so why do they think they are the good guys????

Does that mean that they do bad things for good reasons???

They killed Alex's boyfriend...

The losties have done much more killing than the others. Alright, they killed Alex's boyfriend. How many other people have they killed?

BTW...it's good to see another Jersey person around. I was born and raised in Bergen County.

The Others started this whole War of Deception. The death of Ethan, Colleen, Goodwin, and "un-named" were because they kidnapped Losties and manipulated them. Now, with Danny's "mean on" for Sawyer, simply because he doesn't like Sawyer and sees him as representing all the Losties, and the manipulation they continue to carry out, against each other especially, proves that they are most definitely not the good guys. At best, they're equal to the Losties.

Also, please don't forget that we don't know for a FACT that they killed Alex's boyfriend. That WHOLE Alex-comes-outta-nowhere-with-a-slingshot-and-acts-like-the-rebel routine could've been all a big farse...we still don't know if she's entirely trustworthy, or if she's the 'good cop' in this whole scenario.

So far they haven't actually killed anyone that we have seen, I mean since Benry declared they don't kill. Personally I think it's all a mind game and they either will kill very easily or they are messing with the Losties for some very specific reason.


BTW...it's good to see another Jersey person around. I was born and raised in Bergen County.

Sussex county here. :biggrin:

Besides...the losties kill for self-defense or fear reasons. The Others kill for no apparent reason.

BTW...it's good to see another Jersey person around. I was born and raised in Bergen County.

HUDSON HERE!!!!! Born and Bred!

The Others started this whole War of Deception. The death of Ethan, Colleen, Goodwin, and "un-named" were because they kidnapped Losties and manipulated them. Now, with Danny's "mean on" for Sawyer, simply because he doesn't like Sawyer and sees him as representing all the Losties, and the manipulation they continue to carry out, against each other especially, proves that they are most definitely not the good guys. At best, they're equal to the Losties.

Not so sure if they are equal to the Losties...The Losties have done bad things out of character for a good reason....Even the "bad" ones were on the "Good" list...
The Others just seem to kill and go by the idea of a life for a life...and theyf seem to feel that they can psychologically kill someone also...Not just physical deaths here...

So far they haven't actually killed anyone that we have seen, I mean since Benry declared they don't kill. Personally I think it's all a mind game and they either will kill very easily or they are messing with the Losties for some very specific reason.



Sussex county here. :biggrin:

Jersey gang in the house!!!!!

But we have seen them kill the Tailies...

Besides...the losties kill for self-defense or fear reasons. The Others kill for no apparent reason.

Agreed...

Besides...the losties kill for self-defense or fear reasons. The Others kill for no apparent reason.


Well, we don't know that for sure. If the Others have killed, how do we know that it hasn't been out of self defence or fear? They would have their motives, just as the losties do. It really is a matter of perspective. We've seen a lot more of the losties stories and background than we have of the Others, so it stands to reason that we identify with their cause and not so much with the Others. From what we have seen so far, the losties have spilled far more blood (both on and off the island) than the Others have. And might I add, not always in self defence or out of any implied fear.

Now back to the title of this thread, yes the Others are killers, but the losties are killers too. If that is the sole basis on condeming them, then we'll have to damn the losties as well.

They killed Scott or was it Steve. They killed him just as punishment.

They killed Nathan. They killed him to keep him quiet.

They were definately gonna kill Sawyer. For revenge.

They bombed the raft and shot Sawyer and left them for dead. Just to ensure their get away with Walt.

They killed Charlie, but Jack brought him back. They killed him to get him out of the way.

They watched both Taillies and Lagers die after they survived a plane crash while they had the medical means to save them. The one guy died simply from a compound break in his leg.

(Hudson county checking in!!)

Alex's boyfriend may or may not be dead. Both camps and most societies have killers in them. I don't think a body count, especially one derived almost entirely from watching the Lostees, can be used to call one group or the other bad/good. If we had spent most of the 2 & 1/2 seasons watching a democratic neighborhood group (Lostees) and only a few episodes watching an autocratic crime family/gang (Others) we might have more examples of internal conflict and violence from the neighborhood group than from the gansters. That does not prove the Neighborhood Group is worse than the Gangsters. We have also seen more romantic couplings and friendships formed within the Lostees than with the Others, that to me may indicate only which group we have been observing the most not which group has more social interaction.

The Others show a general disregard for the Lostees as humans with rights of their own. They treat outsiders and their own dissenters as if they were test subjects/animals. I think that even if our lopsided observations give the body count win to the Lostees, they are still the good ones. But both groups will continue to view their group as the good ones.

I feel that without the agression of the Others, most of the Lostee kills would not have occurred. The Others sparked the violence and therefore can not plead self defense when the Lostees resist.

And yet the Others say they are the good guys and seem to believe that. I'm not sure that this is the right thread to put this in, but I have been thinking about how they talk to the Losties. If you were running some sort of camp, trying to help children, and a bunch of unruly new children were all dumped into your care, you would try to calm them down, teach them to behave, instruct them as to the rules . . . that's how it sounds sometimes when the Others talk to the Losties. Even Danny, who has from his point of view, had ample reason to beat the "new kids" into submission, tried to restrain his anger until Colleen died. They think that they are helping the Losties to become better people somehow. Even that business of drawing a line in the dirt and telling them not to cross it, they must have known that it would inevitably get crossed. In fact, they wanted it to get crossed so that Jack would come. Ben said that he has known about his tumor since right before the plane went down and that God brought him a spinal surgeon, so he must have wanted Jack from the beginning. Maybe the Others were the good guys once before they separated from Dharma? Maybe they were the men of faith to Dharma's men of science? Not sure. Any ideas?

I agree that if the losties killed the others in self defense....the others just kill for no reason that we are aware of....I have to stop and think that if they think they are as good as they say why would the feel the idea of a life for a life is good reasoning to committ a sin...whose good are they ahearing to and why are they insisting that they are the good guys???

So far they haven't actually killed anyone that we have seen, I mean since Benry declared they don't kill. Personally I think it's all a mind game and they either will kill very easily or they are messing with the Losties for some very specific reason.



Sussex county here. :biggrin:


Yet...Pickett/Danny was so very set on shooting Sawyer. :mad: Hmmm... :confused: I don't really believe that they don't kill. Just becaues Benry said, "We're not killers" doesn't mean anything...

exactly...they are not killers...so what does this make them? do they feel there is a difference in murders? they are killers...

*Sigh* Here I go again, defending Ben & Co.

Apart from not helping the crash vicitims in the two locations that Goodwin and Ethan went to, they have killed one person that we've seen, and that was Goodwin snapping Nathan's neck. The words in italics are the key.

We don't know for a fact that Ethan killed Sceve. Ethan threatened Charlie with A Death A Day, but after Smokey's Dance of Death with Mr. Eko in TCOL, I'd say it was a good bet that Smokey did Sceve in.

We don't know for a fact that Ethan strung up Charlie. We see Ethan staring at Charlie and Claire, then the next we see of Charlie, he's strung up. Ethan said to Claire "Charlie? Oh, he's fine. When we got far enough away from camp, I let him go back". We *assume* that Ethan did it, but we don't know for a fact.

Ben and Co. have their nasty moments, for sure, but here's a radical idea: maybe they really *aren't* killers.

*Sigh* Here I go again, defending Ben & Co.

Apart from not helping the crash vicitims in the two locations that Goodwin and Ethan went to, they have killed one person that we've seen, and that was Goodwin snapping Nathan's neck. The words in italics are the key.

We don't know for a fact that Ethan killed Sceve. Ethan threatened Charlie with A Death A Day, but after Smokey's Dance of Death with Mr. Eko in TCOL, I'd say it was a good bet that Smokey did Sceve in.

We don't know for a fact that Ethan strung up Charlie. We see Ethan staring at Charlie and Claire, then the next we see of Charlie, he's strung up. Ethan said to Claire "Charlie? Oh, he's fine. When we got far enough away from camp, I let him go back". We *assume* that Ethan did it, but we don't know for a fact.

Ben and Co. have their nasty moments, for sure, but here's a radical idea: maybe they really *aren't* killers.

And shooting Sawyer and blowing up the raft? Was that just their little joke? The 3 didn't die but Tom had no way of knowing that they wouldn't when he sailed away, leaving them behind.

The Others are homicidal maniacs. They simply do not care whether some perfectly innocent people die, unless of course they want to do some experiments on them or keep them in a cage. Anyone who has watched this show in its entirety should be able to tell you that.
They killed steve for he wasn't imprtant to them. They blew up the raft and left Jin, Sawyer and Michael to killed by a friggin shark.

Seriously, someone should compile a list of all of the crime the Others have committed so we can refer to it.

We don't know for a fact that Ethan strung up Charlie. We see Ethan staring at Charlie and Claire, then the next we see of Charlie, he's strung up. Ethan said to Claire "Charlie? Oh, he's fine. When we got far enough away from camp, I let him go back". We *assume* that Ethan did it, but we don't know for a fact.

Ethan told Jack though,"If you don't stop following me, I WILL KILL one of them." He sounded quite firm to me.

When Alex helped Claire to escape the medical hatch, she said they would kill her to take her baby out.

I would be very surprised if somehow it turns out someone else is responsible for all the killings.:blink:

They killed Scott or was it Steve. They killed him just as punishment.

They killed Nathan. They killed him to keep him quiet.

They were definately gonna kill Sawyer. For revenge.

They bombed the raft and shot Sawyer and left them for dead. Just to ensure their get away with Walt.

They killed Charlie, but Jack brought him back. They killed him to get him out of the way.

They watched both Taillies and Lagers die after they survived a plane crash while they had the medical means to save them. The one guy died simply from a compound break in his leg.

(Hudson county checking in!!)

Excellent post.

Not to mention Pickett has kicked the hell out of Sawyer numerous times, and in the last episode, he dragged Sawyer outside and put a gun to his head. We don't know the outcome, but Pickett wants to kill Sawyer- and he's done nothing.

They are killers- we are not. We protect ourselves.

We killed Ethan because he infiltrated the group, kidnapped Claire, killed one of our men, strung Charlie up from a tree, beat Jack and came back for more.

We killed Goodwin because he infiltrated the group, was responsible for many of the tailies being kidnapped, killed one of our men, and fought Ana.

We killed Colleen because she was a threat, leading a team of Others equipped with guns onto her boat while she was alone. It was an accidental shot and Jack went into surgery and tried to save her.

And shooting Sawyer and blowing up the raft? Was that just their little joke? The 3 didn't die but Tom had no way of knowing that they wouldn't when he sailed away, leaving them behind.

Well put.

Excellent post.

Not to mention Pickett has kicked the hell out of Sawyer numerous times, and in the last episode, he dragged Sawyer outside and put a gun to his head. We don't know the outcome, but Pickett wants to kill Sawyer- and he's done nothing.

They are killers- we are not. We protect ourselves.

