All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Hi Okay, so I'm not sure if this belongs here, but it seemed the most appropriate place to ask this...
When writing a screenplay about heavy content (i.e. terrorist activity, etc.), what kind of precautions, if any, should/would you take? I know this is probably a bizarre question, but I just wanted to be sure before getting too involved in a new project/collaboration (based on factual events).
1) how far are you're willing to take it as a writer? 2) what is the scope in which your project is set for? Are you aiming for high concept or indie?
I'm off the mind you say what you feel. Show what's in your heart and don't worry about the offensive nature of it. If it's good it'll find an audience. But there is the flip side of the coin that can cost you dearly if pitching it to the wrong person/parties.
If you're out to shock, it'll show. If you're afraid to go the distance, it'll show too. Figure out what your intentions are and whether or not you're getting into this for the right reasons, to you, anyway. What I'd consider the highest priority, personally, would be that you have a genuine story to tell.
Awesome, thanks I was just a little nervous/hesitant because I certainly wouldn't want the fact that I'm writing this to be construed as contributing to terrorism in any way. While I am happy about the project in general, it's not something that I'm willing to take safety/legal risks for.
And I see it as high concept (hopefully it will actually turn out that way). How do you think high concept v. indie would affect things?
Thanks, James I am excited about the project. I think it's a great story and has a lot of potential. I mainly just want to address this one issue before jumping in head first, y'know?
High Concept would generally be a convincing game with Hollywood... Indie films, as you probably already know, are very ambitious projects. Well, they can be. If you truly believe in the script and its content, and want to see a closer to real life depiction of the source material --(And this is just me)-- I'd write it small scale, low key, modest budget. Bring your story and characters above the effects and bang.
Basically, you'll make a dollar before you make a million. And no matter what the circumstances may be, the dollar will always land in your hand 1st. Also of note, Macgyver was deemed, believe it or not, controversial due to his escape methods in each episode. They purposely left out 1 or 2 elements of the trick as to not give them away. But most, as outlandish as they may seem, were real methods used --Well, if you believe Anderson that is.
What that all means is, as long as you don't delve too far into their world, providing you're privy to that information, you'll be alright. And, no, I don't think you'll be deemed a terrorist suspect because you wrote a script about the source material.
I’ve written a script with terrorists in it before. I’ll tell you how I handled the issue. My script made it into the top ten percent in the Nicholl Fellowships so I must have done something right.
One thing I can tell you about character development is that it’s good to have balance. If, for example, all your terrorists are a particular race, you might want to create a character of the same race who is either conflicted about what he’s doing or one who is against them. Just the same as your hero might be conflicted, your villains might be painted as people who believe in what they’re doing. In their own minds, they’re not evil. It’s important that your characters are three dimensional and not just cookie cutter black and white.
Regarding sensitive information, when I was concocting the terrorist plot, I became concerned. I did an enormous amount of research and I was surprised at just how much of my plan would actually work. In the end, however, I found numerous things that made it unlikely. It was doubtful anyone could pull it off, even with expansive resources. Just to be on the safe side, however, I altered it in a way that would make it impossible.
I just want to chime in by saying that you should think twice (even three times) if you want to write a 9/11 story. I remember such a thread several years ago; someone wanted to write a piece about a 9/11 survivor with amnesia. Over time, as memories started returning, he realized he was one of the masterminds behind it.
FOX tried greenlighting a sitcom about a man and woman who fall in love after their spouses die in the World Trade Center.
People are still very sensitive about 9/11. Using the tragedy for some thriller script would be trivializing.
If you plan to write on any specific event that involves any recent terrorist activity, be extra careful. You're more likely to piss people off than entertain them.
As someone who was directly affected by terrorism, yes, 9/11 is still an open wound. So is Islamic terrorism. I am personally sick of all of the movies and documentaries coming out that humanize terrorists and make us look like the bad guys. Typical political correctness guised as "insight". That seems to be the trend these days and it's pretty insulting.
Showing a suicide bomber with a moral conscience is a stupid cliche.
