I bet Sayid feels mighty chuffed with himself!

[D-Roc]

Theres something sickly about seeing a smug Sayid revel in the fact that he knows Mike has been "comprimised". But not content with that he goes on to remind a cynical Jack, "I also believe that Henry was one of them". I mean where does he get off! Doesnt he realise that he was simply 'lucky' when he said Henry was one of them!?

I bet he feels justified in almost murdering the guy. In my opinion Sayid now feels as if he is able to detect whenever someone is lying etc. But quite frankly he cant. He may be a trained army officer but at the end of the day he's fallable just like the rest of them. Sayid is now a dangerous man..i dread to think what will happen the next time Locke goes for a leak..i can see it now:

Sayid - "Jack, we need to talk"

Jack - "What is it Sayid?"

Sayid - "I have reason to believe that Locke has been comprimised"

Jack - "Say what!?" *stops and puts hands on his head in drama queen fashion*

Sayid "Do not stop walking Jack, we need to stay calm..the world depends on us"

Jack "Yes boss"

Sayid "As i said, Ive been watching our friend, 'Mr Locke'..or at least thats what he sais his name is.."

Jack "Oh my"

Sayid "Indeed..i saw him taking a leak last night..and you'll never believe..he puts the seat down behind him"

Jack "Grr..feminist!" *shakes fist*

Sayid "We must stop this act, Jack..we must stop him before it's too late"

etc etc

Ok, a bit OTT there..but basically Sayid now thinks that he is judge, jury and executioner. This worries me.

[E Pluribus Unum]

lol you really have issues with poor Sayid

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

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'

Is he arrogant? No I don't think so. He could have 'took things into his own hands' like certain others but went to Jack and kept his head to devise a [still unknown, but I can't wait to find out] plan...
Remember the first time he 'tortured' someone, his CO who had killed his family? Well he was right about him as well. Was he lucky then as well? The guy seems to be VERY lucky, or maybe he's just that damned good

I love him, without his observations and opinions I'd seriously be questioning the IQ of the rest of the losties

So what has he done that annoys you so much?

[lost-lover]

Personally I beleive that Sayid did go a bit OTT with the Henry thing, but I am grateful that he told Jack in this case, smug or not, without his realisation noone would have questioning Murdering Mike and they'd have got caught in the Others traps (whether they still will do or not remains to be seen). Sayid could have gone all vigilate and attacked Michael or tried to solve it himself but he took the rational approach and did the eaxct opposite of what he did with Henry (and lest we forget, he has just lost Shannon before speaking to Henry), so they have one more night to work out what to do. By the way where was Locke heading to at the end of the episode?

[Kiowa Warrior]

Hmmm, I wouldn't exactly say that Sayid 'reveled' in his belief that Michael had been compromised - he seemed pretty worried about it to me. Although I have a suspicion that if Sayid could go off and sort things out by himself he would, but the magnitude of the situation he believes has developed prevents him from doing so because he knows he will not get very far...no doubt he wants to have another crack at Henry, especially now he's escaped after all Sayid's hard work concerning him. But saying that I do think he has people's interests at heart, and doesn't want them to go off to war without expressing his concerns, when those concerns could have possibly saved their lives.

But the person who really did annoy me in this episode wasn't Sayid, but Jack. I know it's petty, but I loved seeing Michael put him in his place and tell him 'no, this is not your call and we're going to do things my way.' The man was even getting into an argument over what to do over the bodies of Ana and Libby, and it fell to Hurley to remind him of that small and inconvenient fact!

[Murgatroyd]

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.

[E Pluribus Unum]

I don't agree with torture. But from my view, it happens - especially in 'war like' situations. Sometimes the party involved is wrong, but if it had turned out to be wrong I don't think Sayid would regret it too much (he would probably feel guilty, but....) .....I think he HAD to be sure. 'Better to be safe than sorry' and all that.

Lets not forget it was also Sayid who dug up the 'grave'. To call him lucky, I think is a long shot. The guy is talented [albeit in a controversial field] so for me, I think 'letting him do his thing' was a must. Neither Jack or Locke [that we know of] have war experience so neither was in a position to tell Sayid what he should or should not do. Up until the point he was laying into Henry of course, but then again - if Sayid wanted to kill him, he could have...

[Murgatroyd]

Sayid's digging up the grave was a smart move, but his resorting to torture achieved precisely nothing - it's been practiced explicitly on four occasions now in the series and it's never done the least bit of good (Sawyer was never guilty as charged; Sayid did not know where Alex was; Nathan is dead). It's was only Ana Lucia's (initial) insistence on their giving the man a fair chance to prove his story that yielded the map and eventually to the truth.

