I've said this in other threads before, but i didnt get responses.

people here, generally agree that at some point torture would be nessicary, but anyone think that the brutal violent type of torture is not going to get anything out of anyone? i mean, think about it, they may just say stuff to get it to stop, and you could kill them if too much. plus its just inhumane.

While interrogation may be needed, I feel that harmful torture is not a good road to take for humanitarian reasons, and just out of plain logic.

There are OTHER forms of torturing someone that do not cause physical pain or harm. I mean, it sounds silly, but what about tickle torture? I mean most people will think that it wouldnt work, but honestly, imagine having a feather going up and down the soles of your feet for 3 or 4 hours straight, no stopping until they get some answers out of you. Dont you think someone would talk to get that to stop? It could go on for hours and hours, and still leave no scars, no medical attention would be needed afterwards, just a minute break here or there to allow the person to breath. In my opinion, thats the most effective way of torture I can think of and most moral.

There are others ,like water torture, or playing really bad music...heh, but i thin kthat one is the best.

i just dont think beating and plying fingers off is really going to unconver anything. and if your wrong.....what have you done to an innocent person?

I agree. However the more humane tactics of torture probably wouldn't make for compelling television. But if I were on the island and thought of something like this, I'd try to implement it, i guess.

I've said this in other threads before, but i didnt get responses.

people here, generally agree that at some point torture would be nessicary, but anyone think that the brutal violent type of torture is not going to get anything out of anyone? i mean, think about it, they may just say stuff to get it to stop, and you could kill them if too much. plus its just inhumane.

While interrogation may be needed, I feel that harmful torture is not a good road to take for humanitarian reasons, and just out of plain logic.

There are OTHER forms of torturing someone that do not cause physical pain or harm. I mean, it sounds silly, but what about tickle torture? I mean most people will think that it wouldnt work, but honestly, imagine having a feather going up and down the soles of your feet for 3 or 4 hours straight, no stopping until they get some answers out of you. Dont you think someone would talk to get that to stop? It could go on for hours and hours, and still leave no scars, no medical attention would be needed afterwards, just a minute break here or there to allow the person to breath. In my opinion, thats the most effective way of torture I can think of and most moral.

There are others ,like water torture, or playing really bad music...heh, but i thin kthat one is the best.

i just dont think beating and plying fingers off is really going to unconver anything. and if your wrong.....what have you done to an innocent person?

You make interesting points. The question would then be if Sayid was trained in those manners of torture. I mean, the water torture and the playing bad music (unless they're adverse to Geronimo Jackson) couldn't really be used... and it might be hard to find a feather, but it really comes down to whether Sayid was trained for that or not. If he wasn't, then he couldn't do that.

as i've said before, torture rarely provides useful or accurate information when it's not being done by jack bauer. intelligence agencies have historically fared far better when they work to develop camaraderie with their prisoners. however, that's definitely not an option in this situation. i'm not sure that beating Gale will get any information out of him, but i believe all they need to do is convince him that they are willing to harm him seriously, and permanently (for instance, the loss of one or both eyes would be a suitable threat). Gale will tell them anything they want to know, if he really thinks they'll follow through. i'm sure Sayid is well-trained enough to tell a false confession from a real one, but the ruse would really have to be perfect to know for sure.

actually, i just thought of a good way to get information out of Gale. if there was a can of mace around (and i'm sure Sun could grow the ingredients), Sayid could mace one of his eyes, causing temporary blindness. If Sayid convinces Gale that the blindness is permanent, the threat of the complete loss of his sense of sight could break him.
i dunno, or not.

if this was hbo, i would cut this guys fingers off 1 by 1 until he gave up all information about the others that he has..

if this was hbo, i would cut this guys fingers off 1 by 1 until he gave up all information about the others that he has..

If it was Fox even...
Or the CW.

actualy as someone who knows alot about torture (hey im not proud of it) he was using a very mild aproach, he isolated him then he got the basic story out of him then he used the iniment threat of violence to make him so nervous, having his finger in the vice and speeding up the questions overwhelmed his lies to the point where he couldnt continue making it up as his focus was heavily devided, the beating only came on when shannon got involved and sayid knows he was lying even if he isnt a other he was lying.

not to mention he didnt brake his finger and gave him a very light beating, look what he did to eko you think that he couldnt of done it harder?, torture is a art form made up of mainly psycholidgy, threat, isolation, starvation.

take the way he tortured sawyer for example he could tell sawyer was a stuborn one but he still used the psycholidgy going over exactly what he was going to do before he did it.

all thats true but i still dont see why torture has to be violent or blood drawing and all that. like i said, tickling is still hard to take for a long time, and doesnt cause any physical harm, or leave any scars. nothing for Jack to clean up. hehe

Well, that could work for some and not for others. Many people (adults male) aren't ticklish..I think no torture is either effective or moral. And actually, laughing too much (from tickling) does cause phisical pain: trouble to breath, possible strangulation, excessive muscles contraction that can lead to cramps...etc.
Of course, it's less harmful, but it's as inefective IMO.

The Others are practicly made of steel, you won't get to them by making clever witty retorts.

Well, that could work for some and not for others. Many people (adults male) aren't ticklish..I think no torture is either effective or moral.

I'd have to disagree witht hat... your morals are what they are, but torture is effective if done correctly.
If you find out what a person fears (being mangled, or physically disabled for the rest of their lives) and show t he that you are willing to go there if they don't cooperate, then you'll find out anything you want to know. It just takes time.

I'd have to disagree witht hat... your morals are what they are, but torture is effective if done correctly.
If you find out what a person fears (being mangled, or physically disabled for the rest of their lives) and show t he that you are willing to go there if they don't cooperate, then you'll find out anything you want to know. It just takes time.

Well, i respect you opinion but i don't share it.

Torture is immoral and illegal, and the refusal to allow cruel interrogation techniques is one measure of a civilized society.

Professional intelligence officers know that prisoners will confess to anything under intense pain. Information obtained through torture thus tends to be unreliable, in addition to being immoral. It pushes the prisonner to say things the tormentors want him to say, which is not necessarily the truth.

During the Salem Witch Trials, torture was used in order to extract the "truth" from innocent people. They lied and admitted to being part of vile acts in the hopes that the tortures would end. Torture is definately not a reliable method of gaining information from your enemies.

Well, i respect you opinion but i don't share it.

Torture is immoral and illegal, and the refusal to allow cruel interrogation techniques is one measure of a civilized society.

Professional intelligence officers know that prisoners will confess to anything under intense pain. Information obtained through torture thus tends to be unreliable, in addition to being immoral. It pushes the prisonner to say things the tormentors want him to say, which is not necessarily the truth.

During the Salem Witch Trials, torture was used in order to extract the "truth" from innocent people. They lied and admitted to being part of vile acts in the hopes that the tortures would end. Torture is definately not a reliable method of gaining information from your enemies.

What do you want them to do then, sign a ceasefire? Create an alliance like NATO? They're not in civillization anymore, they need to fight fire with fire.

Well, i respect you opinion but i don't share it.

Torture is immoral and illegal, and the refusal to allow cruel interrogation techniques is one measure of a civilized society.

Professional intelligence officers know that prisoners will confess to anything under intense pain. Information obtained through torture thus tends to be unreliable, in addition to being immoral. It pushes the prisonner to say things the tormentors want him to say, which is not necessarily the truth.

During the Salem Witch Trials, torture was used in order to extract the "truth" from innocent people. They lied and admitted to being part of vile acts in the hopes that the tortures would end. Torture is definately not a reliable method of gaining information from your enemies.

Torture isn't "illegal"... it's moderated.
And as for the Salem Witch Trials etc... there's basically two different reasons for torture and we're talking about different ones.
The Salem With Trials were about trying to get girls to confess to being withches... in that case, the people doing the toruring had already made up their minds, tortured them until they confessed, then killed them. There was no way to verify how incorrect they were and the Purpose was to get them to confess.

In Sayid's case, the Purpose is to gain information. First, yes he does have to get the prisoner to confess to who he is, but the Purpose is what comes after that when he attempts to find out information, such as why The Others are on the island, where they live, what his real name is, does he work for DHARMA etc. all of which Can be confirmed rather easily if he knows more about the video or The Numbers or anything then they can go research that and see if it's correct.

I agree that it's immoral to torture to get someone to confess... I don't find it immoral to do so if it's as a last resort and to gain information that will save lives. Especially the lives of children. That's where Sayid is coming from.

This is why the terrorists laugh at us.

This is why the terrorists laugh at us.

ROFLMBO True that.

This is why the terrorists laugh at us.

you don't like the idea of tickle torture? :rolleyes:

Three words: Chinese Water Torture.....

Or perhaps force them to listen to some of Desmond's favorite LPs....




Did anyone else see some political messages to this whole episode? Beside the fact that the Iraq war was(is) a very real event, and torture was just on the political discussion table a few months ago...

Well, that could work for some and not for others. Many people (adults male) aren't ticklish..


actually....hehe I'm an adult male, and im pretty ticklish.:hypocrit: but yeah, i guess it would vary person to person.

Well, I have to agree with RiverThe Bald.

The CIA have a long (and documented) history of using torture to get the information they want. It's not neccesarily anything they're still doing to this day, but they have engaged historically. Perhaps more importantly, they specifically train field operatives to withstand torture from other forces even to this day.

Now that does kinda support the agrument that torture is an effective way of getting information. If it wasn't, then why spend all the $$$ on training people to withstand it.

I have to say that what Sayid did was barely torture. It was more lots of threats and hitting someone. It's a common misconception brought about by medievil tales of 'the rack' and other such devices that torture involves hurting the subject at all.

In fact, torture is all about fear. People don't 'crack' becasue you cut their finger off, they 'crack' becasue they're scared shitless that you will cut their finger off.

A calssic torture scenario works with 2 captives. First, isolate and starve both of them in dark, quiet cells. Then, pick the one who you're most likely to get information from (ranking officer or whatever). This one you put in a room, strapped to a chair. Shine your light in their eyes, not allowing them the chance to personallise or identify with the voice that you will bellow at them. Then ask your questions, change your tone, change your accent, get louder and quieter. Every time they dont give you an answer you are pretty sure they know, then ask again. Promise them water and food and freedom if they respond truthfully. After a few hours, you turn the chair to face a glass wall; the other side of which is their companion sitting in the same position in a similar chair. Now have someone start cutting pieces off the companion. Let your subject hear the screams. Explain to them that his companion has told you some info, but held back, and that he's now recieving the results of holding back. Then ask again a few times. Finally end up for the day, put them back into solitary dark again. This time play back the scream from the companion whenever they try to sleep. Next day repeat the routine.

The most important part of torture is never actually causing physical pain to your subject. Once you *actually* cut a finger off, or drill a hjole in their knee, or whatever, then their fear will crystallise into pain and resignation, and they will be pushed to rather die than tell you anything. All the time the subject remains physically unharmed (even if malnourished and sleep-deprived) they have the hope fo escaping safely, and there will be a constant weighing up of fear at being seen to be a traitor vs fear of what you'll do to them if they don't betray their country.