We killed Ethan because he infiltrated the group, kidnapped Claire, killed one of our men, strung Charlie up from a tree, beat Jack and came back for more.

We killed Goodwin because he infiltrated the group, was responsible for many of the tailies being kidnapped, killed one of our men, and fought Ana.

We killed Colleen because she was a threat, leading a team of Others equipped with guns onto her boat while she was alone. It was an accidental shot and Jack went into surgery and tried to save her.

Thank you!

For those that think the Others aren't the killers because we didn't actually *see* it happen, OMG!!!

I guarentee that people are eating because they are not wasting away. We are not talking leap of faith here. Nathan and the raft bombing/shooting are enough to say that they do bad things, very bad things.

Please notice we purposely left out the stuff that might take the leap of faith. I believe that they killed that rabbit;)

We also left out that they executed plans to kidnap many people and that they are holding hostage K/J/J. You can't even say hostage for there is no randsom. They are doing it for what, enjoyment?

They are certainly not living by the golden rule!!!

Oh, Jack should want to save Ben while Ben let the wounded survivors die. And we should feel sorry for them why?????

Face it,,,,,,,,,,they have power to do good and they continue to do bad,,,,,,,,that makes them bad.

ETA: Any lawyers want to comment on their guilt? Depraved indifferent, man slaughter, murder. That's at least one count of each right?

Let's pretend you and your friends go camping in the mountains, you are all sitting by the fire roasting marshmellows when some people come out of the bushes and begin taking your friend's children and other people into the wilderness... Under what scenario exactly would this be good people trying to help you achieve some sort of redemption?

Now pretend you and your friends went out in a boat ride, you spot another boat, they come near you, pull out guns, shoot one of your friends, blow up your boat, kidnap your friend's son, and sail away in the horizon, leaving you to fend for yourself in shark infested waters, miles from shore, in the middle of the night.... But hey, they might have had a good reason, right?

Next up, let's imagine you're pregnant, visiting friends in a cabin in the woods. You go out for a stroll with a friend and start getting pains (possibly labor, or fake labor). You're worried, the baby is not due yet. You sit down on a rock and ask your friend to get help. Coming up the path is another person who is also a guest in the cabin, you're relieved, until this person forcibly takes you and your friend away. Most likely by force, because you sure didn't want to go with this stranger. He then takes you to a secluded place with no windows and gives you drugs, and tries to convince you to give him your baby.... But I see, he was just trying to protect the baby, off course...

These are just a few examples of the constant terrorizing the Others are responsible for without any provocation whatsoever. The tailies were just hanging out by the beach fire. They had done absolutely nothing to the Others, except crash land on "their" island, which is completely out of their control. Michael, Sawyer, Jin and Walt had done absolutely nothing to the Others, they were in fact, getting out of "their" island, sailing along, they had not attacked the Others or even seen them up to this point. Same situation with Claire, what exactly had she done to provoke, offend, hurt the Others? Nothing!

Sooo, anything the Losties did to the Others after such unprovoked attacks is only a consequence the Others brought upon themelves. You can't expect people to be nice to you and believe you're "the good guy" after pulling such stunts.

Now, all these incidents involved children, so, for argument's sake, let's say that the Others are trying to protect the children from some danger we are not aware of. Wouldn't it have been a better course of action to approach the Losties and explain the situation? Do you think any of the Losties would have tought twice about puting the children in a safe position?

They killed Scott or was it Steve. They killed him just as punishment.

They killed Nathan. They killed him to keep him quiet.

They were definately gonna kill Sawyer. For revenge.

They bombed the raft and shot Sawyer and left them for dead. Just to ensure their get away with Walt.

They killed Charlie, but Jack brought him back. They killed him to get him out of the way.

They watched both Taillies and Lagers die after they survived a plane crash while they had the medical means to save them. The one guy died simply from a compound break in his leg.

(Hudson county checking in!!)


Exactly, they don't care who they kill as long as they think it was necessary.

Let's pretend you and your friends go camping in the mountains, you are all sitting by the fire roasting marshmellows when some people come out of the bushes and begin taking your friend's children and other people into the wilderness... Under what scenario exactly would this be good people trying to help you achieve some sort of redemption?

Now pretend you and your friends went out in a boat ride, you spot another boat, they come near you, pull out guns, shoot one of your friends, blow up your boat, kidnap your friend's son, and sail away in the horizon, leaving you to fend for yourself in shark infested waters, miles from shore, in the middle of the night.... But hey, they might have had a good reason, right?

Next up, let's imagine you're pregnant, visiting friends in a cabin in the woods. You go out for a stroll with a friend and start getting pains (possibly labor, or fake labor). You're worried, the baby is not due yet. You sit down on a rock and ask your friend to get help. Coming up the path is another person who is also a guest in the cabin, you're relieved, until this person forcibly takes you and your friend away. Most likely by force, because you sure didn't want to go with this stranger. He then takes you to a secluded place with no windows and gives you drugs, and tries to convince you to give him your baby.... But I see, he was just trying to protect the baby, off course...

These are just a few examples of the constant terrorizing the Others are responsible for without any provocation whatsoever. The tailies were just hanging out by the beach fire. They had done absolutely nothing to the Others, except crash land on "their" island, which is completely out of their control. Michael, Sawyer, Jin and Walt had done absolutely nothing to the Others, they were in fact, getting out of "their" island, sailing along, they had not attacked the Others or even seen them up to this point. Same situation with Claire, what exactly had she done to provoke, offend, hurt the Others? Nothing!

Sooo, anything the Losties did to the Others after such unprovoked attacks is only a consequence the Others brought upon themelves. You can't expect people to be nice to you and believe you're "the good guy" after pulling such stunts.

Now, all these incidents involved children, so, for argument's sake, let's say that the Others are trying to protect the children from some danger we are not aware of. Wouldn't it have been a better course of action to approach the Losties and explain the situation? Do you think any of the Losties would have tought twice about puting the children in a safe position?

Excelent post!!!!! I agree with you !@!!@

Exactly, they don't care who they kill as long as they think it was necessary.


Agreed!! In each case they were the agressor.

Each time an Other is killed it seems to have been justifiable homoside, self-defense.

QUOTE=Herk;1279762]Agreed!! In each case they were the agressor.

Each time an Other is killed it seems to have been justifiable homoside, self-defense.[/QUOTE]

I sure hope that was a typo. :biggrin:

QUOTE=Herk;1279762]Agreed!! In each case they were the agressor.

Each time an Other is killed it seems to have been justifiable homoside, self-defense.

I sure hope that was a typo. :biggrin:[/quote]


I think that says more about you, I'm just a bad speller:redface: . Homo is a prefix meaning "same". Since I teach Biology I use it often (mixtures, genes etc). :undecide:

I'm not pointing out that you didn't use the quote function very effectively did I? Oh, I guess I did.
;)

They killed Scott or was it Steve. They killed him just as punishment.

You don't know that for a fact. You're assuming. Given what we saw of Smokey after Mr. Eko's demise, a very good case could be made that the only thing or person capable of breaking every bone in Sceve's body was Smokey.

They killed Nathan. They killed him to keep him quiet

Possible, though he could have been in a rival Others faction. Nathan was a bit sketchy, yes? There's a reason Ana-Lucia suspected him --two hours disappeared in the jungle with the lame excuse of "Yeah, sorry" etc. Here's an extended bit from The Other 48 Days, with my bolding for emphasis:ANA: He wasn't on the plane.
BERNARD: What?
ANA: We were in the air for 2 hours -- I didn't see him once -- not once.
GOODWIN: It's a big plane, Ana, just because you didn't...
CINDY: No, I didn't see him either. I'm pretty good with faces, you know, with the passengers, and I did not see him.
GOODWIN: You're not all serious.
LIBBY: He never talks about himself, Nathan. Every time I ask him anything, he just dodges.
BERNARD: No, if he really were one of them why would he still be here?
ANA: I don't know, but I'm going to find out.
NATHAN [faintly in the background]: Will you let me out, Ana?
ANA [to Eko]]: You got a problem with this?
NATHAN [faintly in the background]: What are you doing? Let me out.
[Night time. Ana opens the cover of the pit.]
ANA: Where are the kids? Where are the kids? Where are you from, Nathan?
NATHAN: Canada.
ANA: What were you doing in Australia?
NATHAN: Company retreat.
ANA: Where are they?
NATHAN: What?
ANA: The rest of your retreat -- where are they?
NATHAN: They weren't on the plane. I stayed a couple extra days to sight-see.
ANA: How come nobody saw you on the plane, Nathan?
NATHAN: I was in the lavatory.
ANA: For 2 hours?
NATHAN: I don't remember seeing you on the plane, Ana-Lucia.
ANA: That's because you weren't on it.

Re: the bolded parts. So, Cindy, whose job it is to move amongst the passengers didn't remember him, he's from Canada (like Ethan said he was) and the best he came up with for why no one saw him is that he was in the bathroom for two hours?

Hmmmmm.....that Nathan.......VERY sketchy.

They were definately gonna kill Sawyer. For revenge.

Again, an assumption. Just because Tom says so to Ben in the Monitor Room doesn't make it so; we don't know the full extent of their plan, who's on what side, even if there *is* sides (Juliet's card show with Jack could be a ruse).

They bombed the raft and shot Sawyer and left them for dead. Just to ensure their get away with Walt.

No way a pro-Others person can spin that, bad news, they could have taken him when he was walking around with Vincent, though I suspect for reasons still unknown, they can't come to the southern part of the Island (Smokey is the best answer :))

They killed Charlie, but Jack brought him back. They killed him to get him out of the way.

MAJOR assumption based on only one view of the, erm, Incident. :) The appearance of Patchy hints that there's still DHARMA dead enders around, *they* could have done it to frame The Others. Until we get a Hobbit flashback showing this incident, the circumstantial evidence is mixed, at best.

They watched both Taillies and Lagers die after they survived a plane crash while they had the medical means to save them. The one guy died simply from a compound break in his leg.

Very guilty, as charged. No way to spin that.

As for Shannon, again we assume that they were being chased by The Others, but do we know that for a fact? Do we know for a fact that the Walt appearing thing and the whispers are controlled by The Others? No and no. "YOU'RE the killer, Ana-Lucia". Yep, she had a choice and she made the wrong one.

Michael. Jeebus, what a dumbass. Apart from him making me wish I was deaf so I didn't have to hear one more damn "My SON! WAAAAALLLLLLTTTTTT", what an idiot. Fine, The Others snagged Walt, undefenseable. But what does Michael do? He lies to everyone, takes off alone, ON THAT ISLAND, sees Danny and instead of thinking "Trap! I've walked in to a trap!" he acts all "Ha! Gotcha!". When Tom knocked him out, I cheered The Others.

After that brainiac move, he comes back and the best he can come up with is kill Ana-Lucia? WTF? Howzabout: "A-L, Jack needs you by the beach, I'll watch Henry while you're gone". Ana-Lucia would have gone, he releases Henry/Ben, he still shoots himself and then gets the other 4 people to go with him.

