This is my view on Juliet and I used the words that Claire did to describe Alex to Rousseau. So my guess is that Juliet raised Alex and/or instructed her. Possible?

Possible, but I actually think ALL of the Others are not that bad. I think the more we learn about them, the more we will learn that they have been misunderstood. Yes, even the killings.

Possible, but I actually think ALL of the Others are not that bad. I think the more we learn about them, the more we will learn that they have been misunderstood. Yes, even the killings.

Yes yes, killing, abduction, drugging... it's just a misunderstanding. Seriously?!! I don't care if they talk to god, and Jesus told them to do it. A spade is a spade, and at the end of the day, they still killed, abducted, and drugged people.

Weeping_buddha, I like that idea and hope we can see Alex soon.

I think the more we learn about them, the more we will learn that they have been misunderstood. Yes, even the killings. So we'll see that homicide is justifiable? Sounds like 'collateral damage' to me. Both mean murder.

As for Juliet I think it's still early to tell. But so far she's screwed with Jack's mind, punched him, hit Sawyer with a taser. Not the actions of a "good person". That said, I do think she'll end up aligning with Jack and is going with the program for now out of fear.

I think perhaps there was some kind of Skinner programing going on and perhaps it didn't 'take' with Juliet but she is just playing along because its the safest thing to do. The same might well be true of Alex.

I also think that perhaps some of the 'others' have been programmed to follow Ben's lead. If they had been left to their own devices they might be 'good' but under his influence they are not.

If you can find caps, take a look at Juliet's expressions at these points: 1: right before/after she tasers Sawyer. 2: looking at Sawyer through the cage. imho, her expression is one of "yeah, I hope you suffer...." a kind of cruel relishing in the ability to cause Sawyer pain. Something's up here, and the hunch I have is that you're going to start to see that the Others treat people based on what they know of their past actions. For any of you who missed the memo, TPTB have ruled out purgatory so don't get started on that one. But I think they do believe they have the right to pass judgement on the losties, regardless of their recent behavior on the island. It's interesting to note that since the series started, Sawyer has become much more likeable, and we know he does at some level care for other people, whereas Jacks character started out as the infallable and he's making increacingly rash decisions. This seems to paralell Jack's flashbacks, where when presented with a very stressful situation, he eventually completely looses it. ... hm, i rather drifted off topic.

Possible, but I actually think ALL of the Others are not that bad. I think the more we learn about them, the more we will learn that they have been misunderstood. Yes, even the killings.

I agree with you Ben. I mean there has to be a reason why they consider themselves the good guys. And for all you saying no way, take a look at our losties and what they've done on the island. Charlie killed Ethan, but I wouldn't say that he's evil.

I think perhaps there was some kind of Skinner programing going on and perhaps it didn't 'take' with Juliet but she is just playing along because its the safest thing to do. The same might well be true of Alex.

I also think that perhaps some of the 'others' have been programmed to follow Ben's lead. If they had been left to their own devices they might be 'good' but under his influence they are not. I agree with everything you said here elfdream.

I agree with you Ben. I mean there has to be a reason why they consider themselves the good guys. And for all you saying no way, take a look at our losties and what they've done on the island. Charlie killed Ethan, but I wouldn't say that he's evil. I've seen the threads comparing both sides and am aware that both sides have done terrible things. Maybe they're calling themselves the good guys because that's what people do in wartime (and this seems to be a war of sorts) to justify their actions.

It's not just Charlie killing Ethan. How about Sayid torturing Sawyer, supposedly "justified" by Shannon's need for medicine, then doing the same to Ben? Ana-Lucia's killings, whether intentional or not, of Shannon and Goodwin? Eko's killing of two "Others?" Kate's killing of an Other in the forest? Michael's murder of Ana-Lucia and Libby? Let's face it, the body count is just as high on both sides, and the Losties have committed more cold-blooded murders than anybody. I think we're about to be taught an extreme lesson on perspective.