I'm no expert in the field, and the example I gave is one the soviets used in Hungary during the Budapest uprising circe 1951, but I think you get the idea.

So therefore, I'd say Sayid has either forgotten the art of torture, or his grief over Shannon drove the desire to hurt his captive beyond his desire to get information.

The question would then be if Sayid was trained in those manners of torture.

Sayid's a trained torturer, and a smart one at that. I'm sure he's well aware of different tactics that will and will not work with certain individuals. He did use the buddy-up tack with Nadia because he knew a physical one wouldn't work. I'm sure he's someone who would easily think outside the box if he felt like it. I think Sayid just likes torturing people with violence though.

Torture is immoral and illegal, and the refusal to allow cruel interrogation techniques is one measure of a civilized society.

Professional intelligence officers know that prisoners will confess to anything under intense pain. Information obtained through torture thus tends to be unreliable, in addition to being immoral. It pushes the prisonner to say things the tormentors want him to say, which is not necessarily the truth.

During the Salem Witch Trials, torture was used in order to extract the "truth" from innocent people. They lied and admitted to being part of vile acts in the hopes that the tortures would end. Torture is definately not a reliable method of gaining information from your enemies.
Word. Torture makes us no better than our enemies, and in fact weakens the position of the torturers. There's a reason why coerced statements are thrown out in courts.

Torture isn't "illegal"... it's moderated.
actually, torture is illegal according the US Code, the Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions, and various other treaties to which the United States is a party.
And as for the Salem Witch Trials etc... there's basically two different reasons for torture and we're talking about different ones.
The Salem With Trials were about trying to get girls to confess to being withches... in that case, the people doing the toruring had already made up their minds, tortured them until they confessed, then killed them. There was no way to verify how incorrect they were and the Purpose was to get them to confess.
well, i mean i'm pretty sure all of them were incorrect, at least in the way that they meant witches. but that's neither here nor there.
In Sayid's case, the Purpose is to gain information. First, yes he does have to get the prisoner to confess to who he is, but the Purpose is what comes after that when he attempts to find out information, such as why The Others are on the island, where they live, what his real name is, does he work for DHARMA etc. all of which Can be confirmed rather easily if he knows more about the video or The Numbers or anything then they can go research that and see if it's correct.

I agree that it's immoral to torture to get someone to confess... I don't find it immoral to do so if it's as a last resort and to gain information that will save lives. Especially the lives of children. That's where Sayid is coming from.
i think you're right about Sayid's motives, and i think it was the right choice in this case, but i don't think he went about it the right way. i think torture (actual physical torture, not just a harsh interrogation) is inexcusable, unless of course it's in one of those ticking time-bomb scenarios that only happen on tv, and in Harrison Ford movies.

actually, torture is illegal according the US Code, the Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions, and various other treaties to which the United States is a party.


i think you're right about Sayid's motives, and i think it was the right choice in this case, but i don't think he went about it the right way. i think torture (actual physical torture, not just a harsh interrogation) is inexcusable, unless of course it's in one of those ticking time-bomb scenarios that only happen on tv, and in Harrison Ford movies.

But Sayid is not from the United States, are torture tactics more common in Iraq?

I think Sayid jumped in head first with his choice torture tactic. I think bamboo shoots would have worked and in the end would not have left a permanent scar/wound like a clipped off finger.

Word. Torture makes us no better than our enemies, and in fact weakens the position of the torturers. There's a reason why coerced statements are thrown out in courts.

You have to remember though that Sayid and Henry were not sitting in an interrogation room in Los Angeles. They are not in a civilized place, and they are not dealing with civilized people. Enough is enough.

You have to remember though that Sayid and Henry were not sitting in an interrogation room in Los Angeles.
No, I don't have to remember that. It's only uncivilized if they choose to make it that way. Regardless, whether the enemy is "civilized" or not doesn't matter, since the definition is so arbitrary. Who gets to determine who's "civilized" or not? The torturer? Yeah, that's unbiased perspective right there. [/sarcasm]

And how precisely was Henry acting uncivilized anyways? You (and Sayid, Jack, and Locke) can't even prove he's an Other to begin with. Gut feelings aren't proof. Neither are looks, past tense, Danielle's word, or being so wrapped in grief you weren't paying attention to how many shovelfuls of dirt you used to bury your wife.

Sayid should be better than whatever his enemy does or he loses his credibility and support completely. There are PLENTY of other ways to get information out of Henry than physical violence.

No, I don't have to remember that. It's only uncivilized if they choose to make it that way. Regardless, whether the enemy is "civilized" or not doesn't matter, since the definition is so arbitrary. Who gets to determine who's "civilized" or not? The torturer? Yeah, that's unbiased perspective right there. [/sarcasm]

Civilization:

Cultures with an agricultural surplus, social stratification, labor specialization, a formal government, rule by power, monumental construction projects, and a system of record keeping.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=13&oi=define&q=http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html)
a complex society that has government, social classes and cities.
www.anthro.wayne.edu/ant2100/GlossaryCultAnt.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=14&oi=define&q=http://www.anthro.wayne.edu/ant2100/GlossaryCultAnt.htm)
Societies distinguished by reliance on sedentary agriculture, ability to produce food surpluses; and existence of nonfarming elites, as well as merchant and manufacturing groups. (p. 9)
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_C.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=15&oi=define&q=http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_C.html)
A society that has made advances in the arts, science and technology, law or government.
myweb.tiscali.co.uk/temetfutue/glossary/glossaryC.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=16&oi=define&q=http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/temetfutue/glossary/glossaryC.htm)
A culture with people who have settled in an area and worked together to build a society in which science, the arts, and a form of government are produced.
www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/dictionary/foundations.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=17&oi=define&q=http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/dictionary/foundations.htm)
refers to an advanced form of social development characterized by such things as urban life, commercial activity, writing systems and philosophical thought.
media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=18&oi=define&q=http://media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666/student/0131217666_glo.html)

Notice a trend? I think we can safely say that we are not dealing within the confines of civilization. Most importantly, there is no government. I don't just mean that "Oh, 'Zeke' looks like a barbarian, he is 'uncivilized'." I mean, they are literally outside of civilization. There are no laws to abide by... unless of course, you count "Don't cross this line, or we'll kill you" which I think is a pretty good indication of how things tend to work on the island. It makes things a lot less arbitrary, if you ask me.

Where we are sitting, torture is a reprehensible, immoral, unnecessary act. But given different circumstances, who is to say what is right and wrong? They're fighting for their lives in a place where there are no rules and where people get killed. They're not dealing with a teenage purse snatcher or even a foreign spy on U.S. soil. It's not that they "choose" to be uncivilized - it's just what they are now.

Notice a trend?
Yep. One that 40 odd people are following fairly well. The group of Others could even count as a second city. And I might add, by those definitions, I guess a great many native cultures in Africa, South America, and Asia aren't "civilized" either so it must be okay to torture them too.

Most importantly, there is no government.
Really? 'Cuz last I checked, they had a leader, secondary leaders, people in charge of different responsibilities/departments, and plenty of pow-wows discussing what the appropriate course of action should be. They seem pretty darn organized to me. For BOTH groups.

Yep. One that 40 odd people are following fairly well. The group of Others could even count as a second city. And I might add, by those definitions, I guess a great many native cultures in Africa, South America, and Asia aren't "civilized" either so it must be okay to torture them too.


Really? 'Cuz last I checked, they had a leader, secondary leaders, people in charge of different responsibilities/departments, and plenty of pow-wows discussing what the appropriate course of action should be. They seem pretty darn organized to me. For BOTH groups.

One of the biggest issues currently is that there is no real leadership. Nearly every episode features some kind of power struggle between given characters, be they Jack or Locke or Sawyer or Sayid. Who, exactly, is this "leader" you claim they have? I hope it's not Jack because surely there would be repercussions for stealing and concealing the guns from him. Surely, Sayid wouldn't have "tortured" a man against the command of his "leader." I hope you don't mean Locke because surely he would not allow members of his constituency to push him up against a wall and tell him to shut up. What are these responsibilites you speak of? Could it be the one and only delegated responsibility where Hurley was in charge of the food? Lest we forget how brilliantly that department is presently being handled (Dharma dressing or peanut butter, anyone?). How about the responsibility of keeping the guns locked up? Maybe Locke was unaware of his responsibility to not hide the guns from Jack and allow Sawyer to steal them. It really seems like this "government" you mention is working quite smoothly, yes?

You can split hairs all you like. You can dissect the semantics of my words, but you cannot deny the fact that the survivors are not even close to forming a cohesive, beneficial civilization / government. Because Jack stepped up into a leadership position does not make him "the leader." If someone doesn't want to join his army, they don't have to. If someone wants to live on the beach vs. the caves, they can. If someone wants to go on a man hunt with the boys, and is told by Jack that she can't, she'll go anyway. If someone wants to steal the firearms and horde them away in the jungle, that too can apparently happen.

The point is, there are no rules. Nothing and nobody is governing these people. I don't know if you're trying to be inflammatory with your remarks about Asia and Africa, but the answer to your question, in a word, is yes. There are many practices that occur in these "native cultures" that people from Western developed countries would consider "torture" or inhumane at the very least. But this comparison is irrelevant in my opinion. The people of South America have been around long enough to have established a culture. Whether or not they partake in inhumane practices, is not for us to comment on here. The survivors on the LOST island, have not been around long enough to create a working society or to establish a culture. They are living moment to moment, trying to stay alive. Do these people think that "torture" (punching?) is "right"? No, most certainly not. But is it - right now with threats everyday looming in the shadows - necessary? Maybe. Who are WE to judge?

I hope that is not the wrong place to express my opinion. As newcomer I have problems with the navigation on this board, sorry!
Torture is something I consider wrong. Being cruel to an enemy shows you are not better than him. Treating him friendly might lead to a relationship and a way out of fighting.

...but you cannot deny the fact that the survivors are not even close to forming a cohesive, beneficial civilization / government.
Yes, I can. Especially when what I'm seeing on screen suggests otherwise to me.

Because Jack stepped up into a leadership position does not make him "the leader." If someone doesn't want to join his army, they don't have to. If someone wants to live on the beach vs. the caves, they can. If someone wants to go on a man hunt with the boys, and is told by Jack that she can't, she'll go anyway. If someone wants to steal the firearms and horde them away in the jungle, that too can apparently happen.
Boy, that sounds a lot like a democracy to me. I guess the President isn't a leader then. Even the "coup" part insinuates a government was around that needed to be taken over. (Although I'd argue Sawyer didn't really pull a coup so much as taught Jack and Locke a lesson in making assumptions and how to work better together. Wish someone would do that to Congress.)