I find it interesting that when given a choice in the two incidents, Ana-Lucia and Michael both shot first before asking any questions.

let's say that the Others are trying to protect the children from some danger we are not aware of. Wouldn't it have been a better course of action to approach the Losties and explain the situation?

Right, Ben and Co. are going to just waltz in to a camp of murderers, drug addicts, thugs, a man who talks to imaginary people in his head and other assorted human flotsam and jetsam and say "Oh, by the way, we should take your children, because you're going to meet a crazy French women soon and she's going to babble about The Sickness, and well, just give us the kids, 'mkay?" :rolleyes:

All I'm asking is that y'all change your at.....*perspective* and hold off on the "Others are EEEEEVVVVVIIIIIILLLLLLL" stuff until we know their motivations. At that point, if they are insane and mean, then I'll join in the chorus, but if watching every single episode of this show a minimum of three times (I've watched some of them dozens of times, and bits and pieces from various eppies dozens more) has taught me one thing, it's that everything is not what it appears, facile snap judgements of "good" or "bad" often lead to "Woops, my bad!" later and so on.

Jeremy Bender, Others defense attorney since One of Them.

:) :D

I think it's definitely too soon to start shrieking "THE OTHERS ARE EVIL!!!!" Yes, the Others have done some terrible things. They have taken people. They have killed a couple people. They strung Charlie up in tree, were probably going to kill Claire, and one of them desperately wants to kill Sawyer.

But stop and think for a minute about what a fine group of people the Losties are. Then, stop trying to claim that the only reason they've killed people is because of the Others' aggression. That is blatantly untrue. Off the top of my head, I can think of four of our Losties who have killed people BEFORE the Others were ever in the picture.

It's very clear to me that part of the point of this show is that people do terrible things, but that doesn't necessarily make them terrible people. The only Losties who don't have something nasty in their pasts are Claire and Hurley (and Nikki and Paulo, but they don't really count, haha), and I have no doubt that we'll find out something about Claire, at least, that isn't all hearts and rainbows soon. It might be enough that Hurley was in a mental institution.

My point is that I think people sort of conveniently forget about what the Losties have done because we know and love them and the Others are, well...the Others. They're scary outsiders. But I'm pretty sure that after this season is over, we will feel differently about the Others. Well, I love them, so I won't feel differently. ;)

As kind of a sidenote: a rabbit's life isn't too important in this discussion, but I really don't think the rabbit was killed just because of the way the scene was written when Ben showed it to Sawyer. The fact that he freely admits that Sawyer has no way of knowing if it's the same rabbit just makes it seem like it is.

were probably going to kill Claire

Yet another incident where we only have one person's word for it.ETHAN: I'm going to miss you. I wish -- I wish you didn't have to go.
CLAIRE: Maybe I don't have to go?
ETHAN: We've been through this Claire. There's not enough vaccine for you and the baby.
CLAIRE: Well, I'm not, I'm not sick.
ETHAN: Thank God. And once you've delivered you can go back to your friends and hopefully you'll stay that way.
CLAIRE: What if I want to see the baby?
ETHAN: Hey, nobody's going to take him from you unless that's what you want. You have a choice. We're good people, Claire. We're a good family. But if you're going to trust us with your child I want you to be sure. Okay?

Note that, AGAIN, Claire was more than willing to give up Aaron to almost complete strangers (yes, the drugs, yes, the icky tasting water, but still...). Note also Ethan's "you can go back to your friends"...... we only have the word of Alex that they were going to kill her. They could have killed Danielle 16 years previously but they didn't. Little drama queen Alex thinks they killed Karl but I'm certain that's not true. Cutie Karl may have a bloody nose, but still, he's not dead.

My point is that I think people sort of conveniently forget about what the Losties have done because we know and love them and the Others are, well...the Others. They're scary outsiders

From Lockdown:

LOCKE: Well, if you're who you say you are then what are you worried about?
GALE: Things have happened to them -- things that I have nothing to do with. But they've got no one to blame except for me

Yes, he lied about who he was but do you blame him? I mean, let's face it, if he had told them he was one of those people that they had been calling Others all that time it would have been right back to Sayid and his -- fists. Wouldn't it?

:)

As kind of a sidenote: a rabbit's life isn't too important in this discussion, but I really don't think the rabbit was killed just because of the way the scene was written when Ben showed it to Sawyer. The fact that he freely admits that Sawyer has no way of knowing if it's the same rabbit just makes it seem like it is.

No, it wasn't killed. Notice the smirk and laugh when Ben says "You don't" in response to James saying it could be another bunny with the same number painted on? Just a mind game. If they wanted to, since it's their Island, if they just wanted the strong and the children, they could have killed off all the rest (*cough* Bernard *cough*) but they didn't, because they're not killers.

I know I might come across an Others apologist but I fully agree with the "left people to die on the beach after the crash" thing, that's totally unredeemable. However, in the fullness of time, I'm sure that all of Ben's cryptic sayings that get people so riled up ("We're the good guys, MIchael", "WE'RE not killers, James") will be revealed to be reflections of the truth.

From Lockdown:



Yes, he lied about who he was but do you blame him? I mean, let's face it, if he had told them he was one of those people that they had been calling Others all that time it would have been right back to Sayid and his -- fists. Wouldn't it?

:)

I know I might come across an Others apologist but I fully agree with the "left people to die on the beach after the crash" thing, that's totally unredeemable. However, in the fullness of time, I'm sure that all of Ben's cryptic sayings that get people so riled up ("We're the good guys, MIchael", "WE'RE not killers, James") will be revealed to be reflections of the truth.

I do not blame him. I see no way that he could have told the Losties that he was an Other. They probably would have killed him, like they killed Ethan. I totally agree with you, in fact!

And I will happily let an "Others apologist" label be slapped on me. :)

The statement "we're not killers" is a bold one to make, and I sure hope the writers can show us something to back it up. It doesn't have to convince us, but at the very least it has to justify Ben's rationale for the statement, while offering enough wiggle room to explain acts like the raft sabotage and Goodwin's murder of Nathan.

Whether or not the others are in fact killers could be a matter of perspective. But that perspective is NOT the perspective the show has shown us, at least for the first two seasons.

You can't fault the viewers who think "The Others Are Evil" for assuming the Others are responsible for Charlie's hanging, Sceve's murder, etc . That's how those scenes are designed to look. Those viewers aren't making irrational assumptions at all; they're just not questioning the information presented through the story as much as some of us. They're buying in to the most obvious reality we've seen.

Now for the other side of the viewers, the Others Apologists... well, one thrill about Lost is that things aren't what they seem. What would be a bigger reality-flip then taking the threatening, seabilly island people and turning them in to the good guys? That ride definitely seems to be where the writers are wanting to take us, but I wonder how many viewers will go there, and how many will feel unnecessarily deceived? It's not just the Others who have put on fake beards and scars to pull this off -- it's the writers who have gone to such lengths to establish the perspective of the Others AS killers... and I for one want to see one hell of a story to believe it was necessary.

Maybe some of those scenes where "The Others Are Evil" are misleads, but if they all are, man, I want a refund on my assumptions. For example, it could be a deception that Ethan didn't kill Charlie, but there were so few other possibilities in the story presented then, it would seem like a ridiculous stretch to put someone else there at that time to pull it off. At least if Charlie were bloody in a tree it would look like the MO of Smokey, but he was hung, and he was kidnapped by a very tough and dangerous Other.

The writers could come up with any number of justifications for the statement, but I think they need to be real careful how much they rewrite or dodge away from the perspective they have presented. There's a limit to how much an audience will take its assumptions for a ride. After all, we assume the writers know where they're going with all these mysteries.... at least, some of us still do.

Whether or not the others are in fact killers could be a matter of perspective. But that perspective is NOT the perspective the show has shown us, at least for the first two seasons.

You can't fault the viewers who think "The Others Are Evil" for assuming the Others are responsible for Charlie's hanging, Sceve's murder, etc . That's how those scenes are designed to look. Those viewers aren't making irrational assumptions at all; they're just not questioning the information presented through the story as much as some of us. They're buying in to the most obvious reality we've seen.

Now for the other side of the viewers, the Others Apologists... well, one thrill about Lost is that things aren't what they seem. What would be a bigger reality-flip then taking the threatening, seabilly island people and turning them in to the good guys? That ride definitely seems to be where the writers are wanting to take us, but I wonder how many viewers will go there, and how many will feel unnecessarily deceived? It's not just the Others who have put on fake beards and scars to pull this off -- it's the writers who have gone to such lengths to establish the perspective of the Others AS killers... and I for one want to see one hell of a story to believe it was necessary.

Maybe some of those scenes where "The Others Are Evil" are misleads, but if they all are, man, I want a refund on my assumptions. For example, it could be a deception that Ethan didn't kill Charlie, but there were so few other possibilities in the story presented then, it would seem like a ridiculous stretch to put someone else there at that time to pull it off. At least if Charlie were bloody in a tree it would look like the MO of Smokey, but he was hung, and he was kidnapped by a very tough and dangerous Other.

I think you make a lot of really good and true points. My take on where the writers are going with the story is not that the Others will be "the good guys," but that, in the end, they will be better than something else on the island. Or that they will be just as good as the Losties (who aren't very good, really).

Also I don't think you need a refund on your assumption that Ethan killed Charlie. The Others clearly are capable of doing things in an end-justifies-the-means sort of way. The question is, if it turns out that they really are "good guys" in some sense, will they be sympathetic enough that we can at least have some understanding of why they do these things. We don't have to condone it, just like we don't condone Kate fake marrying a man and then drugging him and running away.

What's great about Lost is that it does a fantastic job of showing a lot of moral ambiguity. I hope it keeps it up.

You can't fault the viewers who think "The Others Are Evil" for assuming the Others are responsible for Charlie's hanging, Sceve's murder, etc . That's how those scenes are designed to look. Those viewers aren't making irrational assumptions at all; they're just not questioning the information presented through the story as much as some of us. They're buying in to the most obvious reality we've seen

Yes, of course, that's very well put. It's just....by about the third or fourth episode of S1, I knew the writers loved to present stuff in a certain way and then later turn it completely on its head. So I'm a sceptic about EVERYTHING! Mileage varies widely, of course.

There were actually two turning points for me about Ben and Co.:

1) The Swan orientation film in Orientation, 0203. That thing blew my mind--I played the clip on LostLinks (RIP :() over and over and over and..... I knew from the first time I saw that, what we knew about The Others was going to be subject to drastic revision.

2) Kate finding Tom's glue and beard in Maternity Leave, 0215. I kinda mentally wiped the slate clean with all my notions about The Others at that point and by the end of season 2, I was a fan of them.