Can you imagine the allied forces making documentaries and films glorifying or apologizing for the acts of the Nazis during WW2?
As someone who was directly affected by terrorism, yes, 9/11 is still an open wound. So is Islamic terrorism. I am personally sick of all of the movies and documentaries coming out that humanize terrorists and make us look like the bad guys. Typical political correctness guised as "insight". That seems to be the trend these days and it's pretty insulting.
Showing a suicide bomber with a moral conscience is a stupid cliche.
Can you imagine the allied forces making documentaries and films glorifying or apologizing for the acts of the Nazis during WW2?
Terrorists who are pure evil are as much a cliché as a member of a terrorist group who has a conscience. I’m talking about three dimensional characters. That can be done in a cliché way or not. That’s up to the writer.
Maybe the suicide bomber doesn’t have any qualms about what he’s doing because his family was killed by a U.S. bomb. Maybe he was simply raised that way and knows no other way. Maybe he’s only twelve.
There are lots of directions to explore characters.
When a person straps themselves with explosives in order to kill innocents, that person loses their third dimension. Having your family killed by a US bomb is not a reason to go out and murder dozens of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with the attack that killed your family. If the suicide bomber is 12 years old, it just means that he was indoctrinated or in all probability, remotely detonated by other terrorists that have no value for human life, let alone the life of an innocent child.
There's nothing to explore here and yes, terrorists are 100% pure evil. If a member of a terrorist organization is internally tortured by what his brothers and sisters in arms are doing, fine, there's something to explore there but it has been done to death already so I can't really think of any new insights you could bring to the table.
"In a world of violence... one man... will rise up... defy his own brothers... facing all odds... this summer... blah blah blah blah"
I mean seriously. Enough is enough with that. It's just plain stupid. Those movies are written by people who really don't have a clue about what makes terrorists tick (no pun intended).
Personally, I'd leave the subject of terrorism alone until the war on terror (or whatever you want to call what's been going on since 9/11) is curbed.
If you're going to write another film about how the US military or government is the root of all evil just call Alex Jones and prisonplanet.com and they'll probably produce your script without even reading it.
I didn’t say there should never be characters who are pure evil. I said a script has better character development if all characters of an entire race aren’t portrayed as pure evil. If you don’t agree with that, then good luck writing compelling stories.
And for the record, I never said ONCE that all Muslims are evil. And Islam isn't a race, it's a religious-political-cultural mindset. Not all Muslims are evil. On the contrary. That's what is so sad here. Most Muslims are good people. I work with some Muslim guys and they are just as much my friends as anyone else. And I have no problem voicing my opinions in their presence, which 99% of the time they tend to agree with.
That said, all functioning radical Islamic jihadists are evil.
Wow, my first real post on the boards and I'm already stirring things up!
Thanks, everybody for your input and perspective. You've definitely given me plenty to think about. And just FYI, the project I'm working on is set in 1990 in Turkey/Syria/Lebanon. Nothing connected to 9/11 at all. Honestly, I don't think I could even begin to attempt something that deals with 9/11, at least not with any realistic expectations of getting it right.
Just make all your terrorists a bunch of caucasions (middle-age white Americans/Europeans, angry young white Americans/Europeans, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera) and you'll be fine; that's the way Hollywood does it.
I think Brea touched upon something very important, or Phil did... I dunno, someone did, though. And they said something to the extent of "These people don't think they're wrong. They believe they're doing right". That is a very honest and true approach in dealing with them as characters. Good or Bad, there is a level of depth to everyone. There is a reason for being and a reason for change. We might not agree with why terrorist do what they do, but here's a very big wake up call -- We never will as long as we ignore why they do it.
Explore your characters. Write them as you get to know them. When we meet someone we don't know everything about them. Sometimes we meet people we think we like and then end up hating them.
Ask 90% of the married population...(not me, by the way) I'll be here all week.
The villains, in these cases, do not think they're villains. They think no differently than George Washington did fighting the British. The only difference between Washington and an Islamic terrorist is that we side with Washington.