Being cruel to an enemy shows you are not better than him. Treating him friendly might lead to a relationship and a way out of fighting.

Very true.

Boy, that sounds a lot like a democracy to me. I guess the President isn't a leader then. Even the "coup" part insinuates a government was around that needed to be taken over. (Although I'd argue Sawyer didn't really pull a coup so much as taught Jack and Locke a lesson in making assumptions and how to work better together. Wish someone would do that to Congress.)
I feel like at this point, you're just trying to make an end run around the clear fact that they are NOT in a place where decisions WE would normally make can be as easily made. That's all I'm saying. These people are not in America or the UK or Canada or Japan. They are literally no where. What I'm saying is that "torture" might be wrong, and it might be right, but not in a vacuum - not unconditionally.

And no, I don't think it sounds at all like a democracy. First of all, the majority of the survivors NEVER voted on a leader to represent them. Some may have looked to Jack for leadership, but there was no formal vote, and it was not by a majority. That is the definition of a democracy. Non-literal, the argument is the same. Comparing JACK to the President of the United States of America (or are you referring to a different president?) is so faulty I don't even know where to start. Do you somehow equate Locke outwardly disrespecting and questioning Jack at every turn to, let's see, protestors being confined to an area miles away from a presidential motorcade path?

As much as you want to believe that these people have formed a cohesive and viable government, they have not. You can take my words and make them appear to represent American Democracy, but it doesn't lend the idea any more credence. This tangent the two of us have been on is veering off-topic. The point is that I'm not condoning torture. But none of us can say what we would feel is necessary in such a situation. They are not sitting in seats in Congress or in the White House trying to make decisions that will never affect them personally. They are sitting in the jungle, trying to figure out a way to not get killed.

The dude who keeps insisting the survivors have formed a government with leadership and whatnot--

Do you even watch the show, man? These people have no friggin' clue whatsoever as to what they're doing- they're baking out in the sun everyday having hallucinations, drowning, accidentally shooting eachother, running from something they themselves refer to as a 'monster', and they're not even drunk or high. Most of them anyway.

They have no leader, they have no plan. In fact, it seems like they don't even care about getting off the island anymore... their greatest idea has been what, Michael's, to build a raft and hope it makes across half the Pacific ocean? And when that fails they're pretty much out of ideas. They only listen to Jack -sometimes- because every now and then he actually comes up with something beneficial to do and seems to be able to think slightly faster than everyone else.

They don't even talk about island affairs that involve life and death, they don't discuss anything they see or learn.... just imagine what their political junctions would be like. I don't even think they've ever even taken a vote on the show about anything. No one cares.

They're in the wild, is what I'm saying.

And also, my smack addiction is progressing nicely, and I have elfdream to thank.

The Ultimate Torture
Pipe in music of someone singing the "The Wheels On The Bus" for a while. They will be begging to tell all their secrets.:rolleyes:

Pipe in music of someone singing the "The Wheels On The Bus" for a while. They will be begging to tell all their secrets.:rolleyes:

That's just funny. :biggrin:

Torture is not the physical act that causes pain. It's the threat of the physical act that causes pain in order to get information you either want or need. Combine the threat of physical pain with just a touch of what that pain will be and sleep depravation, hunger, isolation and questioning and you've got torture. Many people seem to have the idea that the physical pain is the only element of torture when, in fact, it's only one part.

What Sayid did was the beginning of torture that degraded into a common beating when one of Sayid's buttons was pushed.

On the other topic in this thread, there is no viable government on the island. There is no structure in which decisions are being made for the benefit of the group. Even more fundamentally, there are no laws on the island. Therefore, nothing done by those on the island is, strictly speaking, illegal.

no one has yet discussed the moral pros and cons of tickle torture. :smile:

Do you even watch the show, man?
Yes, I do. It's why I can completely disagree with you, your points, and your interpretions. All of which is based upon what I've seen. Thanks for asking.

Back on topic: rationalize it all you want, but torture is never the answer. Not even in uncivilized societies or on uncivilized people. It's in a class of inhumanity all by itself, especially physical torture - not to mention on someone you can't even prove is a bad guy to begin with.

It's also a reason why both you and your "information" lose all credibility when people learn that's how you gathered it.

all thats true but i still dont see why torture has to be violent or blood drawing and all that. like i said, tickling is still hard to take for a long time, and doesnt cause any physical harm, or leave any scars. nothing for Jack to clean up. hehe
cause its TORTURE,and as Avertio said earlier-and as I have quite abit of torture and interogating experience(but I am proud....lol)-I have to agree.

Do you even watch the show, man? These people have no friggin' clue whatsoever as to what they're doing- they're baking out in the sun everyday having hallucinations, drowning, accidentally shooting eachother, running from something they themselves refer to as a 'monster', and they're not even drunk or high. Most of them anyway.

They have no leader, they have no plan. In fact, it seems like they don't even care about getting off the island anymore... their greatest idea has been what, Michael's, to build a raft and hope it makes across half the Pacific ocean? And when that fails they're pretty much out of ideas. They only listen to Jack -sometimes- because every now and then he actually comes up with something beneficial to do and seems to be able to think slightly faster than everyone else.

They don't even talk about island affairs that involve life and death, they don't discuss anything they see or learn.... just imagine what their political junctions would be like. I don't even think they've ever even taken a vote on the show about anything. No one cares.

They're in the wild, is what I'm saying.



I completely agree.

My only contribution will be to address the thread title.

There is no such thing as "not harmful" torture. By it's very definition, torture is harmful. It is harmful to the one doing it as well as the one on the receiving end. Not leaving a scar doesn't mean harm wasn't done. Some of the worst is the non-physical type. (See "The Wheels on the Bus contribution :biggrin: )

I think that was part of the point of Sayid's remarks to Henry when he said he used to be a good man. Torture changed him and not in a good way. It tapped into a dark part of the human psyche and hurt him in mind and soul. Even he recognizes that.

My only contribution will be to address the thread title.

There is no such thing as "not harmful" torture. By it's very definition, torture is harmful. It is harmful to the one doing it as well as the one on the receiving end. Not leaving a scar doesn't mean harm wasn't done. Some of the worst is the non-physical type. (See "The Wheels on the Bus contribution :biggrin: )

I think that was part of the point of Sayid's remarks to Henry when he said he used to be a good man. Torture changed him and not in a good way. It tapped into a dark part of the human psyche and hurt him in mind and soul. Even he recognizes that.

Absoltely great point.

The dude who keeps insisting the survivors have formed a government with leadership and whatnot--

Do you even watch the show, man? These people have no friggin' clue whatsoever as to what they're doing- they're baking out in the sun everyday having hallucinations, drowning, accidentally shooting eachother, running from something they themselves refer to as a 'monster', and they're not even drunk or high. Most of them anyway.

They have no leader, they have no plan. In fact, it seems like they don't even care about getting off the island anymore... their greatest idea has been what, Michael's, to build a raft and hope it makes across half the Pacific ocean? And when that fails they're pretty much out of ideas. They only listen to Jack -sometimes- because every now and then he actually comes up with something beneficial to do and seems to be able to think slightly faster than everyone else.

They don't even talk about island affairs that involve life and death, they don't discuss anything they see or learn.... just imagine what their political junctions would be like. I don't even think they've ever even taken a vote on the show about anything. No one cares.

They're in the wild, is what I'm saying.

And also, my smack addiction is progressing nicely, and I have elfdream to thank.

I'll say this... they have no form of governemt. They do let Jack be the leader, but considering how often they disagree with him and purposefully they Don't do what he says and do the opposite is absolute 100% Proof that they have no governemt. If they had a government then there would be a consequence for disobedience (like what Locke and Sayid just did) priosn, house arrest, Something. Nothing is in place so obedience of their "leader" is voluntary. That's not Any type of government, period.

Yes, I do. It's why I can completely disagree with you, your points, and your interpretions, based on what I've seen. Thanks for asking.

Back on topic: rationalize it all you want, but torture is never the answer. It's in a class of inhumanity all by itself, especially physical torture - not to mention on someone you can't even prove is a bad guy to begin with.

It's also a reason why both you and your "information" lose all credibility when people learn that's how you gathered it.

If there are children who are kidnapped and at the very Least are being experimented on, but could be getting tortured themselves, by people who have shown that they have no problem killing people at random... then in that case I would consider torture acceptable. If you don't than that's your thing, but I couldn't sleep at night knowing that I didn't do everything in my power to get the kids back. Henry is the Only possible lead so it has to be explored.

And also, my smack addiction is progressing nicely, and I have elfdream to thank.

I was wondering how that was going for you....:redface:


Back OT....Seems to me there's two things at work here:

1) Is torture (definition, please Mr. Cheney :rolleyes:) ever justified?

2) Was Sayid justified?

If answer 1 = no, then, obviously, answer 2 = no, also. That said, what about #1?

Hypothetical: One man knows how to defuse a bomb that will kill 1,000 peacefully sleeping babies if allowed to explode. Timer is set to 10 minutes. Let them die? Bake him a loaf of bread and invite him over for coffee and Scrabble? Please. Grow up. A MAN's gotta do what a MAN's gotta do. Others live in their idealistic bubbles.

BTW, as a person who seeks peace actively, I hope no one would ever be forced to address that dilemma. But I do know how I would respond.

If there are children who are kidnapped and at the very Least are being experimented on, but could be getting tortured themselves, by people who have shown that they have no problem killing people at random... then in that case I would consider torture acceptable.
Too bad you can't prove Henry is one of those people. I guess Ana Lucia was well within her rights to torture Nathan, then. Even though even Goodwin balked at it.

And Danielle was right to torture Sayid, and Sayid was right to torture Sawyer, yadda yadda.

Hypothetical: One man knows how to defuse a bomb that will kill 1,000 peacefully sleeping babies if allowed to explode. Timer is set to 10 minutes. Let them die? Bake him a loaf of bread and invite him over for coffee and Scrabble? Please. Grow up. A MAN's gotta do what a MAN's gotta do.
So, wasting your time on someone who clearly wouldn't talk is acceptable to you? (Really, s/he's killing 1,000 peacefully sleeping babies. Even if s/he did talk it'd probably just be misleading information hoping you'd fall for it and stop the torturing while simultaneously wasting valuable time letting the clock continue ticking.) I guess I'd let the man do what he has to do then. But as a woman, I'd focus on the bomb and how to defuse it - since that's the only real chance we'd have to actually stop the thing.

Too bad you can't prove Henry is one of those people. I guess Ana Lucia was well within her rights to torture Nathan, then. Even though even Goodwin balked at it.

And Danielle was right to torture Sayid, and Sayid was right to torture Sawyer, yadda yadda.

Yes to all of those. Why? Well, it's because of Goodwin's actions actually (thanks for reminding me about that).
Goodwin killed Nathan. Why? Because he knew that after Nathan lost a finger if he Still said that he wasn't an Other that Ana Lucia would figure out that he wasn't one and then point at Goodwin. An Lucia's strategy was going to work and it would have only cost a finger.