For example, it could be a deception that Ethan didn't kill Charlie, but there were so few other possibilities in the story presented then

The key word being THEN; by the time that happened (in 0111), there had been so many about-faces that I was just absorbing information, forming some theories, but always wary of being absolute about something until we'd seen both sides of it. I actually love what TPTB did/have been doing in terms of setting up Ben and Co. as The Embodiment of Evil As We Know It In The Universe (Except The Nazis), only to, as the layers are peeled away, show how we as viewers, and by extension, humans, are so quick to judge first appearances, demonize what we don't know, act before thinking.My take on where the writers are going with the story is not that the Others will be "the good guys," but that, in the end, they will be better than something else on the island. Or that they will be just as good as the Losties (who aren't very good, really)

Exactly, great way of putting it. When Ben said "We're the good guys, Michael", I never thought he was talking morally, I've always taken it to mean "We're going to help your people out against something larger than both of us". I thought that because of the Swan orientation film and what I took from it.

What's great about Lost is that it does a fantastic job of showing a lot of moral ambiguity. I hope it keeps it up

Absolutely.

BTW, looking at the transcript for Maternity Leave, I saw these two bits:JOHN [tossing a book on the cot]: I thought you might like something to read.
GALE: Dostoyevsky. You don't have any Stephen King?

Hahahahahahahahaha.[John opens the door to the armory and brings Gale some food.]
GALE: No cheeseburgers, huh?

Buwahahahahaha.

But stop and think for a minute about what a fine group of people the Losties are. Then, stop trying to claim that the only reason they've killed people is because of the Others' aggression. That is blatantly untrue. Off the top of my head, I can think of four of our Losties who have killed people BEFORE the Others were ever in the picture.

My point is that I think people sort of conveniently forget about what the Losties have done because we know and love them and the Others are, well...the Others. They're scary outsiders. But I'm pretty sure that after this season is over, we will feel differently about the Others. Well, I love them, so I won't feel differently. ;)


I think most people are referring to the fact that, aside from putting the Marshal out of his misery, they haven't hurt anyone (with the exception of our favorite punching bag, Sawyer) since crashing unless provoked. They certainly aren't killing each other for food, water, control or such. I doubt they would have attcked anyone coming to their aid after the crash either.

As to what they did before. Sawyer was after the one man responsible for his parents death and Kate killed one specific man who may well have molested her and did beat her mother. Not exactly Bonnie and Clyde. Sayid, well, are we going to hold all soliders responsible for what they did while under another's command? The Losties may not be up for sainthood but even with what they did before, they stack up better than what we have seen of the Others so far.

I consider kidnapping, caging people, slave labor unnecessary surgery and mind messing to be less than heroic behavior myself.


Note that, AGAIN, Claire was more than willing to give up Aaron to almost complete strangers (yes, the drugs, yes, the icky tasting water, but still...). Note also Ethan's "you can go back to your friends"...... we only have the word of Alex that they were going to kill her. They could have killed Danielle 16 years previously but they didn't. Little drama queen Alex thinks they killed Karl but I'm certain that's not true. Cutie Karl may have a bloody nose, but still, he's not dead.

I'm sorry but you don't get to put the blame on Claire for this one. Who knows what they gave her but it was pretty powerful since we have seen how upset she was once she was no longer on the stuff. In this case, there is no "but still..." If they were so sure, why drug her at all?

That sound too much like blaming the victim. "If she hadn't been drinking she wouldn't have been date raped because he couldn't have slipped her the drug."

A bit strong but then so is the subject.

Oh, and we only have Ethan's word that they would have let her go and not killed her. What makes his word any more believable than Alex? By the way, stealing babies, not a nice thing either.

They may well have "good" reasons for their actions but their methods stink.



Yes, he lied about who he was but do you blame him? I mean, let's face it, if he had told them he was one of those people that they had been calling Others all that time it would have been right back to Sayid and his -- fists. Wouldn't it?

Sayid would not have been in "questioning" Benry if he had told the truth from the start. Sayid would have known he wasn't lying and the rest would not have let him near the guy once Sayid showed his temper. Benry lied for his own reasons, not out of fear. He has been playing games with them from day one.




I know I might come across an Others apologist but I fully agree with the "left people to die on the beach after the crash" thing, that's totally unredeemable. However, in the fullness of time, I'm sure that all of Ben's cryptic sayings that get people so riled up ("We're the good guys, MIchael", "WE'RE not killers, James") will be revealed to be reflections of the truth.

Personally I think there are even more people on the island(s) like the whisperers (not to mention Eye Patch guy) and it may well be that Benry and company are at odds with them and that they are worse. Who will turn out to be the good guys (from our point of view), only time will tell but I am not the 'ends justify the means' kind of person so I'm afraid I will still judge them harshly.

By the way, I don't give our Losties a pass on everything. You have much to answer for in their lives.

In any case, the Others still have not behaved like anyone I would want for a friend. At least the Losties have looked after each other and took in the Tailes.

I do not blame him. I see no way that he could have told the Losties that he was an Other. They probably would have killed him, like they killed Ethan. I totally agree with you, in fact!

And I will happily let an "Others apologist" label be slapped on me. :)

Ethan was killed because he kidnapped Claire and attacked a couple of people trying to get her back, not to mention threatening to kill many of them and holding Charlie by the throat while he did it. Since people had already died and the Losties knew of no other people, their naturally assumed Ethan and comapny had done the killings and so were very dangerous. They can hardly be blamed for that.

Can we also remember that most of the Losties didn't want Ethan killed? And can we remember, it was Charlie, you know, the poor guy who was hanged (by whoever) and was feeling very guilty about losing Claire, who did it on his own.

I am willing to give the Others the benifit of the doubt in some areas for a time but, like I said earlier, whatever their goals, their methods stink and the Losties can hardly be blamed for not trusting them and treating them like enemies. That is how they have behaved.

Jack and Kate were hot on the trail of Ethan, Claire and Charlie. Jack got ahead of Kate and ran into Ethan who told him if you don't stop following me I will kill one of them. Seems to imply he did have them. Ethan knocked down Jack and ran off. Kate caught up with Jack and they continued to follow Ethan, Claire and Charlie until they found Charlie hanging from a tree. But we didn't actually see Ethan hang Charlie so maybe (Claire?) some other party rushed in after Ethan released Charlie and in the short time before Jack & Kate caught up this unknown 3rd party who was of course not an Other hung Charlie?:rolleyes:

Ethan returned to camp seeking Claire, told Charlie he would kill them one by one until Claire was returned to him (What gives him the right to demand Claire?) They set up a watch but Cleve or whoever is killed. Of course it might not have been Ethan, who just threatened to kill, who actually killed Cleve. The real killer could have been Smokey wandering out his normal territory to the beach and picking someone at random or some non-Other stranger (OJ?) or even a super strong Lostee, all while sweet Ethan was what? sound asleep? :rolleyes:

Two people talking to Claire at the medical hatch, Alex who helps a drugged captive escape and Ethan who tries to keep his abductee calmly drugged and in captivity - so of course their word on what is happening should be given equal weight.:rolleyes: Oh wait Alex is a flighty teen, Ethan is an adult and thus more believable. :biggrin:

I think Charlie was wrong to kill Ethan after Ethan was captured but I also think Ethan was guilty of the crimes of abduction, attempted murder and murder.

I think people are searching way too hard to find excuses for the Others and straying away from the evidence in an attempt to say there is room for doubt about them. Yes there may be some "good" Others just as there are some bad Lostees however as a group the Others are not Good people. They are also Killers.

I think most people are referring to the fact that, aside from putting the Marshal out of his misery, they haven't hurt anyone (with the exception of our favorite punching bag, Sawyer) since crashing unless provoked. They certainly aren't killing each other for food, water, control or such. I doubt they would have attcked anyone coming to their aid after the crash either.

Then people need to say that, instead of making vague statements that the Losties didn't hurt anyone before the Others started attacking them.

As to what they did before. Sawyer was after the one man responsible for his parents death and Kate killed one specific man who may well have molested her and did beat her mother. Not exactly Bonnie and Clyde. Sayid, well, are we going to hold all soliders responsible for what they did while under another's command? The Losties may not be up for sainthood but even with what they did before, they stack up better than what we have seen of the Others so far.

The four people I was thinking of were Kate (responsible for the deaths of 2 people, one of which was a premeditated murder), Sawyer (also premeditated), Ana-Lucia (ALSO premeditated), and Desmond. No, I'm sorry, but NONE of these people had excuses. See, that's the thing about these murders that I've listed above. Not one of them is justified under the law (except Tom's death -- Kate MAYBE wouldn't be held responsible for that, but as she was running from the police at the time, I don't know). You cannot seriously be telling me that you think those murders were okay, but the murders the Others have committed are not. What? Sounds like a pass to me.

Ethan was killed because he kidnapped Claire and attacked a couple of people trying to get her back, not to mention threatening to kill many of them and holding Charlie by the throat while he did it. Since people had already died and the Losties knew of no other people, their naturally assumed Ethan and comapny had done the killings and so were very dangerous. They can hardly be blamed for that.

Yes, in fact, they can be blamed for killing Ethan. Witness the fact that everyone was upset at Charlie for doing it, which you do later in your post.

Can we also remember that most of the Losties didn't want Ethan killed? And can we remember, it was Charlie, you know, the poor guy who was hanged (by whoever) and was feeling very guilty about losing Claire, who did it on his own.

Oh sure, I'm willing to still like Charlie's character. Charlie's actually one of my favorite characters. I understand that he's not a killer, that he was feeling all those things. But I refuse to say that his murdering another person is justified. Just like Ethan hanging Charlie in the tree was not justified. One is not morally superior to the other.

Do you honestly think that if Ben had dropped his "Henry Gale from Minnesota" act at the beginning that he wouldn't have shared a similar fate to Ethan? I mean, it's pretty clear that Sayid has it in for the Others. Ana-Lucia has it in for the Others. Like it or not, plenty of the Losties want revenge, and, as they have shown us in their flashbacks, they are not above getting it by whatever means necessary.

Like I've said, the Others are not good people. But neither are the Losties.

Like I've said, the Others are not good people. But neither are the Losties.
The Losties may not be perfect by any means but from what we have seen and heard so far, they tower morally over the Others. Wanting revenge is human, even if it isn't the best course of action to take. But the Others provoked this reaction in the Losties to begin with. The only thing the Losties did was land on "their island" which wasn't their fault. It's ridiculous to think the Others are "the good guys." And if that's somehow the case, we'd really need some hard evidence at this point.

Also, please don't forget that we don't know for a FACT that they killed Alex's boyfriend. That WHOLE Alex-comes-outta-nowhere-with-a-slingshot-and-acts-like-the-rebel routine could've been all a big farse...we still don't know if she's entirely trustworthy, or if she's the 'good cop' in this whole scenario.

I think Alex is as crazy as her mother! I don't believe anything she says at all.

Wanting revenge is human, even if it isn't the best course of action to take. But the Others provoked this reaction in the Losties to begin with.