Let's take a look at the facts:

-- We still don't know 100% why the Others wanted Claire's baby and the other children. It could very likely be for their benefit.
-- We have no concrete proof that Ethan killed Scott. This has only been assumed from the moment his body turned up.
-- There may have been a justifiable reason that Goodwin killed Nathan; he may even have been protecting the Tailies. There was still no explanation for his two hour absence or the fact that no one recognized him from the plane.
-- Ana-Lucia lunged at Goodwin, not vice-versa.

If you can find caps, take a look at Juliet's expressions at these points: 1: right before/after she tasers Sawyer. 2: looking at Sawyer through the cage. imho, her expression is one of "yeah, I hope you suffer...." a kind of cruel relishing in the ability to cause Sawyer pain. Something's up here, and the hunch I have is that you're going to start to see that the Others treat people based on what they know of their past actions. For any of you who missed the memo, TPTB have ruled out purgatory so don't get started on that one. But I think they do believe they have the right to pass judgement on the losties, regardless of their recent behavior on the island. It's interesting to note that since the series started, Sawyer has become much more likeable, and we know he does at some level care for other people, whereas Jacks character started out as the infallable and he's making increacingly rash decisions. This seems to paralell Jack's flashbacks, where when presented with a very stressful situation, he eventually completely looses it. ... hm, i rather drifted off topic.

I'm not sure about this. At the very end, when Ben salutes her for gaining Jack's trust, she isn't very exciteded about it. She wasn't proud of playing games with Jack and I do believe that it means a lot as a character. Lest us not forget that something made her cry on the day the plane crashed. For all we know, there's something that bothers her deeply.

If she isn't so bad, explain this:
In the trailer for S3.E2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nv4Qpysqdpk) someone told Henry (Oops, I mean Ben) about the Losties having a boat. That voice sounded like Juliet's (although, I could be mistaken). If she is not bad, why is she giving up information which can hinder the Losties from having a boat?

Remember, Ben said in the trailer, "I want that boat."

If she isn't so bad, explain this:
In the trailer for S3.E2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nv4Qpysqdpk) someone told Henry (Oops, I mean Ben) about the Losties having a boat. That voice sounded like Juliet's (although, I could be mistaken). If she is not bad, why is she giving up information which can hinder the Losties from having a boat?

Remember, Ben said in the trailer, "I want that boat."


Here's one for you however unlikely.... What if Jack and Sayid did have 'a plan', one which was different than what we were led to believe. One that was only later shared with Sawyer, Kate, and Hurley, and one which would explain that ''look" between Jack and Kate in the season finale? In part to be captured by the others and share with them that they had a boat, using it as some sort of bait.

As for Juliet, it's about the evolution of her character that may have 'good' in it, but maybe just not there yet.
100%


Let's take a look at the facts:

-- We still don't know 100% why the Others wanted Claire's baby and the other children. It could very likely be for their benefit. Don't need to know 100% of the facts if taking a baby against a mother's will is involved, without any given justification.

-- We have no concrete proof that Ethan killed Scott. This has only been assumed from the moment his body turned up.
No we don't. But Ethan did say that every night, he would kill on of the Losties. And guess what, on the first night... a lostie is dead... every bone in his body broken. Guess who on the island posesses such strength? Ummm... yeah.. the others.

-- There may have been a justifiable reason that Goodwin killed Nathan; he may even have been protecting the Tailies. There was still no explanation for his two hour absence or the fact that no one recognized him from the plane. Ummm, yes there is justification. He went to the bathroom. Simple, no? And about nobody recognising him on the plane? Did anyone 'recognise' Goodwin "wasn't" on the plane? And there was justification for Goodwin to kill Nathan. To protect is idenity.

-- Ana-Lucia lunged at Goodwin, not vice-versa. No problem with saying AL jumped the gun... but that was her character...period.

You sound unconvinced. It's okay, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Yes yes, killing, abduction, drugging... it's just a misunderstanding...

