Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Better
Added DiffLines:
** Nice arguments. I kinda fixed that.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Why do so many people think Aayan is underage and that Carrie having sex with him is pedophilia? He's not even really a case of VagueAge; his (admittedly fake) cover identity is explicitly said to be 19, which is presumably very close to his own age, considering he's a medical student (not) being set up at a new medical school in a new country. The YMMV page even says something like "he's physically mature but emotionally a child"... No. He's a virgin and sexually inexperienced because he's a devout Muslim who doesn't believe in premarital sex. He says this specifically. Carrie sleeping with him is ethically dubious because she's seducing an asset to get him to trust her, but the relationship is absolutely consensual, at least in that Aayan consents to the sex and is capable of doing so.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*During Season 2, the first half of the arc deals with the successful bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. Supposedly, this facilitated Abu Nazir's desire to work with Hezbollah. However, this poses a very odd problem regarding the distate between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims (think similar divisions between Catholics and Protestants). Hezbollah and Iran are Shi'a, while Abu Nazir is explicitly affiliated with al-Qa'eda and therefore in all likelihood a Sunni. Even accepting the premise that Nazir was so hell-bent on revenge that he might consider working with a Shi'a group, Hezbollah would never stand for working for what they would consider an apostate.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Re Fara, Saul
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
to:
***** In light of the penult. episode of season 4, maybe awkward foreshadowing?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** A lot of people pick and choose aspects of their faith that they follow. There are plenty of devout Catholics who have safe sex before marriage.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 30 (click to see context) from:
to:
** He still loves his family and doesn't want to die still estranged from them. Going to support groups seems to be simply expected of him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Let's compare the differences between the two; Afghanistan was already run down before 2001 with no real military might or allies, and the US had all the goodwill after 9/11 that saw all but two nations on the entire planet give them support, even if some of it amounted to "go get 'em." The Iraq war blew all of that goodwill away, and they wouldn't get even half of that if they tried it today. Russia and China were not allies with Afghanistan but they are allies with Iran, hence Security Council Veto is in effect as well as arming the regime. Iran itself is no slouch in the military department; they would still inevitable lose if push came to shove, but they would put up a better fight than Iraq did, not to mention that if the US declares war on Iran then Iran declares war on Israel and then you have a rather interesting clusterfuck of a situation there. As for selling not attacking Iran, the 12/12 attacks were on the CIA headquarters, not a civilian target, so there's less outrage there. Two, 200 people died, compared to the 3000 in 9/11. Three, the US doesn't have the resources to launch a war against Iran. Four, after only just winding down two very long, costly and unpopular wars very few Americans would really want to go through yet another decade-long engagement. Six, Brody's "defection" lasts all of one week before he gets hanged for assassinating a high-profile Iranian official, that would take the bite out of the war monger's case. Seven, look at Osama's history; he was not some random who just popped up out of the blue and did 9/11, he had a long history of attacking US targets. It was only after committing one unprecidently heinous attack did the US decide "fuck it, we'll just take the whole damn country." Brody is more of a blow to the US' ego than anything else. Eight, using the last time the US went to war over one man, they utterly failed to catch Osama, Al Qaidia still kept trucking, and they got left fighting the Taliban for a decade. All-in-all a rather big failure to resolve the key driver for the war to begin with. Nine, even limiting actions to bombing is going to get civilians killed, which is going to keep prolonging Iran's hostility to the west. And finally ten, the whole point of the operation was to keep Javadi in play and thaw out the US-Iran diplomatic channels, signed off on by the US president who also happens to be the only person who matters when it comes down to it. If he says "we're not going to war" there is nothing Congress can do but sit there and pout.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Actually, the previous point is well taken, when I think about it. You do start a war over one man: We went into Afghanistan mainly over their harboring Osama bin Laden, and that was not even controversial among mainstream Americans, was joined by NATO, and was not protested even by nations like Russia or China. The American government would have had to demand that Brody be turned over or declare war against Iran. The only thing stopping it in the ''Homeland'' universe was possibly that those in key positions (the president, especially) knew at that point that Brody wasn't the real 12/12 bomber. I don't know how one sells not attacking Iran (if not a ground war, at least major bombing) to the public under those circumstances.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** First off, you never start a war over one man. The precedent that would set would haunt the US for decades to come, on top of the whole "you got thousands of civilians killed over one man" that would tank the US' reputation for just as long. The only people who actually '''know''' that someone in the Iranian government played a part are all apart of a plan that requires Iran to be uninvaded, that includes the only man in the US who can authorise a war. As far as everyone else knows Brody was working alone, and Iran is currently harbouring him. Plenty of reason to lay sanctions at Iran's feet, but war is an incredibly costly endeavour in both resources and human lives hence why North Korea can openly attack the South and not get invaded; the projected death toll from a war would reach the millions. You don't ever start a war over a single man, you send a couple of assassins in to kill him to prove a point which was exactly what the CIA did.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 65 (click to see context) from:
*** Except, again, Brody ends Season 3 as celebrated through the streets of Tehran, interviewed by Iranian journalists, shown on TV as a national hero against the evil American imperialists. By that point, it isn't a CIA matter anymore; ''everybody'' knows Iran is either responsible or at the very least supportive of it because Iran seems to be taking no trouble to hide it. No would have wanted a Saudi-American war in the aftermath of 9/11 either...but if Saudi Arabia had openly celebrated the people responsible as heroes, paraded the people who planned it through the streets, protected them from American attempts to put them on trial and otherwise made no secret that they both supported the attacks and were complicit in their occurrence, then such a war would have been inevitable regardless. An attack that big is an act of war, even in the aftermath of the clusterfuck of Iraq.
to:
*** Except, again, Brody ends spends much of the second to last episode of Season 3 as celebrated through the streets of Tehran, interviewed by Iranian journalists, shown on TV as a national hero against the evil American imperialists. By that point, it isn't a CIA matter anymore; ''everybody'' knows Iran is either responsible or at the very least supportive of it because Iran seems to be taking no trouble to hide it. No would have wanted a Saudi-American war in the aftermath of 9/11 either...but if Saudi Arabia had openly celebrated the people responsible as heroes, paraded the people who planned it through the streets, protected them from American attempts to put them on trial and otherwise made no secret that they both supported the attacks and were complicit in their occurrence, then such a war would have been inevitable regardless. An attack that big is an act of war, even in the aftermath of the clusterfuck of Iraq.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Except, again, Brody ends Season 3 as celebrated through the streets of Tehran, interviewed by Iranian journalists, shown on TV as a national hero against the evil American imperialists. By that point, it isn't a CIA matter anymore; ''everybody'' knows Iran is either responsible or at the very least supportive of it because Iran seems to be taking no trouble to hide it. No would have wanted a Saudi-American war in the aftermath of 9/11 either...but if Saudi Arabia had openly celebrated the people responsible as heroes, paraded the people who planned it through the streets, protected them from American attempts to put them on trial and otherwise made no secret that they both supported the attacks and were complicit in their occurrence, then such a war would have been inevitable regardless. An attack that big is an act of war, even in the aftermath of the clusterfuck of Iraq.