One finger vs. the lives of 4 or more children, not even counting the adults. That's too high a price for you...?
Oh yeah, and you brought up Sayid. What lasting complications has Sayid had to deal with from Danielle torturing him to find out if he was the kidnapper of her daughter? Zero. He was fine in a few days. And she found out what she needed to know.
And Sawyer, what lasting injury has Sawyer attained from the fingernails...? Nothing. And yet if they Didn't start in on Sawyer he would have kept playing games until Shannon died.
Uncomfort... a few days worth of injury... a finger. Yes, they are all worth it to me to Save Lives. And to Sayid as well. And Danielle. And Locke. And I bet Walt would be in favor of it.

Hypothetical: One man knows how to defuse a bomb that will kill 1,000 peacefully sleeping babies if allowed to explode. Timer is set to 10 minutes. Let them die? Bake him a loaf of bread and invite him over for coffee and Scrabble? Please. Grow up.

This tired scenerio is always used and almost never is the case in reality. It is a extreme and highly unlikely situation used to justify acts that don't fit this scenerio.

A MAN's gotta do what a MAN's gotta do.


Which is why women should run the world. :biggrin:

So, wasting your time on someone who clearly wouldn't talk is acceptable to you? (Really, s/he's killing 1,000 peacefully sleeping babies.) I guess I'd let the man do what he has to do then. But as a woman, I'd focus on the bomb and how to defuse it - since that's the only real chance we'd have to actually stop the thing.


First, absolutely no offense was intended by the "MAN" comment...just an expression or manner of speaking....:redface:

Second, it's a hypothetical...the "man" mentioned is the only one who can defuse the bomb, there is no other chance. Focusing on the bomb will allow you only to see it clearly as, moments later, it kills the innocents. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to ask nicely and pause briefly for an answer, but then....:ohwell:
<hr>
Which is why women should run the world. :biggrin:


Agreed...left to us men, it would be a pretty nasty place...

BTW, I thought they already did....:smile:

Goodwin killed Nathan. Why? Because he knew that after Nathan lost a finger if he Still said that he wasn't an Other that Ana Lucia would figure out that he wasn't one and then point at Goodwin.
You don't know that. It's possible Goodwin wanted to spare Nathan the unnecessary torture as well as keep his cover.

One finger vs. the lives of 4 or more children, not even counting the adults. That's too high a price for you...?
Considering that the lives of those children - not even counting the taken adults - aren't in danger, then I'd have to say yes. But I'd say yes anyways, considering real life never mimics 24.

Hpothetical: One man knows how to defuse a bomb that will kill 1,000 peacefully sleeping babies if allowed to explode. Timer is set to 10 minutes. Let them die? Bake him a loaf of bread and invite him over for coffee and Scrabble? Please. Grow up.
This tired scenerio is always used and almost never is the case in reality. It is a extreme and highly unlikely situation used to justify acts that don't fit this scenerio.

A MAN's gotta do what a MAN's gotta do.
Which is why women should run the world. :biggrin:
Word!

the "man" mentioned is the only one who can defuse the bomb, there is no other chance.
No, he's not. Not even close. Dude, even I've got a brain. What about a cell phone to maybe call an actual expert? Heck, if you're just talking about the lostaways, how 'bout just getting Sayid to look at the thing?

Focusing on the bomb will allow you only to see it clearly as, moments later, it kills the innocents.
Focusing on the bomber only allows you to feel better when the bomb goes off, instead of doing something constructive that might have prevented the whole explosion in the first place.

You don't know that. It's possible Goodwin wanted to spare Nathan the unnecessary torture as well as keep his cover.

1- Goodwin flat out told Ana Lucia that he killed Nathan to avoid becoming a suspect himself.

2- But you're saying that Goodwin wanted to "spare Nathan the unnecessary torture"... by KILLING HIM?

:confused:

No, he's not. Not even close. Dude, even I've got a brain. What about a cell phone to maybe call an actual expert? Heck, if you're just talking about the lostaways, how 'bout just getting Sayid to look at the thing?


Focusing on the bomber only allows you to feel better when the bomb goes off, instead of doing something constructive that might have prevented the whole explosion in the first place.


I guess you don't understand how hypothetical scenarios work, so I'll choose to humbly agree with you and use my phone-a-friend and ask Mr. Oppenheimer, the bomb expert how to defuse it.....:cool:

2- But you're saying that Goodwin wanted to "spare Nathan the unnecessary torture"... by KILLING HIM?
Yep. It's probably the reason why torturing is fairly universally condemned, whereas not all methods of killing are - especially in war.

I guess you don't understand how hypothetical scenarios work,

Actually, I do. Nice that you're missing the fact that I was playing. And since this has been degrading into personal attacks for awhile, I think I'll stop now. It's so far off track it's not even funny. It's not even a discussion anymore - let alone an interesting one IMO .

Yep. It's probably the reason why torturing is fairly universally condemned, whereas not all methods of killing are - especially in war.

OK, so I'm wondering, how many of you good posters out there would prefer to DIE than lose a finger? Let's have a quick vote.

I pick the finger option. Heck, interrogator's choice.

Actually, I do. Nice that you're missing the fact that I was playing. And since this has been degrading into personal attacks for awhile, I think I'll stop now.


Sorry if I misinterpreted....it's sometimes hard to read sarcasm in post format...we can agree to disagree, to use a phrase, and I do hope all have a great night....Peace:biggrin:

You don't know that.


Yeah I do. Goodwin said so here:

GOODWIN: I heard him shouting from the beach.

ANA: From the beach?

GOODWIN: Why are you asking me about that, Ana?

ANA: Did he see you out there? Is that why you pretended to be one of us? You ran out of the jungle 10 minutes after the crash, you weren't wet. You were never even in the ocean. Where are they -- your friends? Nathan -- what did you...

GOODWIN: If you had cut off his finger and he still told you he was on the plane, I think maybe you would have started to believe you had the wrong guy.



Considering that the lives of those children - not even counting the taken adults - aren't in danger, then I'd have to say yes. But I'd say yes anyways, considering real life never mimics 24.


To quote you: "you don't know that". You don't know that The Others haven't killed their "captives" yet or if they intend to in the very near future. Or what kind of experiments or torturing they are putting the people through. But you Do kow that they will kill at the drop of a hat if they see fit. And that they have kidnapped children. And you Do know that whatever they are doing to those children it cannot be a Good thing or else they wouldn't have to kidnap them they could just explain themselves and let the parents choose. All in all, children's lives are worth much more than a finger.

And no one is sticking to the point of this thread. hehe. The question wasnt weather or not torture is immoral, it was simply why can someone use an interrogation method that is more moral and wont leave any scars or permanent damage.

I mean, if all else fails or there is a time limit I say beat the hell outta the guy until he talks. But in a situation where you have no real proof that someone is what you think he is or where there is plenty of time to get the information you need, there should be other ways to get it. I mean for example, the herny situation, if your wrong about him, and you did what sayid wanted to do, an innocent man would have lost his fingers for no reason. In other methods like tickle torture like I said, sure the person is put through a ruff time for awhile, (and as ridiculous as it sounds prolonged tickling isnt easy to take.....trust me i know -_-) but when its over, they recover fine, no physical scars no permanent damage. no real harm done.

i mean, tickle someone for 5 hours straight, I bet ya my bottom dollar they are going to spill whatever beans they may be holding.

And no one is sticking to the point of this thread. hehe. The question wasnt weather or not torture is immoral, it was simply why can someone use an interrogation method that is more moral and wont leave any scars or permanent damage.

I mean, if all else fails or there is a time limit I say beat the hell outta the guy until he talks. But in a situation where you have no real proof that someone is what you think he is or where there is plenty of time to get the information you need, there should be other ways to get it. I mean for example, the herny situation, if your wrong about him, and you did what sayid wanted to do, an innocent man would have lost his fingers for no reason. In other methods like tickle torture like I said, sure the person is put through a ruff time for awhile, (and as ridiculous as it sounds prolonged tickling isnt easy to take.....trust me i know -_-) but when its over, they recover fine, no physical scars no permanent damage. no real harm done.

i mean, tickle someone for 5 hours straight, I bet ya my bottom dollar they are going to spill whatever beans they may be holding.

1. Sayid had a time limit.
2. Tickling only works if:the person is ticklish, and even if they Are then for just about everyone, there's a threshold, after which it ceases to "tickle".
3. As a previous poster siad, there's No torture that's not harmful. The entire point of torture is harm or the threat thereof. Sayid tried the threat, it didn't work, so it was time to move on.

1. Sayid had a time limit.
2. Tickling only works if:the person is ticklish, and even if they Are then for just about everyone, there's a threshold, after which it ceases to "tickle".
3. As a previous poster siad, there's No torture that's not harmful. The entire point of torture is harm or the threat thereof. Sayid tried the threat, it didn't work, so it was time to move on.

what time limit did Sayid have? He didnt need to get information out of the man before the timer ran out. He didnt know Jack was going to bust in cuz of his blackmail against Locke. Therefore for all sayid knew, he had hours.

Number 2, I can speak from personal experience that in some cases, it can go on and on and on and not cease to tickle. hehe. Maybe im biased in that aspect cuz of personal experience but it is possible.

Third, the definition of torture may be to harm. But the phrase "tickle torture" is used quite often and many other things that do not invole pain in life can be considered torture. Maybe mentally. But then again, whats the worst that can happen to someone whose been tickled for hours mentally? They might need counseling to get over a fear of tickling. Thats all, its a better alternative than losing fingers.

I think sayid was very hasty in his actions to get harmful. There are smarter ways around what he did. I am not saying harmful torture may not be nessicary in extreme situations but in this particular case it wasnt completly nessicary. A less harmful tactic could have been used to get the same result.

what time limit did Sayid have? He didnt need to get information out of the man before the timer ran out. He didnt know Jack was going to bust in cuz of his blackmail against Locke. Therefore for all sayid knew, he had hours.

Number 2, I can speak from personal experience that in some cases, it can go on and on and on and not cease to tickle. hehe. Maybe im biased in that aspect cuz of personal experience but it is possible.

Third, the definition of torture may be to harm. But the phrase "tickle torture" is used quite often and many other things that do not invole pain in life can be considered torture. Maybe mentally. But then again, whats the worst that can happen to someone whose been tickled for hours mentally? They might need counseling to get over a fear of tickling. Thats all, its a better alternative than losing fingers.

I think sayid was very hasty in his actions to get harmful. There are smarter ways around what he did. I am not saying harmful torture may not be nessicary in extreme situations but in this particular case it wasnt completly nessicary. A less harmful tactic could have been used to get the same result.

Sayid didn't know how long he had, but he knew that he couldn't expect to stay in that room Indrefinately. He had a time limit.
Also, we saw how Sayid first learn to be a torturer... did you see him being taught "tickle torture" or anything like that?
And again, just because it would work for You doesn't mean that everyone is ridiculously ticklish.