And what's worse, IMO, is the unbearable air of arrogance and moral superiority with which they conduct themselves. Unbearable I say.

What the Lostaways have been through is rather inhuman. Simple as that.

Yes yes, killing, abduction, drugging... it's just a misunderstanding...

No, a "misunderstanding" is when you bring me lemonade instead of iced tea! :24:

Id say that there doing experements on the losties, and Ben is insane.

Although I happen to like Juliet -- she can cage me anytime -- she isn't good. Anyone who would enprison another person against their will, especially when they didn't comit a crime isn't good. These others are just candy coated but I think they're evil.

not there yet.
100%
Don't need to know 100% of the facts if taking a baby against a mother's will is involved, without any given justification.





True. Charlie snatched Aaron. All Charlie wanted to do was pour some water over Aaron's head and say a few words. Harmless. But everyone agrees he was WRONG in his methods. I find it hard to believe anyone could think the 'others' were benevolent in their actions. If the others wanted to do something equally harmless they could have approached Claire and told her about it without all the song and dance of abduction and drugs and an apparent c-section. If Charlie was wrong ...then the others are doubly 'wrong'.

[quote=RodimusBen;1200280I think we're about to be taught an extreme lesson on perspective.
[/quote]


I tend to agree with you on that, but it's obvious we are in the minority here. We have been seeing things from the Losties point of view, and are therefore able to say they are good, when we clearly have seen that they have done both good and bad things. As well, we have really only seen the Others from the Losties point of view and thusfar their actions have only seemed bad.

What I find hard to believe is that people can justify Alex and Juliet and still think there is no way of justifying all of the Others. If what the Others have been doing is viewed as 100% unjustifable BAD, then there is no way any of them could be considered good.

I am not convinced, at this point, that the Others are good. Truthfully I think that kind of jusdgement can only be made after we see things from their point of view and know what is trully is that they are doing. But I have in no way written them off as bad either. And I personally feel that we will see the Others perspective through Juliet.

And what's worse, IMO, is the unbearable air of arrogance and moral superiority with which they conduct themselves. Unbearable I say.

What the Lostaways have been through is rather inhuman. Simple as that. Precisely. Juliet's smug attitude when she recaptures Sawyer is obnoxious. At that precise moment, I wanted her to 'get hers'. Kill her off, I don't care. Her character is not sympathetic. Oh, boo-hoo, she was crying... she was crying while living in a nice little hut on a tropical island listening to CD's, while having indoor plumbing, a fridge, an oven, etc., etc.

Cry me a river, Juliet. When you start tazering people and acting arrogant, smug, and superior to confused people who didn't ask to be on 'your' island (and in fact, only want to LEAVE), you lose any chance of being a 'good' person.

I think there is going to be some good back story on her. Assuming that we will get to see some Others back stories. There is something in her eyes...not quite the same as the Others. Good or bad, just something....different.

the Others believe they are the 'good" people because they believe the research they are doing is going to help them save the world. It doesn't matter the cost, whether monetary or in human life so long as in the end the world is a safer place due to their research.

With that being said, I'm still on the side of the Lostaways.

I am still leaning toward the idea that the 'others' have been through some kind of Skinner type brainwashing and the behavior modification drills may not have worked on some like Juliet and Alex but they 'play along' because its probably the safest thing to do at the moment.

I could easily imagine Kate, Sawyer, Sayid, possibly even Locke and Desmond and many of the losties doing the same if they were in that situation. PLay the game, don't do anything 'too terrible'..survive and look for an 'out'.

Will they get to Jack? We will have to wait and see? Would Eko be 'turned'? I doubt it. The other losties have other people to think of that might influence what they might do...Claire wouldn't want to be separated from her baby, Charlie from Claire, Jin and Sun from each other etc etc. Hurley would TRY but who knows if he would be sucessful trying to be 'covert'. :D

Anyway..that's one of the few scenarios where I could think of where some people might be 'good' but also feel they are 'trapped'.

