrorism. Now, if they were to say blow up a shopping mall then that would be terrorism.
Click to expand...

Terrorist attacks don't have to be directed at civilian targets to be considered terrorism. The Pentagon, the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies bombed in the 90s, the federal building hit by McVeigh, etc. weren't civilian targets. Are those instances not considered terrorist attacks?
 
F

foxtrot3d

Banned
Blader said:
Terrorist attacks don't have to be directed at civilian targets to be considered terrorism. The Pentagon, the USS Cole, the U.S. embassies bombed in the 90s, the federal building hit by McVeigh, etc. weren't civilian targets. Are those instances not considered terrorist attacks?
Click to expand...

Yes, despite what the government may state there is a clear difference between a terrorist attack and a regular attack. The attack on the USS Cole is not a terrorist attack, it is a military ship and thus it cannot be claimed "civilians" were killed. The Pentagon attacks follow this same logic. The bombing of an embassy however might trigger a different analysis, embassies are generally not considered military targets and are generally regarded as a territory of that state. Plus, many civilians visit embassies for various purposes such as to obtain visas or request assistance. Thus, the bombing of an embassy would most likely fall under the category as a strike against a civilian target. The Oklahoma City bombing would also fall under this same analysis, it is not a military target and would include many civilians who must frequent the building for various purposes.

Again, it is important to distinguish between terrorist attacks and other attacks as they carry distinct legal penalties and guidelines. The USS Cole is a clear example of this, surely it cannot be stated that the blowing up of a military ship is somehow a terrorist attack. Otherwise, countries have been committing terrorism for as long as their have been ships. The reason people like to believe that the Cole bombing was a terrorist attack is because it was done without a declaration of war, though it's clear Al-Qaeda had declared war on the US we simply chose to ignore these proclamations, and second because it was done by a non-state actor. However, just because an attack was carried out by a non-state actor does not make the attack a terrorist attack. French Resistance fighters during WWII would bomb railroads, blowup Axis supply depots, and kill enemy officers. By definition they were non-state actors, the official French government had fallen and replaced by an Axis allied government, yet we do not classify actions of the French Resistance as terrorist acts.

Now, of course what I'm advocating is a very specific definition of terrorism but there has never been a comprehensive definition that everyone can agree to, it is essentially a very nebulous term that people tend to throw out anytime they disagree with a violent action directed against them. However, as I stated I believe the distinction that the attacks must occur against "civilian targets" to be classified as terrorism is the best definition, otherwise there is nothing separating terrorism from acts of war.
 
T

Tugatrix

Member
foxtrot3d said:
Yes most likely, but that still wouldn't make him a terrorist. Terrorism is specifically defined as the use of violence against (keyword here) a civilian population for the purpose of advocating some type of political change or action (think 9/11). The CIA would not fall into this definition as a "civilian population/target" it is more akin to a military command and control center. Afterall, it wouldn't be terrorism if the US bombed the Iranian spy agency nor is it called terrorism when we destroy terrorist training camps.

Remember, the Iranians are responding in the show to the US support of the Israelis bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear power centers. Thus, the Iranians bombing of the CIA is more akin to a cover strike of retaliation, or sabotage as part of a larger guerrilla war and would not be classified as terrorism. Now, if they were to say blow up a shopping mall then that would be terrorism.
Click to expand...

But still he kill many civilians on the bombing consciously, so that make him a terrorist by my account, but i understand your point...
 
B

Blader

Member
foxtrot3d said:
The USS Cole is a clear example of this, surely it cannot be stated that the blowing up of a military ship is somehow a terrorist attack. Otherwise, countries have been committing terrorism for as long as their have been ships. The reason people like to believe that the Cole bombing was a terrorist attack is because it was done without a declaration of war, though it's clear Al-Qaeda had declared war on the US we simply chose to ignore these proclamations, and second because it was done by a non-state actor. However, just because an attack was carried out by a non-state actor does not make the attack a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it means.