The villains, in these cases, do not think they're villains. They think no differently than George Washington did fighting the British. The only difference between Washington and an Islamic terrorist is that we side with Washington.
History is written by the winners.
Phil
Uh, no. But that's a different topic. To the shores of Tripoli.
I read a script recently that used the word terrorist in it. The logline was terrorists did XYZ. Turns out it was some love sick bomber. Terrorizing? Yes. But fitting my definition of a terrorist? No, even though I thought it was a great action script.
Terrorizing? One, or a group, that terrorizes. Samuel Jackson in Lakeview Terrace. That's the simplest version. Lot's of drama and suspense.
Die Hard Series. Not a Muslim among them. Great action and entertainment. And people were terrorized.
True Lies. One of my favorite movies of (Ali like) all time. REAL terrorists on American soil.
Sum of All Fears. Can't count out that one.
The Peace Maker. Drama, political. We did this to them. We made them this way.
The Kingdom. Drama, political. Arabs killing arabs. It happens.
The Siege.
But here's the deal. Most of those were made before this current rush of...what do you call it?...Islamic what ever it is. Sharia law stuff? Jihad? The European backlash. You can't go right in their face or they will try to kill you. Right? If you show Islam in an unholy light? At least that's the threat. And it's real.
So how do you make a terrorist movie? Is it action packed and fun? Can you really do that now? I have one...set in Morocco. Nice little family story. I think it's funny and action packed. But would it play? So it collects dust.
I have to wonder what kind of terrorist movie you're writing. You're being cryptic because it's a great idea and you don't want someone to steal your great idea, but without some details, you can't/won't get a good answer.
American revolutionaries are not the same as Osama bin Laden.
So who these people are are a big deal. True revolutionaries, or freedom fighters, are not terrorists...but...how do you define terrorist? Samuel Jackson? Takers of Nakatomi Plaza? Those who flew airliners into the World Tade Center Towers? You know which definition fits.
White guys with guns terrorizing is safe. Middle eastern guys with guns is not safe.
Hi Sorry if I was being cryptic. I didn't mean to be. I just didn't want to bombard anyone with unnecessary details.
It's about a Turkish man's journey to discover the truth behind the PKK - are they good or bad, innocent or guilty, etc.? Until today, I was under the impression that he discovered that they were the 'bad guys' (to put it generally), but I'm told that's not the case, though there's nothing in the material he's given me to indicate otherwise.
So yeah, I'm kind of mixed up about it at the moment. We've been working on fictionalizing a lot of the material to make it suitable for a screenplay, but I'm not sure how he'll feel about fictionalizing such a significant element, or how to handle it if he doesn't want to...
American revolutionaries are not the same as Osama bin Laden.
Depends on who you ask. Do you think that King George III thought that George Washington was a freedom fighter or a terrorist? How about Jefferson? Or any of our other founding fathers?
Do you think that the Muslim extremists consider Bin Laden a terrorist? Or a freedom fighter? He's following their beliefs that the world must be purged of all infidels.
Bin Laden does not think he's being a bastard with what he does. He thinks he's a hero.
Hi Sorry if I was being cryptic. I didn't mean to be. I just didn't want to bombard anyone with unnecessary details.
It's about a Turkish man's journey to discover the truth behind the PKK - are they good or bad, innocent or guilty, etc.? Until today, I was under the impression that he discovered that they were the 'bad guys' (to put it generally), but I'm told that's not the case, though there's nothing in the material he's given me to indicate otherwise.
So yeah, I'm kind of mixed up about it at the moment. We've been working on fictionalizing a lot of the material to make it suitable for a screenplay, but I'm not sure how he'll feel about fictionalizing such a significant element, or how to handle it if he doesn't want to...
I read back and retrack about being cryptic. Also read wikileakspedia on PKK. You have to know who your audience is and will your audience really care about the PKK? I won't. Unless it's written in a way that there is a hero with a cause and I get sucked in. They are people, too, after all. I would have to relate and I'd have to be made to care about their plight, or an individuals plight, whether it be the plight of many who want freedom or some guy who figures out the gang is just a bunch of thugs and now he wants out.