Well I remember during the Season 3 espectulation that an other would be introduced that would serve as Jack's love interest and also she would have other motives... something like that. I can't remember.. But anyway, I agree with who said that she's not good yet but she'll be.

I don't think Juliet is at all "good", but she does seem much more sympathetic towards Jack than any of the Others do. I think if any of them were to switch sides and end up helping the Losties, it would be her. Then again, there's a good chance that she's putting on a sweet persona to try to get on Jack's good side.

Yes yes, killing, abduction, drugging... it's just a misunderstanding. Seriously?!! I don't care if they talk to god, and Jesus told them to do it. A spade is a spade, and at the end of the day, they still killed, abducted, and drugged people.


I agree. Though we don't know their exact reasons for doing these things, it can't be justifiable. But like someone else pointed out, the Losties have done their fair share of torturing and killing. Yet I still can't see what reasons the Others would have, since they seem to be so well-off.

Groups are made up of individuals so some of the Others might be near Saints and some of the Lostee's might be less than perfect; however, in looking at them as groups or societies, the Others are bad guys. I thought this episode would have laid to rest the weak argument that, if we only knew them and their motivation we might gain the perspective to see the Others as good guys. We saw a group that knew a plane had crashed. A group that had the manpower and resources to render assistance to any survivors. What did they do instead? left some of them to die in the wreckage and treated the surviving victims as test animals to be captured and studied without regard for their status as human beings. I don't buy any argument that they may have some lofty goals where by the ends justify their means.

The Other's may claim to be good guys but they are deluding themselves if they believe their own statements.

I am prepared to like some of them as individuals just as I dislike some of the Lostees. In this case I felt I was seeing members of a cult and Juliet was no longer fully enthralled with her membership. I could easily see her using Jack as a way out of her current situation.

I am still leaning toward the idea that the 'others' have been through some kind of Skinner type brainwashing and the behavior modification drills may not have worked on some like Juliet and Alex but they 'play along' because its probably the safest thing to do at the moment.I'd say it's simply a case of the Others getting fed propaganda about the losties and what they've done. Ben and his inner circle could have been telling them that the losties tortured and murdered Ethan and Goodwin for all we know. Alex and Juliet are people who probably think what they're doing is right, but have problems with the means they have to take to get the results they need. Also, on Juliet deriving pleasure from jolting Sawyer: I think anyone on the island, including the losties, would probably get a kick out of zapping him with something that isn't going to cause real injury. I'm pretty sure her smile was meant to keep him off gaurd while she reached for it anyways.

I think some people are making this a "good vs. evil" thing, which I don't think its going to be at all. I think the writers are really going to start putting more political parallels in Lost this season and I wouldn't be surprised if the Losties/Others conflict begins to resemble something like Isreal/Palistine in its moral ambiguity.

I may be right, I may be wrong. But I think it would be dazzlingly brilliant for the writers to show us, through a series of flashbacks and showing previous island events from different perspectives, that the Others are respectable in their motives.

It would make for a really challenging show. People are so centered on the "us vs. them" mentality-- figuring out a way to villify the "other guy" until they can be perceived as nothing other than a hated enemy when, in fact, they have their own perspectives on events, and usually believe that they are acting in the right.

It also sometimes takes brute force and ignoring of emotions like "compassion" in order to do what's right in the bigger picture. Ultimately, I defend the Others because the Losties are just as bad if not worse. You can go on as long as you like about how wrong it was for Ethan to kidnap Claire, but in the end, who was it who ended up actually killing somebody? It was Charlie. I'm not denying that Ethan didn't try.

Same situation with the Tailies. Yes, some people were kidnapped (and we don't even know for sure that the Others took them), but who ended up getting killed? Goodwin and two other Others, at the hands of the Tailies. Goodwin killed Nathan, for what may have been an entirely justifiable reason that we simply don't know yet.