No they didn't! The Losties murdered people before they EVER got to the island! Sawyer, Kate, and Ana-Lucia ALL killed in cold blood! I'll agree with you that the urge for revenge is human, but it's an urge that the Losties possess all by themselves, without any help from the Others.

I think you are all missing one point.

People are individuals. You can't say THE OTHERS are evil, THE LOSTIES are good.

There could be both good and evil people in each group.
For example:
Pickett seems like a crud to me. The jury is still out on Juliet.

Among the Losties- Michael showed his wretchedness by murdering
Ana Lucia and Libby. otoh, Ana Lucia killed Shannon--but it was a
mistake, and she deeply regretted it.

I have no idea what the Others deal is, and at this point, I'm not sure I
even care. I DO know that they are not necessarily ALL one thing or the other.

People that we have seen do murder while on the island:
Michael
Goodwin
Charlie

am I leaving anyone out?
Shannon was killed, but not on purpose -- Manslaughter
Boone was killed through his own stupidity
Eko was murdered, by Smokey, who is not an Other as far as we know
Colleen was murdered, but Sun was scared for her own life-- justifiable homicide
The Marshall was killed, but Sawyer was only trying to help, and Jack did what
he had to do to ease the poor man's suffering.

who am I forgetting?

Bottom line-- some of the Others have killed, and some of the Losties have killed.

I still the the Others are jerks who play mind games.

I don't know much about the others, but the losties are certainly killers. (the majority)

That sound too much like blaming the victim. "If she hadn't been drinking she wouldn't have been date raped because he couldn't have slipped her the drug."

A bit strong but then so is the subject.

Oh gawd, I didn't mean to imply that at all; I *hate* that when it happens in court cases. Sorry if that was the impression I gave off. What I meant but conveyed poorly was that, for me, the Moral of the Story in Maternity Leave was that was Claire was willing to give Aaron up --yes, yes, the drugs, the water, yes, I know-- but at the end of the episode, she decides to keep him.Oh, and we only have Ethan's word that they would have let her go and not killed her. What makes his word any more believable than Alex? By the way, stealing babies, not a nice thing eitherNo, of course not! I'm not defending that in the slightest.. What I'm saying is that we don't know Alex' motivations or who she's aligned with, if *anyone*. I'm just saying, in a He said, She said situation, until we have decent info about *both* sides, it's a tossup who's right or wrong.Oh wait Alex is a flighty teen, Ethan is an adult and thus more believable. Damn flighty teens with their damn hormones and stuff! Lock 'em up until they're 21 and throw away the key! :) :DPersonally I think there are even more people on the island(s) like the whisperers (not to mention Eye Patch guy) and it may well be that Benry and company are at odds with them and that they are worse.Yes, I'm convinced of this, thus Ben's "We're the good guys" quote; in a hierarchy of good and bad, there *are* distinctions. Who will turn out to be the good guys (from our point of view), only time will tell but I am not the 'ends justify the means' kind of person so I'm afraid I will still judge them harshlySee, I *am* an ends justify the means type of person. What if it turns out that by doing what they've done, The Others save 6 billion people's lives? (a stretch, but work with me here :)) It's the whole For The Greater Good theme that runs through the show. Of course it might not have been Ethan, who just threatened to kill, who actually killed Cleve.*sigh* For the 847,982,327th time: WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. I should just set up a macro, so I don't have to keep typing that. :)But we didn't actually see Ethan hang Charlie so maybe (Claire?) some other party rushed in after Ethan released Charlie and in the short time before Jack & Kate caught up this unknown 3rd party who was of course not an Other hung Charlie?Plausible and additionally, we don't know, if The Others are responsible, if Ethan did it--hello, Danny Pickett?They certainly aren't killing each other for food, water, control or such.They aren't killing each other, like you said, except John is directly culpable for Boone's death (as he recognized in both Live Together Die Alone and Further Instructions). However, since The Others are *directly* responsible for a grand total of one death that we can confirm, that's a wash in my book. Let's look at the way the Losties have acted without ANY provocation from Ben and Co. Just off the top of my head:

* Charlie roughed up Sun to.....help James' plan so that John could be humiliated in front of the group. Yeah, that's a good call, you freaking junkie Hobbit. :) (I love Charlie, BTW).

* Kate and Sun poisoned Michael, when they intended to poison Jin and then both lied about it afterwards with Jack's help

* Walt set the first raft on fire because he didn't want to leave AND he let Jin take the rap. Wow, he's only 10 and he's already acting like the adult Losties! Go Walt! :)

* John conked Sayid on the head just as Sayid was getting a signal, all because psychedelic paste eater John didn't think the rest of the Losties could handle the truth.

Seriously, I could go on for a whole page like this. For every action that can be pinned on The Others, I could name three for the Losties just since they've been on the Island. BTW, the whole Lord of the Flies angle was one of the things that piqued my interest in the show before it began.Just like Ethan hanging Charlie in the tree was not justified.We don't know for a FA.....oh, fark it, I give up. :)Do you honestly think that if Ben had dropped his "Henry Gale from Minnesota" act at the beginning that he wouldn't have shared a similar fate to Ethan? I mean, it's pretty clear that Sayid has it in for the Others. Ana-Lucia has it in for the Others. Like it or not, plenty of the Losties want revenge, and, as they have shown us in their flashbacks, they are not above getting it by whatever means necessaryExactly. As the old Broadway song goes "Anything you [The Others] can do, I [The Losties] can do better". No they didn't! The Losties murdered people before they EVER got to the island! Sawyer, Kate, and Ana-Lucia ALL killed in cold blood! I'll agree with you that the urge for revenge is human, but it's an urge that the Losties possess all by themselves, without any help from the OthersI think I'm developing a message board crush on Aurorawest. :) :D

;) I don't know much about the others, but the losties are certainly killers. (the majority)Kate, James, Jack, Ana & Charlie would be a majority if there were only 9 Lostees. There are a few more than that.
People are individuals. You can't say THE OTHERS are evil, THE LOSTIES are good.
There could be both good and evil people in each group. I am sure there are both good and bad people in each group. However we are comparing two groups. When we describe a group we are not describing individuals we are describing an aggragation. We can look at a group and say it is good or bad even if it contains individuals who differ from the group norm.
Hypothetically the 2 islands could actually be a prison for all we know and the Others could be the inmates.

The Lostees became a group when the plane crashed. Some people are judging the Lostees partly by what a few individuals did before they became part of the group. I would agree that the past history of an individual is useful data to help form an opinion of what that individual may currently be like. But I don't think we should judge this group by what a few of them did before they became part of the group. To make the point, would you call a support group for recovering drug addicts or alcoholics "bad" based on the fact that prior to joining the group some members had a substance abuse problem? or because a few members continued to have a problem? I think we have to rely on the Lostees post crash behavior to judge them as a group because the crash is when their group formed. We can go pre-crash with the Others if we gain knowledge of what their group was like then. Perhaps finding out that they abducted a child years before the Lostees arrived.:eek2:

*sigh* For the 847,982,327th time: WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. I should just set up a macro, so I don't have to keep typing that.

Plausible and additionally, we don't know, if The Others are responsible, if Ethan did it--hello, Danny Pickett?
Is this the point where I should say we didn’t actually see James shoot the marshal we just heard a shot and we didn’t actually see Ana shoot Shannon we just saw her shoot a gun? ;)

Oh gawd, I didn't mean to imply that at all; I *hate* that when it happens in court cases. Sorry if that was the impression I gave off. What I meant but conveyed poorly was that, for me, the Moral of the Story in Maternity Leave was that was Claire was willing to give Aaron up --yes, yes, the drugs, the water, yes, I know-- but at the end of the episode, she decides to keep him.

You really do need to express things better but I feel better now. :)


No, of course not! I'm not defending that in the slightest.. What I'm saying is that we don't know Alex' motivations or who she's aligned with, if *anyone*. I'm just saying, in a He said, She said situation, until we have decent info about *both* sides, it's a tossup who's right or wrong.

I'm still going to go with the one who didn't kidnap me by force, possibly hanged the guy I was with, drugged me, erased my memory and was going to take my baby. But then, I'm funny that way.

Yes, I'm convinced of this, thus Ben's "We're the good guys" quote; in a hierarchy of good and bad, there *are* distinctions.

Just because there are people who are worse doesn't make the Others "Good Guys".


See, I *am* an ends justify the means type of person. What if it turns out that by doing what they've done, The Others save 6 billion people's lives? (a stretch, but work with me here :)) It's the whole For The Greater Good theme that runs through the show.

That is a very slippery slope to go down. It is the logic used by every terrorist group out there.

What if the Others are saving only 6 million? Is that still okay? How many is too few and how many sufferers are too many? Does it matter who they are, those saved and those used? Would you okay the death of ten regular people to save a thousands murderers? There are too many variables and too many judgements that would have to be based on personal beliefs.

Sorry, the ends never justify the means. It is the means that give the ends their meaning. If you get an A+ on a test does it matter if you cheated to get it? What if you get an important position by lying about your qualifications or back stab the competition rather than earning it honestly? Is all that's important the fact that you won?

If we knew the Others were doing some great service and those being sacrificed are willing, then we can excuse them. Not what they have done so far.

They aren't killing each other, like you said, except John is directly culpable for Boone's death (as he recognized in both Live Together Die Alone and Further Instructions). However, since The Others are *directly* responsible for a grand total of one death that we can confirm, that's a wash in my book.

Boone was responsible for his own death. He wasn't mindless but way too eager to please. John should feel guilty for using that but he didn't cause it or want it.

Let's look at the way the Losties have acted without ANY provocation from Ben and Co. Just off the top of my head:

* Charlie roughed up Sun to.....help James' plan so that John could be humiliated in front of the group. Yeah, that's a good call, you freaking junkie Hobbit. :) (I love Charlie, BTW).

* Kate and Sun poisoned Michael, when they intended to poison Jin and then both lied about it afterwards with Jack's help

* Walt set the first raft on fire because he didn't want to leave AND he let Jin take the rap. Wow, he's only 10 and he's already acting like the adult Losties! Go Walt! :)

* John conked Sayid on the head just as Sayid was getting a signal, all because psychedelic paste eater John didn't think the rest of the Losties could handle the truth.

Seriously, I could go on for a whole page like this. For every action that can be pinned on The Others, I could name three for the Losties just since they've been on the Island. BTW, the whole Lord of the Flies angle was one of the things that piqued my interest in the show before it began.We don't know for a FA.....oh, fark it, I give up. :)Exactly. As the old Broadway song goes "Anything you [The Others] can do, I [The Losties] can do better". I think I'm developing a message board crush on Aurorawest. :) :D

I don't think anyone has painted the Losties as saints but if we are giving strangers the benefit of the doubt (which they haven't earned much) then I think we have to give the Losties a break what with the whole been in a plane crash trauma, monsters, dealing with dead fellow passangers, crazed French women, polar bears, finding out they may be stuck there for 16 years. That does tend to bring out the worst in some people. Some have behaved badly and have their own agenda but none of it is up there with what has been done to them.

