Comments Posted By Tom Freeman
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments

"24" SPECULATION FEST

Brent:

I just listened to it four times. The reference was to President Kennedy, not Clinton. Something about "unifying the nation in shock and grief not seen since the death of President Kennedy."

Comment Posted By Tom Freeman On 15.05.2006 @ 22:19

NOT THE USUAL SUSPECTS

Question for you guys. All 3 of us in my house commented, after last night's episode, that we thought that the VP had been on the phone talking to the bad guys in the woods who were chasing Wayne Palmer. The point being that, if the tables are now turned and it is the Prez who is the villain, does that mean that the VP is actually a good guy? Our answer was "no" because the VP is also dirty. Yet I re-watched the last two hours, but could not find anything like that. The VP was talking to "Frau Blucher" at CTU to get her to take over CTU, and Henderson was talking to the guys in the woods, but I did not find the VP doing anything evil. Did we all just imagine this?

Comment Posted By Tom Freeman On 4.04.2006 @ 22:10

THE DECISION

I agree with Jack. I admit it is not a black/white call, but I agree with those who have pointed out that you are trading hundreds of deaths against the CHANCE (far from a certainty) that you will save thousands. You had better be pretty damned sure about the thousands of deaths being a certainty before you can make that kind of a call.

Of course now, as at least one of the comments has noted, and as the previews seem to suggest, Jack can become the scapegoat. Not only did he disobey a direct order, but his action can be argued to have created the worst of all results. 10-20 people died, AND they lost the ability to track down the terrorists.

Comment Posted By Tom Freeman On 15.02.2006 @ 00:49

OF LIFE, LOVE, AND TERRORISM

Your original post seems to assume that Spencer's story is legit - i.e. that he was innocently working inside CTU at the behest of the evil Cummings. I tend to agree, but it as least possible that he is not an innocent dupe, as has been noted by at least one other comments poster.

Also, you said:

"Was that my imagination or did I see a look of relief on her face when Diane told her in so many words that she and Jack never made it?"

I may have to go back and watch the episode again, as I did not come away with the impression that Diane gave any indication of this (nor did I independently assume, one way or the other, that they had not consummated the relationship). What is it that you think she said to tip this off?

Comment Posted By Tom Freeman On 24.01.2006 @ 17:40

"...PROMISES TO KEEP AND MILES TO GO BEFORE I SLEEP"

On "Flank 2" there are two absurdities, only one of which has been mentioned. Yes, it is bizarre that CTU agents hear Jack say "Flank 2" multiple times, without (a) noticing that it doesn't mean anything in normal parlance - i.e. what the hell is he talking about?; or (b) having it ring a bell "hey - didn't that used to be a distress code?"

But equally absurd to me is having the terrorist listen to Jack say "Flank 2" several times without it clicking that it could be some kind of a secret signal. Are these guys supposed to be that stupid? This Flank 2 gambit would never have gotten by Marwan last year.

For these reasons, I assume that in real counter-terrorism life, distress codes are normal meaningful phrases that could be put into a conversation without arousing too much suspicion (something like "move all your men to the south entrance now - I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH - move them to the south entrance), not phrases with no meaning.

Comment Posted By Tom Freeman On 18.01.2006 @ 17:19


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page