I'm not saying anything concrete. I'm just keeping an open mind rather than speaking in absolutes.

I find it hard to believe that on a show as complex as Lost that we can assume from one episode that the is good. If anything I think she is possiblly going to turn out to be the worst of the bunch. Remember alot of perople thought that Ben was really just poor Henry Gale from Minnesota.

I
It also sometimes takes brute force and ignoring of emotions like "compassion" in order to do what's right in the bigger picture. Ultimately, I defend the Others because the Losties are just as bad if not worse. You can go on as long as you like about how wrong it was for Ethan to kidnap Claire, but in the end, who was it who ended up actually killing somebody? It was Charlie. I'm not denying that Ethan didn't try.

.


Uh..Ethan killed Sceve.

the Others believe they are the 'good" people because they believe the research they are doing is going to help them save the world. It doesn't matter the cost, whether monetary or in human life so long as in the end the world is a safer place due to their research.

With that being said, I'm still on the side of the Lostaways.

Isn't that similar to the way our society see other live beings?
We think we're doing 'good' things by slaving pets and farm animals, locking them in zoo cells, testing drugs that either kill or scar them for life, taking away their offspring because supposedly we are better carers, disregarding their homes to build ours... as Tom said: "The only reason you're living on the island is because we let you live on it."
The Others don't think about cooperating and living together because they see everyone alse as a different being. They might think they're helping the Losties, but they're only helping themselves. They're a metaphor for our society. When we saw Sawyer, Kate and Jack imprisoned it was outrageous, but when we learned that the polar bears were there before it wasn't cruelty at all, as it's called 'research'.

It's all for a 'good' cause, right?
So i guess we're as 'good' as the others

Uh..Ethan killed Sceve.

As I've said before, though, we don't know that for sure. We have no evidence of that. Assuming he was murdered, there's nothing to concretely say it was Ethan.

It's also possible that Ethan went rogue, possibly after developing an obession with Claire or something. Picture the following scenario. On Ben's orders, Ethan goes and infiltrates the Losties. He develops an unhealthy obsession with Claire and goes against Ben's orders to stay "uninvolved," instead blowing his cover and kidnapping Claire. Once they have Claire, the Others immunize her despite being unhappy about Ethan's behavior. Remember, Ethan was being very secretive with Claire about not wanting to have to take her back, and Tom had scolded him for bringing her there before getting them a list of the Losties. It's entirely possible he was acting in his own selfish interests when he took her, and when he tried to get her back as well.

All of that is speculation, yeah, but it's just as legitimate as assuming that Ethan killed Steve.

Again let me just reinforce my point that there are so many gaps in our information, and I think a lot of people are making assumptions that you just can't afford to make in a show as complicated as Lost.

Possible, but I actually think ALL of the Others are not that bad. I think the more we learn about them, the more we will learn that they have been misunderstood. Yes, even the killings.

i agree, producers have said before this season it would be a battle of them vs us, but whos us and whos them,whos really the good guys and whos the bad guys. as in maybe we been misunderstanding whats been going on because we havent really seen the point of view from the others. and the one who seem bad so far is really ben, all the others as we saw on the pier before seem actually scared of ben.so maybe they are all good, but their leader is bad and makes them do things out of fear for their lives.

The Steve killing happened in the first season. I think that if they were going to make a 'mystery' out of that they would have referred back to it before now. After a season and a half I think its pretty safe to assume that Ethan did just what he threatened to do...he killed one of them. However that's not the topic of this thread so we best not go off on a tangent about that.

There is also another possibility. Henry..Tom and few others are the hard core believers in whatever they are trying to do and the rest of them have been forced into submission. The 'leaders' are the 'bad' others while the rank and file, if left to their own devices, would be good people but they were left behind when Dharma left or whatever..things might have been in chaos and Henry brought order. Before they knew what was happening they were caught in a web of tryannical leader and his minions.