The Others have been there for, well, who knows. They are comfortable, safe, seemingly untrouble by being there. From what we have seen, they like it there. Where is their excuse for what they have put the Losties through?

As for what the Losties did before the crash, Like Fogey said, until we know about the past of the Others, it's not fair to judge one side when we have no info about the other. For all we know, Ben and company could be children of excaped Nazis, continuing the medical experiments. Or, again like Fogey said, the island is a prison and they are allthere because they have done horrific things.

I've got a crush on Fogey, myself. ;)

;) Kate, James, Jack, Ana & Charlie would be a majority if there were only 9 Lostees. There are a few more than that.
I am sure there are both good and bad people in each group. However we are comparing two groups. When we describe a group we are not describing individuals we are describing an aggragation. We can look at a group and say it is good or bad even if it contains individuals who differ from the group norm.
Hypothetically the 2 islands could actually be a prison for all we know and the Others could be the inmates.

The Lostees became a group when the plane crashed. Some people are judging the Lostees partly by what a few individuals did before they became part of the group. I would agree that the past history of an individual is useful data to help form an opinion of what that individual may currently be like. But I don't think we should judge this group by what a few of them did before they became part of the group. To make the point, would you call a support group for recovering drug addicts or alcoholics "bad" based on the fact that prior to joining the group some members had a substance abuse problem? or because a few members continued to have a problem? I think we have to rely on the Lostees post crash behavior to judge them as a group because the crash is when their group formed. We can go pre-crash with the Others if we gain knowledge of what their group was like then. Perhaps finding out that they abducted a child years before the Lostees arrived.:eek2:


Is this the point where I should say we didn’t actually see James shoot the marshal we just heard a shot and we didn’t actually see Ana shoot Shannon we just saw her shoot a gun? ;)


I don't know about you, but by 'losties' I mean the main characters, not the whole bunch of redshirts. The show started with 13 main losties, and I'm sure most of them have commited homicide or caused someone's death indirectly.

Okay. They were GOING to kill Claire. At least Alex said so.

Goodwin killed Nathan.
Benry tried to kill Ana Lucia.
They nearly killed Jin, Michael and Sawyer.
Ethan tried to kill Charlie
They killed Alex's boyfriend (supposedly)
They killed Henry Gale according to Benry
Juliet wants Jack to kill Ben.
Juliet "would have" killed Kate if she had to

They take children. But they give them back? In exchange for adults?

I don't know about you, but by 'losties' I mean the main characters, not the whole bunch of redshirts. The show started with 13 main losties, and I'm sure most of them have commited homicide or caused someone's death indirectly.
OK that is where we differ. Since the main topic was, "are the Others killers?", I chose to go with groups and group actions that appear to reflect the view of the group.

To get 13 main first season Lostee characters I assume you drop out Rose and Walt (as a child). That leaves Boone, Charlie, Claire, Hurley, Jack, Jin, Kate, Locke, Michael, Sawyer, Sayid, Shannon & Sun.
Would adding season 2 bring in Ana-Lucia, Bernard, Eko, Libby & Rose?
I don't count Danielle, Desmond or Vincent and I leave Walt out as he is not an adult.

Others Ben, Juliet, Alex & Tom? I think Pickett and Colleen are redshirts but adding them would give us 6 Others as main characters. Pickett was stopped from killing James only because of Jacks holding Ben hostage on the operating table. Ben tried to kill Ana. Juliet tried to talk Jack into killing Ben. Tom was part of the group that tried to kill the raftees. I have hit 4 out of 6 so a majority of Others are killers by intent. Toss in the disappearing Klugh and you have 4 out of 7 still a majority. Add Ethan and Goodwin even though I think Goodwin was a redshirt and you get killers 6 out of 9.

In looking at killings by the Lostees (which is not a defense of the Others) have you included off island, precrash events that happened before the Lostees became a group? We have not seen that historical information for the Other"s yet.

I have not read all of the responces on this thread so if I repeat something please forgive me.

I started a similar thread to this on another site.

The "Others" (or Udders as Jin calls them) are clearly cold and calculating killers. They kill for purpose and kill from direction.

The "Losties" have also killed people....but name one Lostie kill that was not caused directly or in-directly from something the "Udders" had started?

The Losties are in self defense mode and the Others are on the Offensive.

None.....

but name one Lostie kill that was not caused directly or in-directly from something the "Udders" had started?Since I don't believe the Others caused the plane crash I would mention the mercy killing of the Marshall ;)

But other than that I am a proponent of the Lostee kills being a result of the Other's agressive actions in dealing with the Lostee problem.

You hit the nail on the head...mercy killing.

He would have died regardless from injuries sustained during the crash. This was not killing...this was doing the right thing.

That though is what Ben is trying to get the Losties to believe...that they are doing things because they are right.

Well...murder is murder...and the Others clearly are not afraid to kill a few soles to get what they want.

Michael, Sawyer, and Jin are alive solely because of luck also...the Others tried to kill them by destroying the raft in the open sea.

He would have died regardless from injuries sustained during the crash. This was not killing...this was doing the right thing.Slippery slope! The thread question is about killing not justified killing. But if we start saying mercy killing is the correct thing in some cases, then Danelle's killing of her fellows when they degenrated due to disease might have been the right thing and the Other's would be able to advance the same argument. The disease is fatal, we lack vaccines for the Lostees, the disease causes people to degrade into dangerous insanity where they become a threat to us so isolating and/or killing Lostees is the right thing to do, it is mercy. :eek2: (Note, they would still be killers and I would still feel their approach to the problem made them bad people but I can see that line of reasoning being advanced in a justification effort.)

I might go with assisted suicide for the Marshall as a better choice of wording than mercy killing.

I hear ya....a play of words.

The facts are simple though, had the Marshall been well (not with a fatal injury) he would still be alive. The Losties would not have killed him.

The Udders have killed, and killed often, just for some master plan.

It could be argued that Sawyer killed when it was not needed but you would need to read between the lines to draw a conclusion on that one. When he shot the Udder while following Michael....we don't know for fact who or what he killed...but it was implied that the Others were following the group.

The Losties have no reason to kill anyone, other than self defense.

I
It could be argued that Sawyer killed when it was not needed but you would need to read between the lines to draw a conclusion on that one. When he shot the Udder while following Michael....we don't know for fact who or what he killed...but it was implied that the Others were following the group.While on a rescue mission in hostile territory Sawyer shot at enemy sentries who were following them without trying to announce their presence by calling out halt or any such greeting. We assume they died. :biggrin:

The Losties have no reason to kill anyone, other than self defense.

Fogey, although this may have happened in the past, Trekman stands corrected in that none of the Lostees have commit homocide On The Island unless self-defending.

The only gray area instance is Charlie shooting Ethan. Ethan was defenseless at the time...

The only gray area instance is Charlie shooting Ethan. Ethan was defenseless at the time...
I thought Charlie did commit murder re Ethan but I feel it could be classed as either revenge or a preventative measure (i.e. self defending) since Charlie was sure Ethan would continue to try to escape & take Claire i.e. a reaction to the events Ethan started.

I limited my first example to the Marshal because I was responding to, "but name one Lostie kill that was not caused directly or in-directly from something the "Udders" had started?" Of course this is also based on my opinion that the Others did not cause the plane crash. If that proves wrong then they would also get the blame for his death.

I definitely broadly agree that the Others did NOT cause the crash. I also agree Charlie's act was "in defense" although the details of the situation may lie in wait

Someone earlier wanted to post a list of who has killed, so I've compiled a short one (please feel free to add any that I've forgotten). Bear in mind these are only the confirmed kills (i.e. ones that we have witnessed, or been told of in no uncertain terms)

Claire- ?
Hurley- two people (accidental death due to balcony colapse)
Sawyer- Shrimp van guy
Desmond- Kelvin Inman (accidental)
Michael- Ana Lucia, Libby
Walt- ?
Loch- ?
Sayid- ? unknown, but likely given his occupation
Jack- Shot the Marshal (Euthinasia after Sawyer failed to do it right)
Kate-Blew up her step dad
Anna Lucia- Shot her assailant, killed Goodwin, accidentally shot Shannon, killed an unknown Other on the beach
Sun- Shoots Colleen
Jin- ?
Charlie- Shot Ethan
Ecko- Killed many times in Nigeria (I've lost count), killed unknown Others on the beach.
Libby- ?
Shannon- ?
Boone- ?

Danielle- killed her companions

Ben- ?
Goodwin- snaps Nathan's neck
Ethan- ? (We don't actually witness Ethan killing anyone)
Juliet- ?
Pickett-?
Alex- ?

Kate also shot the 3 guys that helped her with the bank robbery. We don't know if she killed them or not, but they were injured seriously enough to stop fighting her.

Someone earlier wanted to post a list of who has killed, so I've compiled a short one (please feel free to add any that I've forgotten). Bear in mind these are only the confirmed kills (i.e. ones that we have witnessed, or been told of in no uncertain terms)

Claire- ?
Hurley- two people (accidental death due to balcony colapse)
Sawyer- Shrimp van guy
Desmond- Kelvin Inman (accidental)
Michael- Ana Lucia, Libby
Walt- ?
Loch- ?
Sayid- ? unknown, but likely given his occupation
Jack- Shot the Marshal (Euthinasia after Sawyer failed to do it right)
Kate-Blew up her step dad
Anna Lucia- Shot her assailant, killed Goodwin, accidentally shot Shannon, killed an unknown Other on the beach
Sun- Shoots Colleen
Jin- ?
Charlie- Shot Ethan
Ecko- Killed many times in Nigeria (I've lost count), killed unknown Others on the beach.
Libby- ?
Shannon- ?
Boone- ?

Danielle- killed her companions

Ben- ?
Goodwin- snaps Nathan's neck
Ethan- ? (We don't actually witness Ethan killing anyone)
Juliet- ?
Pickett-?
Alex- ?


Locke Killed Boone

Locke Killed Boone

I would highly disagree with that.
Locke is not a doctor..he didn't know not telling the truth would kill him.
Yes Locke should feel irresponsible. But he did not kill Boone. The fall/plane crushing did.:26:

PS thanks for the organized list, Lyla,:bigrinan: :25:Ill definitely reference this.

on topic, it bothers me so much that the Others keep saying "we're the good guys" and such yet they seem more ruthless than the Lostees.

The scene on the boat where Sun shoots Cole really gets under my skin. If I were in Sun's position (heh, funny saying that about Lost) It's like, why are you trying to control me? You think I'm going to surrender to you?
Sun has her share of skeletons in her closet but someone was trying to take her. And her husband - who she thought was already dead. Remember what she said? "If they get to me, my husband will be dead, and I wont care anymore." or something along those lines. At that moment, it seemed like life and death, and with Cole being the one PUTTING Sun in that position, she was asking for it. She SAW Suns gun and didnt even run!