Sayid didn't know how long he had, but he knew that he couldn't expect to stay in that room Indrefinately. He had a time limit.
Also, we saw how Sayid first learn to be a torturer... did you see him being taught "tickle torture" or anything like that?
And again, just because it would work for You doesn't mean that everyone is ridiculously ticklish.

true, however your overlooking that I say there are other ways that one could get information out of someone without harming them physically. or leaving permanent scars like missing fingers.

sayid had a time limit, not one apparent to him. Just like his first time in the room with his commanding officer he didnt have a set time limit. he CHOSE to take the more violent path both times when he didnt need to. given the other situation was more serious and a more violent time may have been nessicary concerning a pilots life and his own for that matter. but on the island, they have this guy in a room, hes unarmed and horribly injured. they dont have to get information out of him within the hour. they had enough time to consider the opions a little more than jumping in there right away. Sayid was really not cool and collected that episode. Shannons death? probably. I wouldnt say what he did was totally wrong, because he didnt end up permanently scar that person. i just think it was less moral than other paths he could have taken. given I dont know how I'd act in his place after all that happened to me on an island and neither does anyone who criticises him. But other methods could have been used than pliars and fists.

and btw, im not "ridiculously" ticklish. just about average. and i cant help it so dont knock me for it!! >_<. heh.

First of all, I'm not ticklish at all. Someone could tickle my feet for hours, and I'd probably fall asleep. Princeex86, what do YOU suggest SAYID should have done with the resources available to them?

Sayd didn't have a time limit. Jack didn't try to bust in until he heard Gale screaming because Sayid was beating him. the fact that Sayid resorted to such a "tactic" so quickly was why Jack came in and put a stop to it.

You might have a decent argument with thinking of non-traditional torture like the water torture or even the tickle torture, but remember that it's a TV show, and it's a lot more compelling to see a guy lose his ish on his captive and start pummeling him than it is to see him whip out a feather and start going "koochie koochie koo." And Bryce110, I label you The Pwninator. You drive home the point in all of your posts, and what makes it better is it seems that we're always on the same page.

I'm not getting into a tickle torture debate here, but for me...Sayid lost it..when you see him in the flashbacks interrorgating people he was calm and in control, and those weren't girl scouts.. so there was no basis for him to lose it on henry other than the Shannon thing..to jump into a beating seemed pointless, if you beat the guy unconscious what answer are you going to get really...there was no time limit for Sayid, I don't think Jack would have objected to interrogation and then ya know work your way up to the bamboo shoots and pummeling..:D

You might have a decent argument with thinking of non-traditional torture like the water torture or even the tickle torture, but remember that it's a TV show, and it's a lot more compelling to see a guy lose his ish on his captive and start pummeling him than it is to see him whip out a feather and start going "koochie koochie koo." And Bryce110, I label you The Pwninator. You drive home the point in all of your posts, and what makes it better is it seems that we're always on the same page.

Thanks penumbra. And I agree. I said the same thing in the "Locke punching Charlie" thread. I mean, yeah, "one punch" might have been fair enough (arguable, in my opinion), but Lost has a lot to compete with. This is 2006. This is the 24 era. This is a time when Prison Break has been embraced by men and women alike. Watching a man sit in a chair with water slowly and continuously dripping onto his head does not make for must see television. (Also, I'd say that the whole point of "water torture" is to drive a person insane. Now I don't know about you, but being driven insane as a means of torture sounds pretty detrimental and lasting to me.)

I'm not getting into a tickle torture debate here, but for me...Sayid lost it..when you see him in the flashbacks interrorgating people he was calm and in control, and those weren't girl scouts.. so there was no basis for him to lose it on henry other than the Shannon thing..to jump into a beating seemed pointless, if you beat the guy unconscious what answer are you going to get really...there was no time limit for Sayid, I don't think Jack would have objected to interrogation and then ya know work your way up to the bamboo shoots and pummeling..:D
First of all, I don't remember the scenes from last season in which Sayid tortured anyone (just haven't watched the episodes in a while), and yes, he was pretty calm when torturing Sawyer, but in One of Them, we didn't SEE him torturing Tarik. For all we know, he could have been bouncing off the walls, flailing about, waving pliers and assorted torturing utensils in the air.

Secondly, I agree that Sayid did seem to "lost it" when he started referencing Shannon's death, BUT realize that as his questioning became more rapid and erratic, Henry couldn't think as fast, and this is where he started to slip up (or so Sayid inferred). And remember, that Sayid didn't beat him unconscious. He punched him a bunch of times. I'm sure it wasn't pleasant for Henry, but it was generous in terms of "torture." People seem to forget that Sayid DID interrogate Henry for almost the entire episode, but to no avail. The guy obviously had an answer to everything, so Sayid put a little pressure on him to see if he could hold up, which apparently he could not. Remember, they may have an infinite amount of time from where we're sitting, but to them, just a few days earlier, Sun was attacked and injured. For all they know, another attack IS imminent.

What happened to Henry Gale was a smack around, not torture. If that's all that happens to him he is getting off lucky. If Sayid really does set out to torture him in the future (he won't) then Henry isn't leaving that room with all his fingers or toes.

I don't think we will see anything more with this plot line, too many squishies watching.

My vote for humane torture is putting some of Claire's "peanut butter" between Henry's toes and having Vincent lick it off.

it's just a tv show... start cutting his fingers off 1 by 1..(damn, it's not fox)

at least have hurley eat a can of beans and lock him in there with henry..

true, however your overlooking that I say there are other ways that one could get information out of someone without harming them physically. or leaving permanent scars like missing fingers.

sayid had a time limit, not one apparent to him. Just like his first time in the room with his commanding officer he didnt have a set time limit. he CHOSE to take the more violent path both times when he didnt need to. given the other situation was more serious and a more violent time may have been nessicary concerning a pilots life and his own for that matter. but on the island, they have this guy in a room, hes unarmed and horribly injured. they dont have to get information out of him within the hour. they had enough time to consider the opions a little more than jumping in there right away. Sayid was really not cool and collected that episode. Shannons death? probably. I wouldnt say what he did was totally wrong, because he didnt end up permanently scar that person. i just think it was less moral than other paths he could have taken. given I dont know how I'd act in his place after all that happened to me on an island and neither does anyone who criticises him. But other methods could have been used than pliars and fists.

and btw, im not "ridiculously" ticklish. just about average. and i cant help it so dont knock me for it!! >_<. heh.

Sayid didn't Choose a way. It's the only way he knows. From the very first time, all he has known is violent torture, so why would he change paths now?
And btw... I said "ridiculously" ticklish because most people go numb after a few minutes and it ceases to tickle. If you can be tortured with it for Hours... then that's not about average.

First of all, I'm not ticklish at all. Someone could tickle my feet for hours, and I'd probably fall asleep. Princeex86, what do YOU suggest SAYID should have done with the resources available to them?

That's what I want to know.

I'm not getting into a tickle torture debate here, but for me...Sayid lost it..when you see him in the flashbacks interrorgating people he was calm and in control, and those weren't girl scouts.. so there was no basis for him to lose it on henry other than the Shannon thing..to jump into a beating seemed pointless, if you beat the guy unconscious what answer are you going to get really...there was no time limit for Sayid, I don't think Jack would have objected to interrogation and then ya know work your way up to the bamboo shoots and pummeling..:D

I think that Sayid knew the answers to all of his questions before he lost it. He had just gone through Shannon's death, so he kind of knew what Henry should have remembered about the death/burial of his wife. He may have lost it a little bit, but it was probably because he knew that Henry is an other and he blames the others, in part, for Shannon's death.

One thing to say: You would adapt to the feeling of beeing tickled after a while.

i just used the tickle torture idea as a reference to show there are other possibilities. Im not really an expert in making people uncomfortable, but theres sleep deprivation. You could increase the not nice smell factor of the room (like hurley said) you could deny himenough bannana leaves for tiolet paper. My point was just, if someone is uncomfortable for a long while without getting physically hurt, they will talk. Even threatening which sayid was origionally doing is better than what he ended up doing and beating the crap outta the guy.

like i said, if you know its an other, do all the inhumane torture you want. if they captures zeek i would laugh if sayid pulled his fingers off with a plyer "yeah, someone a whole lot smarter than anyone else here said the opposable thumb seperates us from the animals.....*YANK*" but they have no proof this guy is an other, so sayid shouldnt have gotten violent with him till they had proof.

sayids intuition isnt enough for me since he falsly accused sawyer of having the medicine and insisted he was lying and ended up stabbing him for it. Not to mention that flashback when he beat the guy in the chair and realized afterwards "he's the wrong guy isnt he?"

could he tell when locke or jack are lying? yes cuz hes known them for a little while easy to get use to facial expressions. he doesnt know henry he went in with the assummption he was lying never had any doubt about it at all.

My point was just, if someone is uncomfortable for a long while without getting physically hurt, they will talk. Even threatening which sayid was origionally doing is better than what he ended up doing and beating the crap outta the guy.

like i said, if you know its an other, do all the inhumane torture you want. if they captures zeek i would laugh if sayid pulled his fingers off with a plyer "yeah, someone a whole lot smarter than anyone else here said the opposable thumb seperates us from the animals.....*YANK*" but they have no proof this guy is an other, so sayid shouldnt have gotten violent with him till they had proof.

sayids intuition isnt enough for me since he falsly accused sawyer of having the medicine and insisted he was lying and ended up stabbing him for it. Not to mention that flashback when he beat the guy in the chair and realized afterwards "he's the wrong guy isnt he?"



Did you know that torturers (or interrogaters) are trained to tell when someone is lying and when they aren't? Henry also exhibitted lying "tells" a Number of times before Sayid went off on him. Why didn't he catch Sawyer...? Because Sawyer knows what it takes to avoid those "tells" (con man and all). Why couldn't Sayid do any of the things that you mentioned?
1. He wasn't trained in them.
2. They don't have Time to wait 5 days for sleep deprivation to work (causes brain damage btw)
3. There were few items in the room to use. Was there Anything in fact?
4. He tried threatening and it didn't work. Threatening with no real "threat" behind it is useless.