Depends on who you ask. Do you think that King George III thought that George Washington was a freedom fighter or a terrorist? How about Jefferson? Or any of our other founding fathers?
Do you think that the Muslim extremists consider Bin Laden a terrorist? Or a freedom fighter? He's following their beliefs that the world must be purged of all infidels.
Bin Laden does not think he's being a bastard with what he does. He thinks he's a hero.
Phil
Sure it depends on who you ask. Mrs. Laden (if there is one), I'm sure, would have lots to say over coffee.
I think the one difference between the American Revolution and what is happening now is the targeting of civilians. Waving the white flag; civility, if you can really have that in war.
We all have our sins and hypocracy abounds and is easily pointed out, yet I firmly believe there is something different about the war waged by Osama Bin Laden and his ilk. Face it, what they are doing is global and it's not slowing down.
"...that this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli�and another paid to himself�would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not."
In the end, this conversation might well end up with with a discussion on Isaac and Ishmael.
Remeber that Nelson Mandella was a terrorist, that is exactly what he was in prison for and yet he won the Nobel Peace prize.
Half of the streets in Dublin are named after men who the Englsh labelled terrorists, and in many cases had executed.
A terrorist does not have to be someone who is fighting against the government, it could be someone fighting against an oppressive regime.
As the saying goes "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Check out a film call Four Lions, it is a black comedy about muslim terrorists who plan a bombing campaign on the streets of London.
The writer, Chris Morrison, never attempted to make them sympathetic or even tried to look at a way to make the viewer empathise with their cause. What he did do, rather cleverly, was to make their characters just stupid, immature kids but no different from any other stupid kids of any race. The only difference is these guys have had their head filled with nonsense.
It worked. They also ensure to include Muslim characters who were moderates and against violence and they also made one of the terrorists a white convert to Islam. These two methods ensured that the script rose above any accusations that it was painting all Muslims in the same light.
It worked, it is a great film and despite the protagonist being nowhere near sympathetic audiences stuck with the film and the characters, one assumes hoping they see the light before it is too late.
Check out a film call Four Lions, it is a black comedy about muslim terrorists who plan a bombing campaign on the streets of London.
The writer, Chris Morrison, never attempted to make them sympathetic or even tried to look at a way to make the viewer empathise with their cause. What he did do, rather cleverly, was to make their characters just stupid, immature kids but no different from any other stupid kids of any race. The only difference is these guys have had their head filled with nonsense.
It worked. They also ensure to include Muslim characters who were moderates and against violence and they also made one of the terrorists a white convert to Islam. These two methods ensured that the script rose above any accusations that it was painting all Muslims in the same light.
It worked, it is a great film and despite the protagonist being nowhere near sympathetic audiences stuck with the film and the characters, one assumes hoping they see the light before it is too late.
I was just going to mention this, definitely check it out, rdhay (and for the record, Murphy, its Chris Morris )
I reckon you're in the clear, rdhay, less and less is becoming sacred/taboo these days, at least in the western world. If you've got something to say, go for it.
If the answer is YES, your scum, no matter your affilaition.
Scum, yes. However, I don't think you can compare a single act committed by one for his own internal purpose to acts committed by one or more that are linked by a common purpose. That is to say that there are those point to Timothy McVeigh and say he's no different than the 9/11 terrorists. If you examine either, you come up with completely different results as to why they do what they do. Scum? Yup, sure nuff. But the likes of McVeigh, while terrorizing, are nowhere near the likes of the 9/11 folks. McVeigh is an abnormality. The 9/11 guys are not. So if a story goes McVeigh, it should note that. If a story goes 9/11, it should note that. Anything else would skew the truth, if the truth is what you're looking for.
You say... I don't think you can compare a single act committed by one for his own internal purpose to acts committed by one or more that are linked by a common purpose.