[E Pluribus Unum]

Yes that's a fair point Murgatroyd. But there was no way for Sayid to know that his torturing would lead to nothing. It could be argued that his 'pushing' and Ana's 'understanding' [good cop/bad cop] may have played a part, but I think that's a little weak.

I think given the circumstances he was in, and the person HE is. I don't think he can be blamed for 'not gaining anything'. After all the whole point of torture is to uncover something yet unknown so really, the whole concept [of torture] should be argued.

But like I said in my previous post, although I don't support the 'idea' of torture. I do see the need and requirement of it. Especially during war. I think it could be put into the same category as 'casualties of war' innocent people are killed during war, it's not what is 'wanted' but it's usually a given that civilians will be killed in the cross fire. I see torture in a similar light, that kind of makes me sound cynical - but I think it's being realistic.

[Indie88]

He's been in a war, he knows what people can do. Without him, they'd of been dead long ago, and if the way sayid seems intent on following with an army is anything to go by, it's going to make for one bloody amazing finalé!!!!

[Hooting Heck]

Originally Posted by KoRevo,September 20, 2006 05:50 pm

I bet he feels justified in almost murdering the guy. In my opinion Sayid now feels as if he is able to detect whenever someone is lying etc.

If you want to see smug, look in a mirror!
Then look in the dictionary for the definition of 'smug'.

Michael told Sayid that Sayid couldn't come on the mission against the Others, because Sayid, "Wanted to go after the man who escaped", whereas Michael, "Just wanted to get his son back".
Michael also tried to get Hurley to come on the mission because, "They killed her!" (Libby).

Spot a contradiction?
And that's something we know, but Sayid doesn't!

If Sayid says he can tell someone isn't telling the truth, I'd take his word ahead of your's any day!

And he doesn't have to explain it by saying it's because of his expertise as a torturer; it can just as well be because what Michael said wasn't convincing. Michael might have a good reason for not taking Sayid along, but what possible reason could there be for taking Hurley on a basically kidnap-back mission?


PS.
How many men consider themselves killers? Yet plenty become ruthless killers when it's socially acceptable (e.g. during a war).
If you think war is 'different', how many men consider themselves rapists? Yet the incidence of rape increases enormously during war - to an extent that cannot be explained by existing rapists commiting more rape. It's perfectly ordinary, everyday, otherwise harmless men that we all know and see all the time, that nobody would ever regard as killers or rapists. It's the Banality Of Evil.

Or, 'There but for the grace of God go I'. Sayid has been there,and we haven't.

So who's the smug one now?

[Mantis Zero]

Originally Posted by Hooting Heck,September 20, 2006 10:46 pm

If you want to see smug, look in a mirror!
Then look in the dictionary for the definition of 'smug'.

Michael told Sayid that Sayid couldn't come on the mission against the Others, because Sayid, "Wanted to go after the man who escaped", whereas Michael, "Just wanted to get his son back".
Michael also tried to get Hurley to come on the mission because, "They killed her!" (Libby).

Spot a contradiction?
And that's something we know, but Sayid doesn't!

If Sayid says he can tell someone isn't telling the truth, I'd take his word ahead of your's any day!

And he doesn't have to explain it by saying it's because of his expertise as a torturer; it can just as well be because what Michael said wasn't convincing. Michael might have a good reason for not taking Sayid along, but what possible reason could there be for taking Hurley on a basically kidnap-back mission?


PS.
How many men consider themselves killers? Yet plenty become ruthless killers when it's socially acceptable (e.g. during a war).
If you think war is 'different', how many men consider themselves rapists? Yet the incidence of rape increases enormously during war - to an extent that cannot be explained by existing rapists commiting more rape. It's perfectly ordinary, everyday, otherwise harmless men that we all know and see all the time, that nobody would ever regard as killers or rapists. It's the Banality Of Evil.

Or, 'There but for the grace of God go I'. Sayid has been there,and we haven't.

So who's the smug one now?

HH you have been warned about this before, do not make personal attacks on forum members.

[Hooting Heck]

Yawn.

[Mantis Zero]

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

[Indie88]

I can see this ending well

Well, i guess if you're going to pick on someone, it may as well be the one at the top!

*sigh*

*waits for the hand of Rocco to come buring down from the skies*

EDIT: On to HH. Not me. I'm a good boy, me.

[The_other_other]

I have to say that whether you agree with Sayid's methods of deduction or not they have certainly been effective. He is almost singlehandedly thwarting the others strange plans, what with Henry and now Michael. They must really love him.

You must also remember how badly shannons death seemed to hit Sayid. He has not been the same since, and has become more decisive in his actions while his character in general has developed a hard edge to it.