If Cole truly had good intentions she went about it in a horrible way.
Although it's sad she died.:53:

I would highly disagree with that.
Locke is not a doctor..he didn't know not telling the truth would kill him.
Yes Locke should feel irresponsible. But he did not kill Boone. The fall/plane crushing did.:26:

PS thanks for the organized list, Lyla,:bigrinan: :25:Ill definitely reference this.

on topic, it bothers me so much that the Others keep saying "we're the good guys" and such yet they seem more ruthless than the Lostees.



Um I said that because of a couple of things 1) He didnt tell about the Hatch when he first found it 2) HE RAN OFF after he took Boone back and 3) When Jack questions him about it he said that he was a SACRIFICE that the ISLAND demanded.

Hurley- two people (accidental death due to balcony colapse)I do not believe Hurley should be on the list even if he felt responsible for the deaths. Was he the last person to go on the balcony and even if he was the last wouldn't every one on the balcony still share a weight prorated portion of the blame? Did the party host invite more people than the balcony was rated to hold? Was the balcony properly maintained? Was the balcony properly constructed? Was the balcony properly designed? Was the balcony damaged by the actions of someone other than Hurley prior to the collapse? Did Hurley force or lure the other people on to the balcony? Did Hurley intend to kill people by going out on the balcony?

Um I said that because of a couple of things 1) He didnt tell about the Hatch when he first found it 2) HE RAN OFF after he took Boone back and 3) When Jack questions him about it he said that he was a SACRIFICE that the ISLAND demanded.

yes, but in Locke's dream he remembers "Theresa Falls Up the stairs, Theresa falls down the stairs." This is what persuades Boone to go along & find the plane. How could Locke have known that? Boone knew what he was doing was dangerous.

in retrospect, he also saw Boone covered in blood in his dream, saying this. He still continued with the search, even when his legs gave out.
sorry a bit off-topic

On the subject of the list (very nicely done, incidentally), I would add that I've always felt that Kate is responsible for Tom's (her childhood sweetheart) death. She is running from the police and they shoot at her, as she must have known they would do. She should have physically forced him out of the car. She willingly endangered his life AND made him complicit in a crime by not doing so (getting him out of the car, that is).

People will probably disagree but that's my stand on it.

On the subject of the list (very nicely done, incidentally), I would add that I've always felt that Kate is responsible for Tom's (her childhood sweetheart) death. She is running from the police and they shoot at her, as she must have known they would do. She should have physically forced him out of the car. She willingly endangered his life AND made him complicit in a crime by not doing so (getting him out of the car, that is).

People will probably disagree but that's my stand on it.

I don't see how she could have forced him out out of the car while avoiding bullets and trying steer through traffic. She did ask him in no uncertain terms to get out of the car. He insisted on staying.

If you asked me, Tom was incredibly irresponsible considering he had a wife and kids. He should not have gotten in that car, period.

yes, but in Locke's dream he remembers "Theresa Falls Up the stairs, Theresa falls down the stairs." This is what persuades Boone to go along & find the plane. How could Locke have known that? Boone knew what he was doing was dangerous.

in retrospect, he also saw Boone covered in blood in his dream, saying this. He still continued with the search, even when his legs gave out.
sorry a bit off-topic


And yet he failed to TELL BOONE that he saw him COVERED in BLOOD

They 'others' certainly are into kidnapping and slavery. Perhaps they have more in common with the pirate ship on the island than we originally thought.

And yet he failed to TELL BOONE that he saw him COVERED in BLOOD But that was in a vision or hallucination, so unless Boone believed Locke could foretell the future, telling Boone about this dreamlike vision would have had little persuasive effect. If we are going to transfer or reduce Boone's responsibility for his actions/death by attributing a portion of the responsibility to Locke, then we should also attribute a portion of the blame for this accident to the Others. Boone was acting in a desperate attempt to contact the outside world for rescue. The Other's claim to have outside contact but they have also refused to use it to allow the Lostees to be rescued. Therefore they were as much a driving force in Boone's desperation to contact the outside as Locke was giving them a share of the responsibility for Boone's rash act.

I don't see how she could have forced him out out of the car while avoiding bullets and trying steer through traffic. She did ask him in no uncertain terms to get out of the car. He insisted on staying.

If you asked me, Tom was incredibly irresponsible considering he had a wife and kids. He should not have gotten in that car, period. I agree! However the death was a result of police reaction to Kate's criminal actions, I believe she would be held responsible for any damage resulting from those actions, including Tom's death.

yes, but in Locke's dream he remembers "Theresa Falls Up the stairs, Theresa falls down the stairs." This is what persuades Boone to go along & find the plane. How could Locke have known that? Boone knew what he was doing was dangerous.


He did tell BOONE about The Theresa part just to get BOONE to go along with him, but he also should have told BOONE what else he saw

[quote=Fogey;1323282]But that was in a vision or hallucination, so unless Boone believed Locke could foretell the future, telling Boone about this dreamlike vision would have had little persuasive effect. If we are going to transfer or reduce Boone's responsibility for his actions/death by attributing a portion of the responsibility to Locke, then we should also attribute a portion of the blame for this accident to the Others. Boone was acting in a desperate attempt to contact the outside world for rescue. The Other's claim to have outside contact but they have also refused to use it to allow the Lostees to be rescued. Therefore they were as much a driving force in Boone's desperation to contact the outside as Locke was giving them a share of the responsibility for Boone's rash act.
quote]

Again he should have told Boone what he saw and he also should of told Jack, Kate, & Sayid about the Hatch when they first found it

I personally don't think that the Others are cold-blooded killers. We saw Goodwin kill Nathan, but I firmly believe that he was in fact one of the "bad" Others - Not in Goodwin's group, but on the island before the plane crash. So killing him probably had other justification that we don't yet know about. Also, Ethan hanging Charlie. Like stated many times here, all just speculation. Think about it, though. If you are Ethan, and are going to kill someone, do you really hang them in the jungle? If you are going to kill someone there are probably 40 better and quicker ways to do it. Soooo, who would hang someone? Probably Charlie himself. Suicide attempt, why not. He wasn't exactly too excited to still be alive after he got saved. Rather, quite depressed. I never heard him thank Jack or even give him credit for saving his life - something I'd probably do if I was happy to be alive.

I agree! However the death was a result of police reaction to Kate's criminal actions, I believe she would be held responsible for any damage resulting from those actions, including Tom's death.

I agree the cha of events puts some responsibility on Kate's shoulders, but I still think Tom's share is way higher than hers.

If you are Ethan, and are going to kill someone, do you really hang them in the jungle? If you are going to kill someone there are probably 40 better and quicker ways to do it.

I think Ethans main aim was to stop Jack from following him and this is why he used the method of hanging Charlie. If Jack had found Charlie with his neck broken, he would have known in an instant that he could not save him. Finding Charlie stone dead with no chance of revival, would have made Jack angier and more determined to catch Ethan. Finding Charlie in a condition where he could be saved forced Jack to stop and ressusitate him. I think Charlie being brought back to life would have suited Ethan just fine because it meant that Jack and Kate had to take their injured friend back to camp rather than continuing to follow Ethans trail.

It's like the Others attack on the raft. They could have simply shot Michael, Jin and Sawyer. Instead they just blew up their raft - to slow them down! I think the Others will kill if they feel it is necessary to the fulfillment of their missions, but if it isn't they'll let the Losties live.

Soooo, who would hang someone? Probably Charlie himself. Suicide attempt, why not. He wasn't exactly too excited to still be alive after he got saved. Rather, quite depressed.

Well personally I'd be depressed if I got kidnapped and hung from a tree! Not to mention in shock after being clinically dead for several minutes. I think this is a load of rubbish. If Charlie was suicidal how come he hasn't tried to kill himself again?

The Other's claim to have outside contact but they have also refused to use it to allow the Lostees to be rescued. Therefore they were as much a driving force in Boone's desperation to contact the outside as Locke was giving them a share of the responsibility for Boone's rash act.

Bravissimo! Very well put.
Especially considering the Others knew about the crash since Day One.
Although they obviously won't contact the outside world to even help their own kind...so perhaps we could consider Boone's death 1/3 accident 1/3 Locke and 1/3 the Others heh :cool:
100%
Finding Charlie in a condition where he could be saved forced Jack to stop and ressusitate him. It's like the Others' attack on the raft. They could have simply shot Michael, Jin and Sawyer. Instead they just blew up their raft - to slow them down!

I like Kevn's theory about Charlie hanging himself, but the fact that Ethan said (after he beat the living daylights out of Jack) that he was going to "kill one of them if you don't stop following me," so unless Ethan told Charlie to hang himself or he'd kill Claire, I don't see why Ethan would just let him go and Charlie would walk away, leaving Claire helpless-helpless as in where she went and how to the other Lostees.

The Others certainly take risks with the Lostees - blowing them up, beating them up, stabbing them with needles, hanging them from trees within an inch of their life. If they aren't so medically-savvy, are they just uber-confident or risky? Juliet and Ben's faction seem to be almost protecting something.

I also really like the theory that Nathan wasn't so innocent, and maybe was pre-815. That would bring a new light to the past.

I think Ethans main aim was to stop Jack from following him andhis is why he used the method of hanging Charlie. If Jack had found Charlie with his neck broken, he would have known in an instant that he could not save him. Finding Charlie stone dead with no chance of revival, would have made Jack angier and more determined to catch Ethan. Finding Charlie in a condition where he could be saved forced Jack to stop and ressusitate him. I think Charlie being brought back to life would have suited Ethan just fine because it meant that Jack and Kate had to take their injured friend back to camp rather than continuing to follow Ethans trail.

So, if his goal was to gain time on them following him... don't you think that he spent quite a bit of time finding the means and place to hang Charlie? Unnecessary time. He could've just tied Charlie to a tree and knocked him out or a little worse. Taking the time to hang Charlie wouldn't be worth it at all if you're trying to slow people down.


Well personally I'd be depressed if I got kidnapped and hung from a tree! Not to mention in shock after being clinically dead for several minutes. I think this is a load of rubbish. If Charlie was suicidal how come he hasn't tried to kill himself again?

Has Terrell Owens tried to kill himself again? People come into light after failing killing themselves.

Taking the time to hang Charlie wouldn't be worth it at all if you're trying to slow people down.But if in addition to slowing them down it also served as a further warning and as proof that you were serious about killing your captives, then it might be worth the minor delay.

Personally, I don't see the story line, the show's characterization of Charlie or his subsequent reaction as supporting a "suicide attempt" interpretation for the hanging.
I think it was an attempt by an Other to kill a Lostee.

I think it was an attempt by an Other to kill a Lostee.

So do I. The Others started a war against the Lostees when they kidnapped Claire and hung Charlie (not to mention everything they did to the tallies). The Lostees to their credit have managed to form peaceful relations with other island inhabitants such as Desmond and Danielle. If Ethan hadn't been so violent and ruthless they might have been able to come to some understanding with him too.