My friend, I am talking about the act, not the purpose. I don't think a bomber gets more than one chance to commit a "single act" a second time.
McVeigh was scum...
The 911 bombers were scum...
Kenya bombers....you get it.
I think your problem might be, you are comparing. I do not. A killer by any other name is still a killer.
In short, I am taking about those on the recieving end of terror. Those who were the victems of McVeigh, never saw 911. To them, motives mean little.
A terrorist is someone who commits an act of terror.
Simple? Stupid? Maybe...
What the motive is as to why they do it is back story.
A bomb still explodes even if it has a child attached.
A means by which to do harm is ultimatly reduced to one common denominator. Will my act inflict terror?
If the answer is YES, your scum, no matter your affilaition.
Shawn.....><
Far, far, far too simplistic Shawn. Although you have a point it is impossible to put labels on anything as complex as this issue. By your own standards the U.S. armed forces are scum. I am sure there are not many who would really believe that. But guess what? They have killed children.
The whole act of warfare is dependant on the tenant that the lives of a few are worth sacrificing for the lives of millions. That unjust acts can be forgiven if they lead to just outcomes.
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and spend a long time in prison for it, but his end goals were justified by his actions, freedom for many trumps the lives of a few, at least that is how it is viewed over here on the "right" side of the fence.
This has been the dilemma of terrorism through the ages, while nobody with a heart could ever condone an individual act of violence against anyone, history has taught us that terrorism is an important weapon in nations and countries overthrowing corrupt and unjust rulers and invaders. But it really is only called terrorism when we are on the side of the good guys, when we are on the side of the bad guys it is called freedom fighting.
Imagine, for a moment, if China invaded the U.S. and won the war. All U.S. citizens now live in the Chinese republic of America. Would a small group of guys with guns and bombs calling themselves the U.S. Resistance be considered terrorists? They certainly would be in China.
There is no answer really, nobody can be right on this, nobody can be wrong. But it certainly is not black and white.
GM, You blur the lines when you compare war and terrorism.
And for the record, the US armed forces as all forces have initvertently killed innocent people in the process of war against a fellow combatant.
This in no way makes them terrorist.
And when you say... "The whole act of warfare is dependant on the tenant that the lives of a few are worth sacrificing for the lives of millions"
This is complety false. You never served in the military I suspect.
As to you thinking there is no answer... Yes there are. From someone who served in the armed forces of America, a terrorist is scum who kill innocent life to make a statement.
A solder is charged with protecting that innocent person from them.
GM, You blur the lines when you compare war and terrorism.
And for the record, the US armed forces as all forces have initvertently killed innocent people in the process of war against a fellow combatant.
This in no way makes them terrorist.
And when you say... "The whole act of warfare is dependant on the tenant that the lives of a few are worth sacrificing for the lives of millions"
This is complety false. You never served in the military I suspect.
As to you thinking there is no answer... Yes there are. From someone who served in the armed forces of America, a terrorist is scum who kill innocent life to make a statement.
A solder is charged with protecting that innocent person from them.
Shawn.....><
Hey, hey, calm down, I never suggest the army were terrorists, I was merely pointing out that by those simplistic standards they could be viewed that way.
Warfare is of course a numbers game where the lives of a few are sacrificed in order to protect the lives of millions. When a country goes to war they know the risks, they know that there will be causalities. America would have entered Iraq that knowing full well that they were putting thousands of soldiers to death. It is war, people die. But those who make decisions weigh up the costs of those killed against the positive outcomes for the future of America and say yes, it is worth the sacrifice. This is war.
You know many terrorist organisations are actually considered to be the army of the country they are defending. The terrorist themselves consider what they are doing as warfare, not terrorists and in many cased they are legally correct. It is just that often their aggressors do not recognise them as an army, it is easier to fight them when they are labelled criminals.
Like I said, it is impossible to be right or wrong on this, it is a far too complex subject for a message board.
But please, do not misquote me and put words in my mouth.
My friend, I am talking about the act, not the purpose. I don't think a bomber gets more than one chance to commit a "single act" a second time.
