Last week in The Long Con, Locke goes to great lengths to prevent The Army from getting its weapons. But this week, he arranges a torture interrogation. This doesn't add up.

Why last week be so against the violence, but this week allow such violence?
---

This just makes me think Locke has some motivations of his own that we aren't privy to. But (hopefully) these motivations will ultimately be made clear, and when they are-- we'll be able to make sense out of all of Locke's actions, from punching Charlie, to getting conned out of the guns, to endorsing torture,

Perhaps Locke is the Lost verson of John Kerry. FLIP FLOP! All jokes aside, Locke certainly does seem to have problems as of late sticking to his convictions.

Perhaps Locke is the Lost verson of John Kerry. FLIP FLOP! All jokes aside, Locke certainly does seem to have problems as of late sticking to his convictions.


Finding someone who could possibly be one of the others,hence opening up the possiblity of getting some answers would change my convictions a little too. It's very important if this Henry guy turns out to be an other. And Locke knows that. So...the man KNOWS they have to find out one way or another ASAP and at all costs.

Well, there is big difference between death and violence. Also, Locke's biggest reason for locking up the weapons was to keep his own people from getting shot; allowing torture to prevent an Other from escaping or even infiltrating them is a far lesser evil (to Locke).

I think Locke is completely lost (pun intended). He thought the destiny of the Hatch would lead him to great things, but he is stuck and confused. Hence, he doesn't know what to do, which way is up, etc... Frustrated and confused, he is.

I think Locke sees the difference between taking aggressive action by going after the Others and taking the opportunity to get answers from an (possible) Other who has stumbled across their path. While there was violence involved in this opportunity, the ultimate objective (for Locke) is to gain information, not simply destroy an "enemy", as an army would do.

And I agree, Locke locked (ha ha) the guns away to protect the fusies/tailies. The fact that he seemed somewhat miffed that Jack hadn't asked him to join the army suggests he isn't entirely against the idea.

I found it odd that it only took him "a couple of minutes tops" to change the combo on the
safe.

Why didn't he just change the combo last week instead of hiding the guns somewhere else?

I found it odd that it only took him "a couple of minutes tops" to change the combo on the safe.

Why didn't he just change the combo last week instead of hiding the guns somewhere else?

Good question. I think there's a lot more power in hiding the guns versus locking them up, though. Changing the combination would have also taken away the only room they could secure...the room conveniently used later for a torture chamber, in fact.

Last week in The Long Con, Locke goes to great lengths to prevent The Army from getting its weapons. But this week, he arranges a torture interrogation. This doesn't add up.

Why last week be so against the violence, but this week allow such violence?

Last week, he was making sure Jack didn't get the weapons. This week, he was making sure Jack understood the implications of his idea of going to war with the Others. The two aren't necessarily contradictory, even if they do leave a lot of room for speculation about Locke's motives and any possible agenda he may have.

This just makes me think Locke has some motivations of his own that we aren't privy to. But (hopefully) these motivations will ultimately be made clear, and when they are-- we'll be able to make sense out of all of Locke's actions, from punching Charlie, to getting conned out of the guns, to endorsing torture,

I thought he punched Charlie out of disgust for his obsessive stalking. The same kind of obsessive stalking he resorted to when he was denied his own new found family.

One thing I wonder about is whether or not his pointing Jack to Sawyer's tent in TLC was premeditated. Can't help but feel he may have been pulling the strings in that one.

I don't think Locke is flip/flopping. Locke doesn't believe in Jack's army or Jack's way of running the show. You can't just hand out firearms to inexperienced people. People who shoot first, at the first little sound would not be a smart move.

Who would Jack have given a weapon to? This would have caused chaos between our islanders. We thought they were a violent fist fighting group before. They'd have been 1000 X's worse. John was SMART not to have allowed access to the weapons until things cooled off a bit.

As for changing the lock I think John did that because 1) it would royally pi$$ off Jack. but 2nd and most importantly he was he was aligning himself with Sayid . Remember what he told Boone --he wanted Sayid on his side. How better to show someone you are choosing their side then to give them what they want most at that moment.

I don't think Locke is flip/flopping. Locke doesn't believe in Jack's army or Jack's way of running the show. You can't just hand out firearms to inexperienced people. People who shoot first, at the first little sound would not be a smart move.

Who would Jack have given a weapon to? This would have caused chaos between our islanders. We thought they were a violent fist fighting group before. They'd have been 1000 X's worse. John was SMART not to have allowed access to the weapons until things cooled off a bit.

As for changing the lock I think John did that because 1) it would royally pi$$ off Jack. but 2nd and most importantly he was he was aligning himself with Sayid . Remember what he told Boone --he wanted Sayid on his side. How better to show someone you are choosing their side then to give them what they want most at that moment.

100% agreed. :) And that's a great point about his alignment with Sayid...I'd forgotten about that. Thanks for sharing it.