Nobody's saying that the guy has to be mutilated... as Goodwin said, if you remove a finger and the guy sticks to his story, then he's probably telling the truth.
A finger is worth the lives of children... it's that simple.

i just used the tickle torture idea as a reference to show there are other possibilities. Im not really an expert in making people uncomfortable, but theres sleep deprivation. You could increase the not nice smell factor of the room (like hurley said) you could deny himenough bannana leaves for tiolet paper. My point was just, if someone is uncomfortable for a long while without getting physically hurt, they will talk. Even threatening which sayid was origionally doing is better than what he ended up doing and beating the crap outta the guy.

like i said, if you know its an other, do all the inhumane torture you want. if they captures zeek i would laugh if sayid pulled his fingers off with a plyer "yeah, someone a whole lot smarter than anyone else here said the opposable thumb seperates us from the animals.....*YANK*" but they have no proof this guy is an other, so sayid shouldnt have gotten violent with him till they had proof.

sayids intuition isnt enough for me since he falsly accused sawyer of having the medicine and insisted he was lying and ended up stabbing him for it. Not to mention that flashback when he beat the guy in the chair and realized afterwards "he's the wrong guy isnt he?"

could he tell when locke or jack are lying? yes cuz hes known them for a little while easy to get use to facial expressions. he doesnt know henry he went in with the assummption he was lying never had any doubt about it at all.
Remember, that torture - whether physical or not - is torture for a reason. Mental incapacitation can be just as damaging as physical harm. Think about kids who are bullied and about people who have been in damaging relationships and people who have been robbed at gun point or held hostage. Some of these people withdraw inside themselves and are effectively ruined, possibly forever. Meanwhile, think about those people who have lost a limb in an accident and kept skiing or kept climbing, a kid who lost a finger in shop class, etc. Some of these people are able to carry on with their lives and adapt as if everyone is missing an index finger or an arm. Physical pain is an extremely terrible feeling to endure, but being driven to a breaking point by some kind of "mental torture" can have far worse and more lasting detrimental effects.

Torture is torture.

eta: Also, everything RiverTheBald just said. Realize that to Sayid, someone JUST very recently attacked and injured Sun. He doesn't know if Henry was on his way to attack someone else, and if other Others are coming to get him. They don't have all the time that we do to watch them.

Did you know that torturers (or interrogaters) are trained to tell when someone is lying and when they aren't? Henry also exhibitted lying "tells" a Number of times before Sayid went off on him. Why didn't he catch Sawyer...? Because Sawyer knows what it takes to avoid those "tells" (con man and all). Why couldn't Sayid do any of the things that you mentioned?
1. He wasn't trained in them.
2. They don't have Time to wait 5 days for sleep deprivation to work (causes brain damage btw)
3. There were few items in the room to use. Was there Anything in fact?
4. He tried threatening and it didn't work. Threatening with no real "threat" behind it is useless.

Nobody's saying that the guy has to be mutilated... as Goodwin said, if you remove a finger and the guy sticks to his story, then he's probably telling the truth.
A finger is worth the lives of children... it's that simple.

yeah he wasnt trained in them i agree with you there. and yes prolonged sleep deprivation causes brain danage that too.

However, sayid didnt stick with the threat method, he got angry about shannin and dove right into the beating. "She was killed!! By someone who thought she was someone coming to harm us!! someone like YOU!!! *PUNCH PUNCH KICK BASH WHAM KABOOM* see what I mean there? He didnt really have cause for all that. He got angry and he shouldnt have.

lol and a what if, is not a good reason to cut off someones finger. If you had irrefutable evidence that he was an other, and knew he could provide you with the location as in you know they know what you want then maybe that would be justified. Not as a decisive action. "hmm...how do we know hes an other or not? Oh, lets cut off his finger...if he doesnt break then hes telling the truth" as a society we cant let ourselves afford beliefs like that or we are going to go back to the torturing of heritics and burning of "witches". its basically saying your punishing this guy before his trail. so weather or not hes innocent or guilty he loses a finger. Sorry, cant afford ourselves the luxury of being so cruel and cold hearted if we want to remain cvicilized people.

What if you were the random person caught in the jungle with no idea whats going on. some people took you asked you questions you told them the truth but they cut off your finger anyway. and then say "sorry we wanted to save some kids." you gonna understand that and think its justifued? i doubt it.

And there are people who would rather die than live life with any part of them missing, even a finger. Me for one. Because I'm a writer, I make my living off the computer and if I lost a finger, it would make it alot harder for me to write. Other people such as doctors or musicians couldnt go back to what they were doing ift they lost a finger. So for a what if to save some kids with no proof about someone, your going to potentially ruin their lives as they knew it? jsut on a hunch or a could be? sorry, thats barbaric.

You want to cut off Zekes finger to get the location of the kids? One by one? fine. A stranger who has yet to be proven guilty? Wrong totally and If i were on the island at the time I would fight physically as best I could to prevent such an action if they ever stooped so low.
<hr>
Remember, that torture - whether physical or not - is torture for a reason. Mental incapacitation can be just as damaging as physical harm. Think about kids who are bullied and about people who have been in damaging relationships and people who have been robbed at gun point or held hostage. Some of these people withdraw inside themselves and are effectively ruined, possibly forever. Meanwhile, think about those people who have lost a limb in an accident and kept skiing or kept climbing, a kid who lost a finger in shop class, etc. Some of these people are able to carry on with their lives and adapt as if everyone is missing an index finger or an arm. Physical pain is an extremely terrible feeling to endure, but being driven to a breaking point by some kind of "mental torture" can have far worse and more lasting detrimental effects.

Torture is torture.

eta: Also, everything RiverTheBald just said. Realize that to Sayid, someone JUST very recently attacked and injured Sun. He doesn't know if Henry was on his way to attack someone else, and if other Others are coming to get him. They don't have all the time that we do to watch them.

well, if your going to clasify every method of getting someone to talk through uncomfort of things like that as torture, then i will argue there are ways to get information or tell if someone is lying or telling the truth without torture and without treading upon someones natural born human rights.

What if you were the random person caught in the jungle with no idea whats going on. some people took you asked you questions you told them the truth but they cut off your finger anyway. and then say "sorry we wanted to save some kids." you gonna understand that and think its justifued? i doubt it.

Yeah, but as River already said, Henry had exhibited signs of lying, which Sayid picked up on.

And there are people who would rather die than live life with any part of them missing, even a finger. Me for one. Because I'm a writer, I make my living off the computer and if I lost a finger, it would make it alot harder for me to write. Other people such as doctors or musicians couldnt go back to what they were doing ift they lost a finger. So for a what if to save some kids with no proof about someone, your going to potentially ruin their lives as they knew it? jsut on a hunch or a could be? sorry, thats barbaric.

You want to cut off Zekes finger to get the location of the kids? One by one? fine. A stranger who has yet to be proven guilty? Wrong totally and If i were on the island at the time I would fight physically as best I could to prevent such an action if they ever stooped so low.

Human beings are remarkably adaptable. Barring full body paralysis, there's not many conditions I'd choose death over. Least of which would be the loss of a finger. I use computers everyday. I like my fingers. I use them to pick things up and to eat fruit and to scartch my itches. But if I were to lose a finger, or two or three, I categorically would not choose death over not being able to type as fast. You're different, that's fine. But you can live - if you choose to - a 98% normal life with a couple missing digits. Getting brain damage from sleep deprivation or mental torture isn't as easy to rectify or adapt.

Lastly, no fingers were even broached. The punches probably hurt, and the whole thing was probably scary for poor old Henry, but either he's an Other who deserves what he gets (as you already agreed to) or he's "innocent" and unfortunately stumbled into a war torn territory. If I ever had the misfortunate of finding myself in the middle of foreign territory during war time, I'll take the headache and concussion, thank you.

Yeah, but as River already said, Henry had exhibited signs of lying, which Sayid picked up on.



Human beings are remarkably adaptable. Barring full body paralysis, there's not many conditions I'd choose death over. Least of which would be the loss of a finger. I use computers everyday. I like my fingers. I use them to pick things up and to eat fruit and to scartch my itches. But if I were to lose a finger, or two or three, I categorically would not choose death over not being able to type as fast. You're different, that's fine. But you can live - if you choose to - a 98% normal life with a couple missing digits. Getting brain damage from sleep deprivation or mental torture isn't as easy to rectify or adapt.

Lastly, no fingers were even broached. The punches probably hurt, and the whole thing was probably scary for poor old Henry, but either he's an Other who deserves what he gets (as you already agreed to) or he's "innocent" and unfortunately stumbled into a war torn territory. If I ever had the misfortunate of finding myself in the middle of foreign territory during war time, I'll take the headache and concussion, thank you.

in not saying a finger was brooched and in truth i dont know i wouldnt kill myself or anything if a lost a finger, but what im saying is, people cant stood to the level of dismemberment or cutting off bodyparts out of sheer suspicion.

what if they did that in a police station everytime they thought someone was lying? In case you all dont know COPS are trained to tell when someone is lying and they are wrong often enough arent they? *COUGH* ANA LUCIA *COUGH*

What if you were the random person caught in the jungle with no idea whats going on. some people took you asked you questions you told them the truth but they cut off your finger anyway. and then say "sorry we wanted to save some kids." you gonna understand that and think its justifued? i doubt it.
Yeah, but as River already said, Henry had exhibited signs of lying, which Sayid picked up on.

And there are people who would rather die than live life with any part of them missing, even a finger. Me for one. Because I'm a writer, I make my living off the computer and if I lost a finger, it would make it alot harder for me to write. Other people such as doctors or musicians couldnt go back to what they were doing ift they lost a finger. So for a what if to save some kids with no proof about someone, your going to potentially ruin their lives as they knew it? jsut on a hunch or a could be? sorry, thats barbaric.

You want to cut off Zekes finger to get the location of the kids? One by one? fine. A stranger who has yet to be proven guilty? Wrong totally and If i were on the island at the time I would fight physically as best I could to prevent such an action if they ever stooped so low.
Human beings are remarkably adaptable. Barring full body paralysis, there's not many conditions I'd choose death over. Least of which would be the loss of a finger. I use computers everyday. I like my fingers. I use them to pick things up and to eat fruit and to scratch my itches. But if I were to lose a finger, or two or three, I categorically would not choose death over not being able to type as fast. You're different, that's fine. But you can live - if you choose to - a 98% normal life with a couple missing digits. Getting brain damage from sleep deprivation or mental torture isn't as easy to rectify or adapt.

Lastly, no fingers were even broached. The punches probably hurt, and the whole thing was probably scary for poor old Henry, but either he's an Other who deserves what he gets (as you already agreed to) or he's "innocent" and unfortunately stumbled into a war torn territory. If I ever had the misfortunate of finding myself in the middle of foreign territory during war time, I'll take the headache and concussion, thank you.

well, if your going to clasify every method of getting someone to talk through uncomfort of things like that as torture, then i will argue there are ways to get information or tell if someone is lying or telling the truth without torture and without treading upon someones natural born human rights.
OK. Like what? Again, I ask, if you were Sayid, in that situation, with those resources, and with the (albeit false) idea that Sun was just attacked and that at any moment someone else could be taken, injured, or killed, what would you do? What are these methods of getting people to talk without putting them in discomfort or "treading on their human rights"?

Also, when talking about "natural born human rights" remember that we're not in America or Britain or really anywhere. These "rights," despite the use of "natural" do not exist here.

Yeah, but as River already said, Henry had exhibited signs of lying, which Sayid picked up on.