As I've said before, though, we don't know that for sure. We have no evidence of that. Assuming he was murdered, there's nothing to concretely say it was Ethan.

It's also possible that Ethan went rogue, possibly after developing an obession with Claire or something. Picture the following scenario. On Ben's orders, Ethan goes and infiltrates the Losties. He develops an unhealthy obsession with Claire and goes against Ben's orders to stay "uninvolved," instead blowing his cover and kidnapping Claire. Once they have Claire, the Others immunize her despite being unhappy about Ethan's behavior. Remember, Ethan was being very secretive with Claire about not wanting to have to take her back, and Tom had scolded him for bringing her there before getting them a list of the Losties. It's entirely possible he was acting in his own selfish interests when he took her, and when he tried to get her back as well.

All of that is speculation, yeah, but it's just as legitimate as assuming that Ethan killed Steve.

Again let me just reinforce my point that there are so many gaps in our information, and I think a lot of people are making assumptions that you just can't afford to make in a show as complicated as Lost.

like i said in the comment before, we only have bits and pieces of what we thik happened, until we see what the others are really up to and what they did we cant say they did it. i still think charlie killed sceve, if you looked at his face he looked like a nut when he was looking at sceves dead body. A man would do anything to get the one he loved back, even if he had to kill to make them look like a bad guy, look at micheal he killed ana and libby just to make the others look bad so that they would go after the others, get where im going with this? :) i think well be in for a shocker about who the others really are and why they killed who they killed if they did it. ben did say listen learn and dont get INVOLVED, so maybe they could have gone rogue, ethan fell for claire and goodwin for ana.

like i said in the comment before, we only have bits and pieces of what we thik happened, until we see what the others are really up to and what they did we cant say they did it. i still think charlie killed sceve, if you looked at his face he looked like a nut when he was looking at sceves dead body. A man would do anything to get the one he loved back, even if he had to kill to make them look like a bad guy, look at micheal he killed ana and libby just to make the others look bad so that they would go after the others, get where im going with this? :) i think well be in for a shocker about who the others really are and why they killed who they killed if they did it. ben did say listen learn and dont get INVOLVED, so maybe they could have gone rogue, ethan fell for claire and goodwin for ana.


Except for the fact that Steve was killed on the beach and Charlie was at the caves all night long.

It's also possible that Ethan went rogue, possibly after developing an obession with Claire or something. Picture the following scenario. On Ben's orders, Ethan goes and infiltrates the Losties. He develops an unhealthy obsession with Claire and goes against Ben's orders to stay "uninvolved," instead blowing his cover and kidnapping Claire. Once they have Claire, the Others immunize her despite being unhappy about Ethan's behavior. Remember, Ethan was being very secretive with Claire about not wanting to have to take her back, and Tom had scolded him for bringing her there before getting them a list of the Losties. It's entirely possible he was acting in his own selfish interests when he took her, and when he tried to get her back as well..

Ethan going rogue is quite possible, I was originally surpirsed when Ethan showed up by himself when the Losties were supposed to give up Claire, It seems even more glaring now that we have seen the others, conduct several covert jungle ambushes in large groups and with the element of surprise. Ethan just ran out by himself without any tricks or backup help.

Ethan going rogue is quite possible, I was originally surpirsed when Ethan showed up by himself when the Losties were supposed to give up Claire, It seems even more glaring now that we have seen the others, conduct several covert jungle ambushes in large groups and with the element of surprise. Ethan just ran out by himself without any tricks or backup help.

It could well be a simple order from Ben "You lost her..now you go get her back'. There needn't be any rouge' element involved in it.

It could well be a simple order from Ben "You lost her..now you go get her back'. There needn't be any rouge' element involved in it.

But it doesn't fit in with the craftiness of the others, if Claire was so important would Benry really just send one man in against all the losties. I guess it goes back to if the others can enter en masse the Lostie's side of the island.

Possible, but I actually think ALL of the Others are not that bad. I think the more we learn about them, the more we will learn that they have been misunderstood. Yes, even the killings.