You're right there's no one universally agreed on definition of terrorism, but then you're undermining your own argument that the definition MUST specify that targets are civilians and not government/military. Otherwise - to use Homeland as an example - Brody blowing himself up in the Capitol would, in your eyes, not be considered terrorists because the victims would be politicians and officers, not civilians.

(On that note, McVeigh blew up a federal government building, not a private employer, so that would still fall under your own definition)

I suppose your French Resistance example may count too, but I've never really given it any thought in that light, tbh.

In any case, the most basic definition of terrorism is an act of violence against anyone with intention to intimidate and scare the attacked party into changing something. Anything beyond that is more subjective.

However, as I stated I believe the distinction that the attacks must occur against "civilian targets" to be classified as terrorism is the best definition, otherwise there is nothing separating terrorism from acts of war.
Click to expand...

A declaration of war between two or more states is what separates acts from war from acts of terrorism. That's the whole point (well, one point) to declaring war.
 
B

backflip10019

Member
I'm really wondering how they dig out of the hole they've made with Brody. I really don't see how he's going to be returning to the show regularly given his current situation.

That said, they need to get the hell away from anything with Dana. She's such a boring character. Need more Chris.
 
F

foxtrot3d

Banned
Blader said:
That's exactly what it means.

You're right there's no one universally agreed on definition of terrorism, but then you're undermining your own argument that the definition MUST specify that targets are civilians and not government/military. Otherwise - to use Homeland as an example - Brody blowing himself up in the Capitol would, in your eyes, not be considered terrorists because the victims would be politicians and officers, not civilians.

(On that note, McVeigh blew up a federal government building, not a private employer, so that would still fall under your own definition)

I suppose your French Resistance example may count too, but I've never really given it any thought in that light, tbh.

In any case, the most basic definition of terrorism is an act of violence against anyone with intention to intimidate and scare the attacked party into changing something. Anything beyond that is more subjective.



A declaration of war between two or more states is what separates acts from war from acts of terrorism. That's the whole point (well, one point) to declaring war.
Click to expand...

Al-Qaeda has declared war against the US and we have essentially done the same thing against them. I know that my definition leaves many attacks out but I believe it is the only definition that makes sense. Brody trying to blow up the President, top government officials, and senior politicians, is essentially the same as the plot to blow up Hitler and his cohorts as part of the Valkyrie plot.

Again, it's why the definition is so muddled but I think there should be difference between blowing up a mall and blowing up the CIA. I think targeting civilians should be a key difference and it shouldn't matter whether or not it is done by a state actor. The United States essentially committed terrorism during WWII when we bombed Dresden and dropped the A-Bombs. They were acts of violence targeted specifically against civilian population centers for the sole purpose of advocating a type of political change, somethign which the law of war today specifically prohibits.
 
K

K-19

Banned
backflip10019 said:
I'm really wondering how they dig out of the hole they've made with Brody. I really don't see how he's going to be returning to the show regularly given his current situation.

That said, they need to get the hell away from anything with Dana. She's such a boring character. Need more Chris.
Click to expand...


The thing with Brody is so fucked it took them 3 episodes to bring him on screen and two to bring him down, deeply in a nightmare. But sure we gonna have some entertainment.
All the stuff with Dana are here to make the season last long enough to have a big twist or something similar at the end in order to justificate a new season.
 
M

Mascot

Member
Jesus Christ, Claire Danes is yay close to making me bin this series once and for all. Has anybody in the history of entertainment ever overacted as badly as she does? I keep hoping some terrorist jumps out of a closet and shoots her in the forehead.
 
F

Frost_Ace

Member
You know what's the problem of this show?

It has 0 humor, even the most serious Mad Men episodes make me laugh, this show however is so heavy without actually being that interesting.

Still wondering if I should drop it or not, I actually liked the Brody plotline. :/
 
S

Steelyuhas

Member
Frost_Ace said:
You know what's the problem of this show?