Human beings are remarkably adaptable. Barring full body paralysis, there's not many conditions I'd choose death over. Least of which would be the loss of a finger. I use computers everyday. I like my fingers. I use them to pick things up and to eat fruit and to scratch my itches. But if I were to lose a finger, or two or three, I categorically would not choose death over not being able to type as fast. You're different, that's fine. But you can live - if you choose to - a 98% normal life with a couple missing digits. Getting brain damage from sleep deprivation or mental torture isn't as easy to rectify or adapt.

Lastly, no fingers were even broached. The punches probably hurt, and the whole thing was probably scary for poor old Henry, but either he's an Other who deserves what he gets (as you already agreed to) or he's "innocent" and unfortunately stumbled into a war torn territory. If I ever had the misfortunate of finding myself in the middle of foreign territory during war time, I'll take the headache and concussion, thank you.


OK. Like what? Again, I ask, if you were Sayid, in that situation, with those resources, and with the (albeit false) idea that Sun was just attacked and that at any moment someone else could be taken, injured, or killed, what would you do? What are these methods of getting people to talk without putting them in discomfort or "teading on their human rights"?

Also, when talking about "natural born human rights" remember that we're not in America or Britain or really anywhere. These "rights," despite the use of "natural" do not exist here.

well.......theres always going to look for the balloon or having henry take them to his wifes grave for starters, and im sure other people could think of other actual intelligent ways of it too.

and im not talking about rights given by a country in my mind thats all bs. there are certain rights people have inherently from the time they are born. the right to LIVE people one, and how about the right to not have your body mutilated for no reason? hehe. goes hand in hand with live in my opinion.

but according to you then, no rules apply all bets are off all right are denied so people can just start killing people and it'll be fine. if you wanan go that way. there gotta be SOME place to draw the line already.

just like the whole dumb torture of sawyer. someone else on this forum said it best why not just "tie sawyer to a tree in a jungle of mystery" and go search through his stash? hehe.

yeah he wasnt trained in them i agree with you there. and yes prolonged sleep deprivation causes brain danage that too.

However, sayid didnt stick with the threat method, he got angry about shannin and dove right into the beating. "She was killed!! By someone who thought she was someone coming to harm us!! someone like YOU!!! *PUNCH PUNCH KICK BASH WHAM KABOOM* see what I mean there? He didnt really have cause for all that. He got angry and he shouldnt have.



Yeah I agree with you there. It could have been handled better.
But that's not the point of your thread. :) Your point is that other types of torture could be used, my (and bryce's) opinion is that it's not feasible for this situation. And since you agreed to it by acknowledging that Sayid wouldn't know about it and that sleep-deprivation wouldn't be adequate either... shouldn't the thread be dead? :)


lol and a what if, is not a good reason to cut off someones finger.
In regular society? Nope, sure isn't. But The Lostaways are at war (and losing quickly) to a foe that they know Nothing about and now a stranger is caught from the jungle, Lies to you and is extremely suspicious to begin with? Yes, it's a possible lead, a finger is worth the children. BTW the actual price of "the finger" Only becomes an issue if the guy is Not an Other. If he is then the finger doesn't matter because as you said, you'd cut em off anyway. So, yes when your children are being taken, it's worth the gamble.


What if you were the random person caught in the jungle with no idea whats going on. some people took you asked you questions you told them the truth but they cut off your finger anyway. and then say "sorry we wanted to save some kids." you gonna understand that and think its justifued? i doubt it.


If I were a random person in the jungle who two months prior heard a thunderous plane crash in two places on the island and went to investigate Neither of them to ook for supplies of any type or possibly a radio, and I Lied to my interrogator. Then yeah I'd forfeit a finger.


And there are people who would rather die than live life with any part of them missing, even a finger. Me for one. Because I'm a writer, I make my living off the computer and if I lost a finger, it would make it alot harder for me to write. Other people such as doctors or musicians couldnt go back to what they were doing ift they lost a finger. So for a what if to save some kids with no proof about someone, your going to potentially ruin their lives as they knew it? jsut on a hunch or a could be? sorry, thats barbaric.


That's You man. If You couldn't bring Yourself to understand Their situation and that children's lives hung in the balance then that's Your decision. Henry's a millionaire though, he could buy himself another finger...

well.......theres always going to look for the balloon or having henry take them to his wifes grave for starters, and im sure other people could think of other actual intelligent ways of it too.
I thought about this immediately. But Henry had been traveling for a couple days, if I remember correctly. Remember, Sayid did not think he had the luxury of a couple of days to wonder around in the jungle looking for Henry's balloon. What if Sayid follows Henry into the jungle, and Henry leads him into a trap where he gets surrounded by Others with torches who shoot and abduct him?

That's all I'll really say about this aspect of the argument because...

just like the whole dumb torture of sawyer. someone else on this forum said it best why not just "tie sawyer to a tree in a jungle of mystery" and go search through his stash? hehe.
If you're going to go this route, you are going to run into the entertainment value argument. Sorry, but I think watching Sawyer get tied to a tree while Jack and Sayid search his tent is somewhat dull television. What would I rather see in my escapist adventures into entertainment? Sayid going a little nuts and punching a weird looking guy he found in the jungle while Jack cries outside the door OR Sayid kindly removing the arrow from Henry's body, politely asking him to escort him into the jungle, and have him lead the way to the alleged balloon and grave site? And if you don't care about entertainment or are more entertained by the latter, how about this: Which scenario makes more sense within the story being told in One of Them?

Main point still being: (1) Sayid didn't have the luxury of time (or so he thought), and (2) I would want to get as much information out of him as possible before giving Henry the opportunity to send me walking straight into a trap.

Yeah I agree with you there. It could have been handled better.
But that's not the point of your thread. :) Your point is that other types of torture could be used, my (and bryce's) opinion is that it's not feasible for this situation. And since you agreed to it by acknowledging that Sayid wouldn't know about it and that sleep-deprivation wouldn't be adequate either... shouldn't the thread be dead? :)


In regular society? Nope, sure isn't. But The Lostaways are at war (and losing quickly) to a foe that they know Nothing about and now a stranger is caught from the jungle, Lies to you and is extremely suspicious to begin with? Yes, it's a possible lead, a finger is worth the children. BTW the actual price of "the finger" Only becomes an issue if the guy is Not an Other. If he is then the finger doesn't matter because as you said, you'd cut em off anyway. So, yes when your children are being taken, it's worth the gamble.



If I were a random person in the jungle who two months prior heard a thunderous plane crash in two places on the island and went to investigate Neither of them to ook for supplies of any type or possibly a radio, and I Lied to my interrogator. Then yeah I'd forfeit a finger.



That's You man. If You couldn't bring Yourself to understand Their situation and that children's lives hung in the balance then that's Your decision. Henry's a millionaire though, he could buy himself another finger...

im not exactly sure what your trying to say in the bold there. i think neither of them to look for supplies. anyway, the island is huge, not everyone on it heard a plane crash. danielle didnt hear it, desmond didnt hear it. why does a balloon crasher have to hear it?. Second off, your still acting on the basis that Henry is lying. Theres still no proof of that. For all we know, how do we know that that girl coming on the show or whoever isnt his daughter and thats what he could be lying about. to protect her? thats a hypothetical but still.

its probably easyer to justify this course of actiong because its television. in real life I dont think anyone would be expected to "understand their situation" at the loss of a finger because of a what if gamble they took. You find a man who can turn the other cheek like that who isnt jesus christ and maybe you have a point. And a prostetic finger isnt the same as a real finger. until they invent sucessful cloning of lost body parts.

im not exactly sure what your trying to say in the bold there. i think neither of them to look for supplies. anyway, the island is huge, not everyone on it heard a plane crash. danielle didnt hear it, desmond didnt hear it. why does a balloon crasher have to hear it?. Second off, your still acting on the basis that Henry is lying. Theres still no proof of that. For all we know, how do we know that that girl coming on the show or whoever isnt his daughter and thats what he could be lying about. to protect her? thats a hypothetical but still.

its probably easyer to justify this course of actiong because its television. in real life I dont think anyone would be expected to "understand their situation" at the loss of a finger because of a what if gamble they took. You find a man who can turn the other cheek like that who isnt jesus christ and maybe you have a point. And a prostetic finger isnt the same as a real finger. until they invent sucessful cloning of lost body parts.

What I'm saying is that it's Incredible suspicious to hear a plane crash and not go investigate it if you want to Leave the island.
There's no proof that Desmond heard it... in fact I'm certain that he Didn't considering how soft the explosion sounded when they opened The Hatch with dynamite. that was right ON his door and it was soft.
It's Normal for Danielle to not want to get off the island until After she gets her daughter back, so why would she investigate? She's seen the Oceanic plane, a drug plane and who knows what else crash. She doesn't investigate because it's not like she's trying to figure a way off the island yet.
But for Henry... makes no sense.

And why are you Still debating? Didn't you agree with me already? "yeah he wasnt trained in them i agree with you there. and yes prolonged sleep deprivation causes brain danage that too."
What's left to discuss?

I think that physical torture is necessary at this point. There is too much to lose if this guy is an other and he does not have a very convincing argument. Saiyd should proceed with torturing this guy, especially after the sneer he gave him towards the end of this episode. The questions should be geared towards specifics like where his balloon crashed relative to where he was captured and where his cave was. If his story is true there will be evidence backing it up, if not they will know he is lying.
A torture that is not harmful but could work in getting information is that stuff Locke used on Boone when he tied him up in the jungle. If this guy is putting up an act it will be hard to keep it going when hes on psychedelic drugs. I can see maybe having Sawyer put on a fake beard and come in when he's peaking and act like Zeke to see if Gale responds or have someone he hasn't seen before burst into the vault and say hes from Dharma or something.

What I'm saying is that it's Incredible suspicious to hear a plane crash and not go investigate it if you want to Leave the island.
There's no proof that Desmond heard it... in fact I'm certain that he Didn't considering how soft the explosion sounded when they opened The Hatch with dynamite. that was right ON his door and it was soft.
It's Normal for Danielle to not want to get off the island until After she gets her daughter back, so why would she investigate? She's seen the Oceanic plane, a drug plane and who knows what else crash. She doesn't investigate because it's not like she's trying to figure a way off the island yet.
But for Henry... makes no sense.

And why are you Still debating? Didn't you agree with me already? "yeah he wasnt trained in them i agree with you there. and yes prolonged sleep deprivation causes brain danage that too."
What's left to discuss?

i think you misinterpreted what i said. I said desmond DIDNT hear it and danielle DIDNT hear it. so why do you think that henry heard it? you say its weird that he wouldnt go to investigate, I say that he didnt go investigate cuz he didnt hear the plane crash like desmond and danielle didnt hear it either.

what am i debating still? the justification of your finger statment. heh. which is really what ive been focusing on mostly the last couple posts. the what if and the gamling of someones body parts.

i think you misinterpreted what i said. I said desmond DIDNT hear it and danielle DIDNT hear it. so why do you think that henry heard it? you say its weird that he wouldnt go to investigate, I say that he didnt go investigate cuz he didnt hear the plane crash like desmond and danielle didnt hear it either.

what am i debating still? the justification of your finger statment. heh. which is really what ive been focusing on mostly the last couple posts. the what if and the gamling of someones body parts.