Yes, I think we don't know enough about the Others to make a judgment yet. Sure, they've kidnapped, but for what purpose? We simply do not have the empirical evidence to draw a proper conclusion on them yet. I suspect (but I hope not) that we may not ever have enough evidence to know, for sure, that the Others are "the good guys."

But it doesn't fit in with the craftiness of the others, if Claire was so important would Benry really just send one man in against all the losties. I guess it goes back to if the others can enter en masse the Lostie's side of the island.

I've never understood why the Others stopped trying to get Aaron after Ethan was killed. It seems really strange. They obviously needed Aaron very, very badly. Ethan was willing to kill (and die) in the attempt. Why then, after Ethan's demise, was Aaron left alone?

This strikes me as one of those key mysteries that maybe gets glossed over in the larger mysteries of the show. It just doesn't make sense. Either they wanted Aaron or they didn't. Why would Ethan's death matter? Why not just send another Other to get Claire and bring her back? What happened to change their agenda?

Even if it's true that the Others cannot enter en masse the Lostie's side of the island (and I like that theory), they could still send someone. It doesn't fit with the ruthlessness that the Others have displayed in order to get what they want. Something must have changed in order to cause them to give up their attempt to kidnap Aaron. Why do they no longer want Aaron?

When the episode first opened, I thought Juliet was Penny............

Did anyone else think the same??

You can go on as long as you like about how wrong it was for Ethan to kidnap Claire, but in the end, who was it who ended up actually killing somebody? It was Charlie. I'm not denying that Ethan didn't try.

Actually, if Jack had to perform CPR on Charlie, and he did... then Charlie was clinically dead. And Ethan was responsible.

I think the thing with Aaron was they might have had to had him from the moment of birth for something. What I have no idea! Cord stem cells perhaps? Once he was actually born naturally they could not have used him for whatever it was they needed him for.

If I remember correctly from reading Skinner's Walden Two (and it was a LONG time ago) Children were taken from their parents almost right away and raised in the group environment. Perhaps they couldn't intergrate Aaron into the group they way they wantd to once he and his mother bonded.

I don't know...I'm just thinking it was a thing where they had to have Aaron from the very begining or else 'it' (whatever 'it' was) wouldn't work.

They did wait a week before they took Alex...they may not have Danielle was pregnant and so were taken by surprise.. after they took Alex they may have tried 'it' and realized that even at a week old it was 'too late' and needed to get an infant sooner.

I freely admit its just pure speculation on my part.

Yes yes, killing, abduction, drugging... it's just a misunderstanding. Seriously?!! I don't care if they talk to god, and Jesus told them to do it. A spade is a spade, and at the end of the day, they still killed, abducted, and drugged people.

Weeping_buddha, I like that idea and hope we can see Alex soon.

Homicide, murder, abduction, kidnapping, and sabotage is not justifiable!:mad:

I totallly agree--there's no justificatin for murder, kidnapping and keeping innocent people prisoners in cages. When I saw Juliette, I immediately thought she was playing mind games with Jack and I hope he never trusts her. The others are willing to do anything to get what they want (whatever that is!) There is no way they are the "good guys"!!

I totallly agree--there's no justificatin for murder, kidnapping and keeping innocent people prisoners in cages. When I saw Juliette, I immediately thought she was playing mind games with Jack and I hope he never trusts her. The others are willing to do anything to get what they want (whatever that is!) There is no way they are the "good guys"!!

But what if, as many have speculated, what they "want" is to prevent the world's destruction by the core values of the Valenzetti Equation? Or what if the Others are kidnapping/injecting the Losties to protect them from other forces on the island? Would your opinion change then?

"Murder, kidnapping, and keeping innocent people in cages" are all things that we seem perfectly fine with in times of war. We take prisoners, we kill enemy soldiers. People justify this in their minds because they believe that a higher purpose is being achieved by war (for example, in WWII, defeating the Nazi menace which threatened the entire world). Well, how about if the ations of the Others have the potential to save the world? Do their actions become justifiable?

