I bet Sayid feels mighty chuffed with himself!

[Lissyloulou]

Aww poor Sayid. I reckon Roco's got all the characters on rotation and it's Sayid's turn this week.

I don't think he's been smug at all. Just sensible, blimey someones gotta be out of that lot. His conversation with Michael was really no different to the one Jack had with Michael and yet Jack couldn't see what was really behind Michael's motivation.

I think they are trying to portray Sayid as someone who has had so much experience extracting information from people that he can tell immediately what is the truth and what is a lie. Perhaps there are telltale signs that we are not aware of, but in the case of Michael I think Sayid was right in his actions and hope that he comes up with a plan that will match whatever the 'others' have in store.

Regarding the subject of torture. I believe that there are two types of torture. That for extracting information and that for pleasure or revenge. Although there are no humane grounds to condone either, in the event of war torture to extract information I suppose can be acceptable to some extent, but thats a whole new sujbect altogether.

[kirsty290182]

Roco...Ana-Lucia is gone! Get over it!!! Stop picking on the others

[Murgatroyd]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM,September 20, 2006 08:55 pm

Yes that's a fair point Murgatroyd. But there was no way for Sayid to know that his torturing would lead to nothing....

I respectfully disagree... the thing is, moral difficulties aside, a person undergoing torture is apt to say absolutely anything in order to make the torture stop, which is why information gained under torture is inadmissable in a court of law. I think Henry said as much himself - 'I'll tell you whatever you want to hear'. There's a caveat that Sayid, arguably, has experienced a certain degree of what he might deem 'success' through torturing people, and doubtless his sense that torture is sometimes necessary is a hard culture for him to break out of - except that he had, after torturing Sawyer, so his falling back into his dire old ways is especially sad.

I don't actually think 'smug' is the word for Sayid, mind, but I think his shot at redemption - that had been going fairly well - has been set back enormously. He's reverted to torture, that he felt he had to put aside for the sake of his character, and he doesn't actually see that any harm has come of it. I'm worried for his character development.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 21, 2006 09:58 am

He's reverted to torture, that he felt he had to put aside for the sake of his character, and he doesn't actually see that any harm has come of it. I'm worried for his character development.

I've no doubt that Sayid has tortured innocent people (by law of averages it's a given, of course there was Sawyer) - and the moral implications that go with that are obviously enormous.
If it had been that Henry Gale wasn't an 'other' then obviously we'd of had a repeat of 'Solitary' and he'd of probably been extremely guilty. But since he was right, I don't think that will effect his character development. He's been torturing people for 'x' amount of years so I don't see how this is any different to all those 10s / 100s of other occasions.

I suppose the only difference between his 'war time' torturing and this situation. Is that it was HIS call. I presume, previously, that it would have been his CO or whoever, that told him who to torture. I suppose it lifts a certain amount of responsibility on the outcome of the torturing off of Sayid. But apart from that I can't really see him recessing or 'losing his head'.

For the most [in my opinion] Sayid seems (now) a lot calmer and level headed. And I think he wanted to go with the 'group' on their most recent 'mission' because [yet again] he is the most experienced in this field.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM,September 20, 2006 07:03 pm

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM

lol you really have issues with poor Sayid

I, on the other hand think he is there saving grace.

Saving grace? lol! I cannot share that view at all im afraid. The mans behaviour is just vile at the moment. It's not that i have 'issues' with him as such, bear in mind that he was one of my faves until a couple of months ago. It's just that his behaviour is not befitting the man i thought he was..the man i know he is really. He's regressing but it's almost as if he's regressing intentionally to numb the pain of Shannons death. It's as if he's telling himself that he's this torturer in order to help him forget the pain and instead inflict pain on others.

He's far to presumptious at the moment and that is VERY dangerous. He's been lucky thus far with his guesses. He's no more informed than anyone else on that island.

I can't think of what he's done wrong? Well he did point out Henry [correctly] as an Other and point out Mike [correctly] as being 'compromised'*

Erm..he tortured a man on the basis that he 'knew' he was one, when he clearly didnt know..he guessed and he was lucky because he could quite easily have been wrong. In fact one of these days he will be wrong [imo] and then what..who's gonna mop up the blood? is he gonna do it? then what..is he gonna go for another walk into the jungle vowing to "never become the man i was" only to return limping one one leg crying out "the others are coming the others are coming"..[i hope they are coming, cos with each passing episode i feel more comfortable on there side of the line ] and then end up torturing Locke on the suspicion that he isnt really a hunter.

Ive got more to say on this but time is not my friend :P

[E Pluribus Unum]

But you're basing your opinion on him by things that haven't happened yet lol and that he tortured someone who actually turned out to be a 'baddie' [although I far from believe our lot are anyone to judge]! So far he's been right with everything he's done [weather morally correct, isn't the issue here]. Saying he's a danger because he might, some time in the near future, get something wrong is hard way to judge some one in my opinion..

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 21, 2006 08:22 pm

He's far to presumptious at the moment and that is VERY dangerous. He's been lucky thus far with his guesses. He's no more informed than anyone else on that island.

I disagree, I think he's the ONLY one who is 'informed' enough to make the decisions others might [rightfully so] think as 'immoral' or 'wrong'. Because he 'is who he is'. I also think there WAS evidence. Perhaps nothing physical, but in the way HG answered his questions - his body language - not that I'm an expert but I imagine that kind of stuff screams out to people who want answers, people like Sayid....