It has 0 humor, even the most serious Mad Men episodes make me laugh, this show however is so heavy without actually being that interesting.

Still wondering if I should drop it or not, I actually liked the Brody plotline. :/
Click to expand...

Mad Men is regularly very funny though.
 
I

inm8num2

Member
Frost_Ace said:
You know what's the problem of this show?

It has 0 humor, even the most serious Mad Men episodes make me laugh, this show however is so heavy without actually being that interesting.

Still wondering if I should drop it or not, I actually liked the Brody plotline. :/
Click to expand...

Have you been paying attention to the Dana and Brody family scenes? I laugh almost as hard at those than I do when I watch Eastbound & Down.
 
O

Omzz

Member
Hopefully this means the end of Dana. I hate this family's story so much. I find myself repeating this every single week, it's getting painful

The rest of the episode was good I guess. Also wtf at Carrie being pregnant? Is this supposed to be Brody's kid?
 
F

foxtrot3d

Banned
Omzz said:
Hopefully this means the end of Dana. I hate this family's story so much. I find myself repeating this every single week, it's getting painful

The rest of the episode was good I guess. Also wtf at Carrie being pregnant? Is this supposed to be Brody's kid?
Click to expand...

What!? No. Brody has been gone for months, it's probably that dude she slept with when she was pretending to go rogue.
 
I

inm8num2

Member
First Boardwalk Empire, now Homeland. Are "jam broken glass bottles into someone's neck" scenes hot in writers' circles or something? Kind of random for Javadi to go to his ex's house, but the only way they could make him more of a "villain".

Decent episode. If that really is the end of the Brody family drama, good riddance. I don't know if networks and writers will ever learn that forcing adolescent characters and storylines into adult ones pretty much never works.
 
B

BoboBrazil

Member
Soyongdori said:
He's in Venezuela. Going to lala land while taking a heroine. Not much of a story there.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. We don't know the motivations behind the people holding him. Honestly I think the writers didn't want him in this season at all but were forced to so they made him basically non existent. I fail to see how he ties into the main plot in any way this season so far or in the show at all if Carrie actually has that baby.
 
P

Plasmid

Member
inm8num2 said:
First Boardwalk Empire, now Homeland. Are "jam broken glass bottles into someone's neck" scenes hot in writers' circles or something? Kind of random for Javadi to go to his ex's house, but the only way they could make him more of a "villain".

Decent episode. If that really is the end of the Brody family drama, good riddance. I don't know if networks and writers will ever learn that forcing adolescent characters and storylines into adult ones pretty much never works.
Click to expand...

Saul moved his family out (his "revenge" against javadi) and that's why he went to kill her.
 
I

inm8num2

Member
Plasmid said:
Saul moved his family out (his "revenge" against javadi) and that's why he went to kill her.
Click to expand...
That I got. What I meant is that they took a guy who seemingly was cool under pressure and revealed he's just an idiot psychopath. Even if the guy wanted revenge going to the house was a dumb move. Carrie even said so herself.


Meh, just nitpicking. I still liked it.
 
D

dead souls

Member
Solid episode. I'm really enjoying this season.

I thought I was the only person who kept a drawer full of positive pregnancy tests by my toilet. I guess great minds think alike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Narcos Season 3 |OT| Going Back to Cali - Netflix 9/1
3 4 5 6 7
319
52K
JesseZao replied
2017 Primetime Emmys Nominations
2 3 4 5 6
255
24K
Topias replied
69th Primetime Emmys | Hosted by Stephen Colbert | Sept. 17 8e/5p
20 21 22 23 24
1K
108K
neoanarch replied
  • Locked
Fargo Season 3 - Full trailer up now - Premieres April 19th on FX
2 3
117
15K
Cornballer replied
  • Locked
Jim Gaffigan to trade in Hot Pockets for doughnuts on Fargo season 3
10
2K
Pamplemousse replied
Top Bottom