Have you ever been near a plane crash? Unless the island is the size of texas, then Danielle and Henry heard it. Considering that everywhere is a two-day walk, it's a safe bet that the island is the size of a town or a small city... not a state. Everyone would have heard it.
Desmond wouldn't have because he was in a bunker. Danielle definately did, and henry definately did. Keep in mind also that the fuselage and the tailsection were a two day walk from each other and yet The Others had a representative at Each. So, they heard it, and Henry was closer to the fulselage crash than the Others were, he was in a cave off of the beach.

"the justification of your finger statment. heh. which is really what ive been focusing on mostly the last couple posts. the what if and the gamling of someones body parts."
But see that doesn't matter because you already acknowledged that Sayid couldn't use non-violent torture (because he didn't know how) so... you should start a Different thread about the loss of body parts, shouldn't you? Since the purpose of this thread has been resolved.

Have you ever been near a plane crash? Unless the island is the size of texas, then Danielle and Henry heard it. Considering that everywhere is a two-day walk, it's a safe bet that the island is the size of a town or a small city... not a state. Everyone would have heard it.
Desmond wouldn't have because he was in a bunker. Danielle definately did, and henry definately did. Keep in mind also that the fuselage and the tailsection were a two day walk from each other and yet The Others had a representative at Each. So, they heard it, and Henry was closer to the fulselage crash than the Others were, he was in a cave off of the beach.

"the justification of your finger statment. heh. which is really what ive been focusing on mostly the last couple posts. the what if and the gamling of someones body parts."
But see that doesn't matter because you already acknowledged that Sayid couldn't use non-violent torture (because he didn't know how) so... you should start a Different thread about the loss of body parts, shouldn't you? Since the purpose of this thread has been resolved.

Danielle didnt hear it, because she had no idea about the plane crash when she captured sayid. If she had heard a plane crash she would have been more likly to believe him. And we have no way of saying for sure how big the island is. It could be very much more than a 2 day walk. They all have yet to go far north. (except michael) it could be alot bigger up there. In any case that doesnt matter because we have no proof either way that danielle heard it or not. she never akwnoledged hearing it, therefore we have to assume its a possibility that she didnt. and if its possible she didnt, its also possible that henry didnt therefore if he didnt hear it, its not suspicious he didnt go looking for it.

and your twisting my words about the non violent torture. I said that a different method could be used, I never said it had to be limited to sayid to do it. Everyone just lets him in there cuz of his republican guard rep sheet. He cant do it in a non violent way, ok thats true. how bout kate? I'd personally rather give her information than a scary dude with a torture scrunchie......and so would sawyer. hehe. episode 8 referece.

anyway, about the starting another thread? I might after this weeks episode, because I have a feeling that something is going to lead to Henry going bye bye. Since hes not listed as a guest star the week after. And we'll have to see what that thing is.

Have you ever been near a plane crash? Unless the island is the size of texas, then Danielle and Henry heard it. Considering that everywhere is a two-day walk, it's a safe bet that the island is the size of a town or a small city... not a state. Everyone would have heard it.
Desmond wouldn't have because he was in a bunker. Danielle definately did, and henry definately did. Keep in mind also that the fuselage and the tailsection were a two day walk from each other and yet The Others had a representative at Each. So, they heard it, and Henry was closer to the fulselage crash than the Others were, he was in a cave off of the beach.

"the justification of your finger statment. heh. which is really what ive been focusing on mostly the last couple posts. the what if and the gamling of someones body parts."
But see that doesn't matter because you already acknowledged that Sayid couldn't use non-violent torture (because he didn't know how) so... you should start a Different thread about the loss of body parts, shouldn't you? Since the purpose of this thread has been resolved. Actually I had a plane crash about half a mile from my backyard a month ago and I was the only one in the house that heard it...barely. You would be surprised what you dont hear when you are not paying attention.

Danielle didnt hear it, because she had no idea about the plane crash when she captured sayid. If she had heard a plane crash she would have been more likly to believe him. And we have no way of saying for sure how big the island is. It could be very much more than a 2 day walk. They all have yet to go far north. (except michael) it could be alot bigger up there. In any case that doesnt matter because we have no proof either way that danielle heard it or not. she never akwnoledged hearing it, therefore we have to assume its a possibility that she didnt. and if its possible she didnt, its also possible that henry didnt therefore if he didnt hear it, its not suspicious he didnt go looking for it.

and your twisting my words about the non violent torture. I said that a different method could be used, I never said it had to be limited to sayid to do it. Everyone just lets him in there cuz of his republican guard rep sheet. He cant do it in a non violent way, ok thats true. how bout kate? I'd personally rather give her information than a scary dude with a torture scrunchie......and so would sawyer. hehe. episode 8 referece.

anyway, about the starting another thread? I might after this weeks episode, because I have a feeling that something is going to lead to Henry going bye bye. Since hes not listed as a guest star the week after. And we'll have to see what that thing is.

1. Danielle let Sayid go... how much more "likely to believe him" does she need to be?
2. From the tail end of the plane to where the fuselage crashed is 2 days. That's how long it took AL and company to get to the beach.
3. Jack is a doctor, Locke is a regional manager at a box company. You'd rather let one of them handle the torturing...? Kate?? You'd let a Murderer do it? Ok, I'm out of this convo...
<hr>
Actually I had a plane crash about half a mile from my backyard a month ago and I was the only one in the house that heard it...barely. You would be surprised what you dont hear when you are not paying attention.

Really? What size plane? Because people were sying they heard the crash from 9/11 from miles and miles away.

1. Danielle let Sayid go... how much more "likely to believe him" does she need to be?
2. From the tail end of the plane to where the fuselage crashed is 2 days. That's how long it took AL and company to get to the beach.
3. Jack is a doctor, Locke is a regional manager at a box company. You'd rather let one of them handle the torturing...? Kate?? You'd let a Murderer do it? Ok, I'm out of this convo...
<hr>


Really? What size plane? Because people were sying they heard the crash from 9/11 from miles and miles away.

she didnt believe him at first, cuz she had no knowledge of the pain crash.

and yes im not disputing the fact it took them two days from tailie to fusies.

and you dont get I dont think torture is nessicary at the get go. let someone else try to get info out of him first.

people prolly heard the crash from 911 cuz people could see the smoke for miles and miles. and its also into a pair of buildings that ended up collasping. not in the middle of nowhere in a jungle, thats in the middle of a city with millions of witnesses

So let's look at Sayid's situation from a non-torture POV.
Sayid: Who are you?

H.G.: My name is Henry Gale.

Sayid: Are you an "Other"?

H.G.: No

Sayid: Ok, welcome! Have a great time on the beach! We have food in the Hatch also if your hungry. BTW my name is Sayid, nice to meet you! Have you met Claire, her little baby is the cutest thing! Maybe if your good with children you could babysit for her while she takes a nap.

If this type of situation happened how long do you think it would take for Henry to be off with baby Aaron? Probably within a day (if not sooner). Like everyone else has stated, Sayid is a "professional". He knows when someone is lying. Punching someone (in my book) isn't torture. But I'll tell you the form of torture that would send me over the edge, a lap dance/striptease from a naked Hurley. AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Kill me now!!! J/K :)

So let's look at Sayid's situation from a non-torture POV.
Sayid: Who are you?

H.G.: My name is Henry Gale.

Sayid: Are you an "Other"?

H.G.: No

Sayid: Ok, welcome! Have a great time on the beach! We have food in the Hatch also if your hungry. BTW my name is Sayid, nice to meet you! Have you met Claire, her little baby is the cutest thing! Maybe if your good with children you could babysit for her while she takes a nap.

If this type of situation happened how long do you think it would take for Henry to be off with baby Aaron? Probably within a day (if not sooner). Like everyone else has stated, Sayid is a "professional". He knows when someone is lying. Punching someone (in my book) isn't torture. But I'll tell you the form of torture that would send me over the edge, a lap dance/striptease from a naked Hurley. AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Kill me now!!! J/K :)

that scenario isnt even worth a reasonable debate, so all im going to say is, thats ridiculous. jsut because someone doesnt jump to violence and torture right away doesnt mean they are going to trust someone with one question.

Actually I had a plane crash about half a mile from my backyard a month ago and I was the only one in the house that heard it...barely. You would be surprised what you dont hear when you are not paying attention.
Was it a commercial airliner though? When I was a kid, one crashed about a mile away and it shook the house. I also didn't live that far from the airport (about 6 miles), and we could still hear the engines of the planes. A plane going down at the altitude would definitely make some noise.

The island is fairly big though, so I'm thinking it might not have been heard. Even if it's conservatively 12 miles in diameter, that's the distance from where I live to the zoo. I probably wouldn't hear a crash that distance away, but would hear about it on the news. :-) Personally, I think it's just an example of the writers not knowing what a plane crash really sounds like as it goes down. Not surprising since a whole lot of people don't know either.

No matter, they did give Henry a plausible reason why he didn't hear it. He was living in a cave at the time.

It wasnt a commercial plane, no, but it was a huge military jet. I suppose its all background noise because I live by a navy base, but on an island the sound of a plane wouldnt be easily ignored. But if you were located underground/in a cave its plausible to miss these things. The plane broke apart in the air, one piece fell in the water probably with minimal noise. The other part fell on a seperate side of the island. If there are valleys and heavy forest between both locations its possible for sound to be somewhat contained.

Anyways, I found it odd that Sayid was so quick to trust Danielle. Sure, she has reasons for her previous actions that could be understood, but if nothing else it has proven that she is unreliable. While I do agree that torture can be a useful tool for gaining information, I do not think physical torture is the answer. Usually isolation and mental distress is enough for someone to spill any information. Physical torture brings on the likelihood for someone to lie and agree to anything to avoid it.

But did Sayid need to jump to any kinds of torture at that time? I would say the only things he had to go on were Danielle and his inner gut feeling...both of which are unreliable at this point. Sayid is still grieving for Shannon and he cant bring himself to hate Ana for it, due to it being an accident. But he can hate the Others. And he can pick a scapegoat for the Others to take the blame. He could be to quick to look for someone to hurt in retaliation, and not really taking the time to make sure he has the right person.

Its interesting how Ana lucia was in the same position as Sayid, with Goodwin and the guy she stuck in the hole. She had the wrong guy all along, and it turned out to be someone closer. Sayid seems to be going down the same dark path Ana herself was on very recently.

Sleep deprivation and stress will crack anyone.

The heroin addiction has completely taken hold now.

Balloons are bouncy and joyful.