I think it was an attempt by an Other to kill a Lostee.

If that's true, then it was a horrible attempt. And from what I can gather, the Others are capable of doing what they want to do.

And if you think that he wanted to send a message that he means business, I'm pretty sure that it would've been quicker and more effective if he would have just beaten Charlie to near death and left him to be found like that.

Hanging just makes the absolute least amount of sense to me, to accomplish any of these "goals" that people think he was trying to accomplish.

Personally, I don't see the story line, the show's characterization of Charlie or his subsequent reaction as supporting a "suicide attempt" interpretation for the hanging.I wouldn't know the story line, but to me, his subsequent reactions immediately following definitely lead me to believe he would have attempted suicide. He was extremely depressed, not even wanting to talk about it, and not thankful at all just to be alive. He says he "doesn't remember anything," which makes me think that he probably just doesn't want to tell them that he tried killing himself, and so they'd stop asking him about it. But if he doesn't remember anything, for whatever reason... then he doesn't remember anything. Except he does remember that they didn't even want him, just Claire. So, I definitely think Charlie is a shady character and certainly a character capable and believable to attempt suicide.

If that's true, then it was a horrible attempt. As horrible as setting someone free from a pit only to snap their neck? As horrible as blowing a raft out from under strangers (one of them wounded) in shark infested waters? As horrible as leaving crash victims stranded on a beach making no effort to help them despite having plenty of supplies? As horrible as wanting to perform a c-section to steal a baby from a woman you abducted and drugged when you don't have a doctor capable of doing a safe operation? OR do you mean horrible as in ineffective?

I wouldn't know the story line, but to me, his subsequent reactions immediately following definitely lead me to believe he would have attempted suicide.Story line: Two people are abducted by a man who drags them through the jungle and threatens to kill them if the rescue party continues to follow and then, as the rescue party continues to follow, one of the abductees is left hanging on the path they are following. That seems more straight forward to me than Ethan turns Charlie loose for some unknown reason and Charlie immediately finds some rope/vine climbs a tree and attempts to hang himself, leaving the woman he has a crush on to fend for herself in Ethan's clutches. Charlie ain't nice but it would be more in his self interest to attempt to rescue the hottie he wants to be with than to give up and suicide.

I agree Charlie is a shady character but in the past when events did not go his way he did not suicide; instead he retreated into drug use, he lied and he stole. I don't see why he would suddenly turn to suicide after the all efforts he had put into surviving on the island.

As horrible as setting someone free from a pit only to snap their neck? As horrible as blowing a raft out from under strangers (one of them wounded) in shark infested waters? As horrible as leaving crash victims stranded on a beach making no effort to help them despite having plenty of supplies? As horrible as wanting to perform a c-section to steal a baby from a woman you abducted and drugged when you don't have a doctor capable of doing a safe operation? OR do you mean horrible as in ineffective?

I meant horrible as in ineffective because, like I said, the Others are very effective at what they want to do. So, when I took the quote of you saying "I think it was an attempt by an Other to kill a Lostee," I meant that if that's true, then it was a very uncharacteristic, ineffective attempt.

Story line: Two people are abducted by a man who drags them through the jungle and threatens to kill them if the rescue party continues to follow and then, as the rescue party continues to follow, one of the abductees is left hanging on the path they are following. That seems more straight forward to me than Ethan turns Charlie loose for some unknown reason and Charlie immediately finds some rope/vine climbs a tree and attempts to hang himself, leaving the woman he has a crush on to fend for herself in Ethan's clutches. Charlie ain't nice but it would be more in his self interest to attempt to rescue the hottie he wants to be with than to give up and suicide.

I agree Charlie is a shady character but in the past when events did not go his way he did not suicide; instead he retreated into drug use, he lied and he stole. I don't see why he would suddenly turn to suicide after the all efforts he had put into surviving on the island.

You say you don't see why Charlie would try to kill himself... but do you understand why anyone would try to kill himself? People attempting suicide aren't exactly the most rational thinkers.

My whole theory is being based on my belief that the Others are not cold-blooded killers. If I'm going to give Ethan credit for not hanging Charlie - which I do - then I have to ask myself, so how did he get hanged? And so, my best guess is that he tried killing himself. I have just as much evidence that he did it to himself as anyone else has that Ethan did it to him. Very little.

I meant horrible as in ineffective because, like I said, the Others are very effective at what they want to do.Whilst I see them as frequently ineffective.
You say you don't see why Charlie would try to kill himself... but do you understand why anyone would try to kill himself?Yes but I didn't see those motives in Charlie.
that the Others are not cold-blooded killersThere we view things differently.

Story line: Two people are abducted by a man who drags them through the jungle and threatens to kill them if the rescue party continues to follow and then, as the rescue party continues to follow, one of the abductees is left hanging on the path they are following. That seems more straight forward to me than Ethan turns Charlie loose for some unknown reason and Charlie immediately finds some rope/vine climbs a tree and attempts to hang himself, leaving the woman he has a crush on to fend for herself in Ethan's clutches. Charlie ain't nice but it would be more in his self interest to attempt to rescue the hottie he wants to be with than to give up and suicide.


Exactly! The idea that Ethan hung one of his hostages from a tree is far easier to swallow than Ethan let one of his hostages go and suddenly felt the urge to commit suicide. It makes no sense for Ethan to threaten to kill someone and then let them go (and then by coinsedence they try to kill themselves). And letting Charlie go would do nothing to stop Jack and Kate - Charlie could easily meet up with them and help them. Charlie skulking off to commit suicide doesn't fit his character in any way whatsoever - in 'Raised by Another' he stuck to Claire like glue even when he could do little to help her! Even if Ethan tried to send him home Charlie wouldn't leave her.

My whole theory is being based on my belief that the Others are not cold-blooded killers. If I'm going to give Ethan credit for not hanging Charlie - which I do - then I have to ask myself, so how did he get hanged? And so, my best guess is that he tried killing himself. I have just as much evidence that he did it to himself as anyone else has that Ethan did it to him.

Actually I think that a court of law would say all evidence points to Ethan in this case - Ethan had kidnapped Charlie and Claire, he had said to Jack "I will kill one of them" and Charlie himself said later on it was Ethan who did it. And when Ethan returns, grabs Charlie by the neck and holds him off the ground - don't you think that might possibly be in reference to what he did the last time? It certainly showed Ethan has no moral qualms with strangling Charlie.

Besides Ethan is a SELF-CONFESSED cold-blooded killer. Even if we don't see him hang Charlie or kill Sceve we see him threatening to do it (in a deadly serious manner with added violence to drive home the message). You do remember Ethan saying to Charlie -

"You bring her here. If you don't I'm going to kill one of them. And then if you don't bring her back by sundown tomorrow - I'll kill another and another. One every day. And Charlie...I'll kill you last."

You don't get much more cold-blooded killerish than that!

What if the others are doing bad things for very good reasons?

Just dipping my toe in the water here. First post and all that...

I agree the cha of events puts some responsibility on Kate's shoulders, but I still think Tom's share is way higher than hers.

And when a woman gets raped, is it her fault since she was wearing provocative clothes? I'm not trying to be offensive, but blaming the victim is a slippery slope.

I think it was an attempt by an Other to kill a Lostee.

I agree. I love the Others, but they have not shown themselves to be nice people. I think the nicest way one could spin this scene was that it was mostly an attempt by Ethan to slow Jack and Kate down, and if Charlie actually got killed in the process, it was an unfortunate side effect.

But I don't think Ethan let Charlie go. Ethan was willing, like all of the Others, to do what was necessary to reach his goal. If it's necessary to kill, then they do it.

And I definitely don't think that Charlie would ever try to commit suicide. Charlie isn't depressed, as far as I can see. Being sad because you couldn't save someone isn't the same as clinical depression.

I see we agree on Ethan, aurorawest.Nice to see discerning minds at work ;) blaming the victim is a slippery slope.I think CrazyLatin007 was allocating the responsibility between two willing participants, not blaming a victim. My saying Kate would take the heat for his death was a comment on what I saw as the legalities & responsibilities involved, not an absolution of Tom for his part in the mess up that resulted in his death. He was not an innocent bystander.

What if the others are doing bad things for very good reasons?

Just dipping my toe in the water here. First post and all that... Welcome to the board Original Spacehermit. I personally feel having a good motive very rarely justifies using bad means. I think if they had a noble motive they would have tried persuasion on the Lostees rather than the tactics they resorted to. You may want to check out the general theories portion of the board for additional discussions on, “does the end justify the means?”.

Welcome to the board Original Spacehermit. I personally feel having a good motive very rarely justifies using bad means. I think if they had a noble motive they would have tried persuasion on the Lostees rather than the tactics they resorted to.

Here, here! Whatever the Others motives their methods are evil and twisted.

a) I don't think that any motive can excuse the abduction of a child from their parent without explanation. The devastation that the Others have inflicted on Danielle, Micheal and (potientially) Claire is really rather horrific. Micheal was a decent human being who would never have commited murder and betrayal if the Others hadn't driven him to it by kidnapping his son. There is nothing a loving parent won't do to protect their child. The Others care nothing for the parents and are prepared to manipulate them to commit desperate acts. I find that really sickening.

b) Nothing can excuse the indescriminate murder of innocent people. It doesn't matter how 'noble' Ethans motive was for wanting Claires baby - no motive would justify hanging Charlie, murdering Sceve and threatening to kill one person for every day that she is not brought back. Same goes for leaving the rafties to drown in the shark infested ocean.

As far as I am concerned even if we find out the Others are working on a cure to all the worlds illnesses, I still don't think it would excuse the acts sighted above.

I think the nicest way one could spin this scene was that it was mostly an attempt by Ethan to slow Jack and Kate down, and if Charlie actually got killed in the process, it was an unfortunate side effect.

I don't even think it was as nice as that. Why did Ethan take Charlie in the first place, huh? He could have easily knocked Charlie out and left him behind on the jungle path. I think Ethan took Charlie for a purpose - so that he had someone to threaten to kill if Jacks team gave him any trouble. He couldn't threaten Claire because he needed her alive (though according to Alex he would have let her die too after they had the baby). There is nothing nice about it.

Did the party host invite more people than the balcony was rated to hold? Was the balcony properly maintained? Was the balcony properly constructed? Was the balcony properly designed? From the Dave transcript (bold mine): DR. BROOKS: I notice that you didn't say anything about the way you look. Are you comfortable with your appearance?
HURLEY: It's not like -- I mean, I can't really do anything about it, right? [Dr. Brooks just stares at him] If I, uh -- if I w -- if I wasn't so fat, they never would have died.
DR. BROOKS: There were 23 people on that deck. It was built to hold 8. And it would have collapsed whether you went out there or not.
HURLEY: Yeah, but I did walk out there. And it did collapse. I killed them.
DR. BROOKS: It was an accident.
HURLEY: That was my fault.
DR. BROOKS: Afte