I'm just hoping that when the motivation of the Others is revealed, it will challenge the comfortable notions of morality that we are used to.

Saving the world was Dharma Iniciative's goal... not the others'.

First off, It's hard to judge a character based on one episode. I did get the feeling, based on her facial expressions, that Juliet doesn't enjoy what she is being made to do. I think there is the potential for her to join the Losties in some way. Only time will tell.

As for trying to justify the actions of the Others:

There is a lot of gray area between good and evil. Like so many others have posted, both sides have done evil in what they consider the name of good. Although most people tend to group the Others as a whole, not all of them can be judged on the actions of a few. One of the prevalent themes of the show is survival. Sometimes circumstances lead you to perform actions you might despise, in order to survive.

I think, in the months to come, we will gain a new perspective on the Others. I may never think their actions are justifiable, but some of their actions may be understandable.

Homicide, murder, abduction, kidnapping, and sabotage

But what if, as many have speculated, what they "want" is to prevent the world's destruction by the core values of the Valenzetti Equation?

If the former is what it takes to achieve the latter, then the world isn't WORTH saving.

And Juliet, willing or not, is a part of the means to achieve the ends. . . .





But I do kind of like her, anyway. Hope she comes to her senses soon.

If the former is what it takes to achieve the latter, then the world isn't WORTH saving. There some simplicity in that thruth that you speak of that might be haughtingly true, no?

And Juliet, willing or not, is a part of the means to achieve the ends. . . .

But I do kind of like her, anyway. Hope she comes to her senses soon.


You bite your tongue STH! Juliet is good and has begun to 'come to her senses' ;)

I'm not sure about this. At the very end, when Ben salutes her for gaining Jack's trust, she isn't very exciteded about it. She wasn't proud of playing games with Jack and I do believe that it means a lot as a character. Lest us not forget that something made her cry on the day the plane crashed. For all we know, there's something that bothers her deeply.


We must really read people differently. That ended sequence between Juliet and Ben was a real revelation for me. When Ben thanks Juliet and she says, "Thank you Ben", her voice was so emotionless and calm that, to me, this spoke a LOT about her. This told me that she is really an emotionless, calculating person and her "nice woman" attitude was all just an act. To me, she looked like someone who was efficient at what she does, and has no problems doing so.

Yes yes, killing, abduction, drugging... it's just a misunderstanding. Seriously?!! I don't care if they talk to god, and Jesus told them to do it. A spade is a spade, and at the end of the day, they still killed, abducted, and drugged people.


I agree 100%... there are two fact we have to who she is.

1) Who you hang out with is a clear indicator of who your are.

2) It's not what you say. It's what you do that defines who your are

We must really read people differently. That ended sequence between Juliet and Ben was a real revelation for me. When Ben thanks Juliet and she says, "Thank you Ben", her voice was so emotionless and calm that, to me, this spoke a LOT about her. This told me that she is really an emotionless, calculating person and her "nice woman" attitude was all just an act. To me, she looked like someone who was efficient at what she does, and has no problems doing so.

WOW! I read something even completely different from both of you! I got someone who was very very tired of something. Playing games, she had island fever...who knows. I just got the vibes of someone who was trapped.

WOW! I read something even completely different from both of you! I got someone who was very very tired of something. Playing games, she had island fever...who knows. I just got the vibes of someone who was trapped.That comes closer to my picture of her. I see her as a former willing participant who has become disenchanted with the group(cult?) and her role in it but she still participates and goes through with her assigned tasks. Ever worked with someone who was suffering job burnout? I think it is too early to judge her as good or bad. I go with the group as bad and her as possibly being in the process of being redeamed. I noted earlier that she may see Jack as her way out of the group if she has become unhappy with it.

I've said it since the night it aired and still think that Jack and Juliet will become a team in the coming war.