^ I imagine that's the same way he came to the conclusion about Mike as well

And Sayid explaining stuff like that to Jack, would be like Jack trying to explain some intense medical stuff to anyone else

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 21, 2006 08:22 pm

Erm..he tortured a man on the basis that he 'knew' he was one

See, I agree with that except minus the ' '

I don't mind agreeing to disagree. I suppose it depends on weather you actually believe in your heart of hearts that Sayid KNEW HG was one of them and that he KNEW Michael had been comprimised . I do, you obviously don't

[Hooting Heck]

Originally Posted by Mantis Zero,September 20, 2006 11:06 pm

If thats the way you want it man fine, I was just offering you another chance.

And I was just offering you another chance to take your ball home crying to your mama's nipple. Notice you took it eagerly!

Dunno about your dictionary, but mine defines 'smug' as complacent, self-satisfied and unaware of the dangers or deficiencies of your own performance. That was the last thing Sayid was in 'Three Minutes', he was the only one to even question Michael's motives. Like it or not, Mantis, KoRevo was far out-smugging Sayid.

So print that out and ram it up your backside where it belongs, with the rest of your shite. Or is your head blocking the way?

What are you going to do? Ban me? Post another "tsk tsk" message? Why is it I can't imagine you responding with a halfway decent argument?

[kirsty290182]

A bit below the belt and over the top don't you think HH ???????

Nasty boy!

[Hordriss]

Originally Posted by Murgatroyd,September 20, 2006 07:18 pm

I rather agree with this - I really dislike the way in which Henry's being revealed as an Other means Sayid feels fully justified in his revenge-based treatment of the man (who he tortured with nothing in the way of concrete evidence and who could, frankly, have just as easily turned out to be telling the truth). There's nothing to convict Sayid for what he did: he's already said that his own conscience doesn't trouble him on this score (Jack and Locke seem similarly let off, it should be noted, though Jack at least recognises that the methods used were wrong). Sayid reverted to torture, which he'd previously claimed to have put behind him, and now feels he did the right thing. That's a fairly disasterous step for him in my view.

Yes, I wasn't mad about this development myself. Sayid seems to have taken the existence of the Others as a complete vindication of the pseudo-legal brutality he has now embraced ("I'm a torturer&quot, even though his bloodthirsty interrogation tactics proved useless and Ana Lucia, ironically enough (considering she was somewhat responsible for Sayid's regression), finally got results through (comparitively) civilised tactics.

I could live with that, since it is at least not an implausible character development for Sayid. It just means I'm not likely to have much sympathy for him in the future. On the other hand, a dash of remorse from Locke (who was depply indicated in the torture of Henry and has never lived in a country where torture was considered acceptable) would not go amiss...

[Hordriss]

Originally Posted by E PLURIBUS UNUM,September 21, 2006 10:38 am

I've no doubt that Sayid has tortured innocent people (by law of averages it's a given, of course there was Sawyer) - and the moral implications that go with that are obviously enormous.
If it had been that Henry Gale wasn't an 'other' then obviously we'd of had a repeat of 'Solitary' and he'd of probably been extremely guilty. But since he was right, I don't think that will effect his character development. He's been torturing people for 'x' amount of years so I don't see how this is any different to all those 10s / 100s of other occasions.

I suppose the only difference between his 'war time' torturing and this situation. Is that it was HIS call. I presume, previously, that it would have been his CO or whoever, that told him who to torture. I suppose it lifts a certain amount of responsibility on the outcome of the torturing off of Sayid. But apart from that I can't really see him recessing or 'losing his head'.

For the most [in my opinion] Sayid seems (now) a lot calmer and level headed. And I think he wanted to go with the 'group' on their most recent 'mission' because [yet again] he is the most experienced in this field.

The problem is, if he had been wrong about Henry, it would no doubt have led to a redemptive moment as in "Confidence Man" as he realised the danger that his vengeful and violent character flaws posed to the innocent (Remember that he really tortured Sawyer because he wanted to get revenge for the cowardly attack from behind - which turned out to be Locke...). Unfortunately, since he got lucky and Henry turned out to be an Other, Sayid now mistakenly believes he is a flawless judge of character and that torture gets results after all (Wrong on both counts: he misjudged Sawyer grievously, and got no useful information from Henry). In the absence of any second redemption, it will be difficult for me to feel much sympathy for him.

[D-Roc]

Originally Posted by Hordriss,November 01, 2006 11:46 am

Yes, I wasn't mad about this development myself. Sayid seems to have taken the existence of the Others as a complete vindication of the pseudo-legal brutality he has now embraced ("I'm a torturer&quot, even though his bloodthirsty interrogation tactics proved useless and Ana Lucia, ironically enough (considering she was somewhat responsible for Sayid's regression), finally got results through (comparitively) civilised tactics.

I could live with that, since it is at least not an implausible character development for Sayid. It just means I'm not likely to have much sympathy for him in the future. On the other hand, a dash of remorse from Locke (who was depply indicated in the torture of Henry and has never lived in a country where torture was considered acceptable) would not go amiss...

I think Locke has shown remorse. When Charlie saw him a crumpled heap and crying in the brush..i do believe that Locke wasnt only crying about the button and the hatch..but also for his lack of clarity and his 'other' mistakes, such as condoning the torture of Fenry.

Locke is a man with integrity. He knows he was wrong - just like Ana accepeted that she was (apparently) wrong about Nathen.

Speaking of Ana, it's good to see someone (else)giving her the recognition that she deserves for applying a civilised approach towards Fenry :winky: ..she was the only lostie who treated him like a human ...and yet he tried to kil her! Aint life odd.