I think your problem might be, you are comparing. I do not. A killer by any other name is still a killer.
In short, I am taking about those on the recieving end of terror. Those who were the victems of McVeigh, never saw 911. To them, motives mean little.
That's all true, and I understand your perspective that from the victim's perspective, who cares what the motive is. My point is that we should care (compare), yet this is not a thread on global terrorism; what should we do?
Why can it not be so simple. Terrorist are scum who kill the innocent. They are not solders, they are cowards.
Again and again you speak or organizations and ideals. I speak of the act itself.
Your standards for killing in war and murder of the innocent are flawed.
There are no complexities here. You are either a murdering coward of the innocent or you are not. That was how I started my opinion after all.
There is such a thing as right and wrong GM.
Shawn.....><
Clorox,
You ask what should we do? Do everything we can to stop the surge of people who "feel" that there is no longer right and wrong. When we see the enemies side as justified, we have nothing left to defend and no one to defend it.
Shawn, I get that you are talking about the actions rather than the motives, and yes the actions are terrible. I mean setting of a bomb knowing that an innocent will die? Who could actually do that and still claim to be a human being? I don't know.
But maybe this is an American thing, In most parts of the world terrorists do not just kill innocents. In many cases the difference between a terrorist group and an army depends, again, on what side you are fighting on. Hence why I will talk about terrorism in the same context a warfare, in many cases it really is. In many cases terrorists target soldiers and do not target innocents. Does that make it anymore right? No of course not, soldiers are people too. But in order to even explore the subject you need to understand that most terrorists believe they are soldiers, they believe they are fighting a war, whether they are right or not is the impossible question to answer.
But if you are just going to bring it down to the level of the actions and not the motivation and whether or not with hindsight it was justified then you have to include all kinds of actions in the list.
Hiroshima? The British bombing of Dresden? Agent Orange in Vietnam? The bombing of Bagdad?
All the above were acts carried out in the full knowledge that innocents would be killed. Unless you take into consideration the motives of these actions then you have to include them in a list with terrorist atrocities. But then again, if you do take the motives and surrounding information into consideration for these acts (which we of course should), then why would you not try and understand the motives for all acts, including terrorist acts. Unless we can try and understand the minds of people who commit these acts then how can we ever attempt to stop them from happening?
Some awful atrocities have taken place in history but you cannot just take them in isolation, you have to look at the bigger picture to try and make sense of them. Sometimes great things emerge from awful events.
What about the American war of independence, there was acts of terrorism and gorilla warfare carried out by the anti-British during that time. Surely in America these guys are heroes now, and counted amongst the fathers of the United States? Would you agree that the actions of people during the American civil war are now justified being that without them there may well not have been a United States of America. Or would you just look at the individual acts and call the perpetrators scum?
I know little about the American war of independence, but do know some of the Irish war of independence, and the events that lead to the british withdrawal of Ireland and the formation of the Irish free state in 1922.
The IRA started out life as the army of republican Ireland. They were the army of the Irish republic and yet the British never viewed them as an Army and so officially they were criminals and terrorists. Yet all they were trying to achieve was the removal of an oppressive regime who had invaded their country and removed their rights to live as free Irishmen. But they were reduced to acts of gorilla warfare and terrorism because that is all they had, when your opponents refuse to see you as an army you cannot fight a war with them. Even many of the Irish people, and they would never admit it after, hated what the IRA were doing and used to call them scum. But the members of the IRA shared a belief and a love of Ireland and every single one of them believed that what they were doing was for the good of Ireland.
But now watch any movie about the original (or old) IRA back in the early 20th century and you will see them painted as heroes and brave freedom fighters. Their names appear all over dublin on street names, their faces and statues are everywhere.
Your entire 5 paragraph explanation had to do with WAR.
You again confuse the two.
WAR: a state of open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war.
TERORISM: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
The act GM.
Shawn.....><
But that is my whole point Shawn. It is only a war when the side "we" are on say it is a war. Until then it is just terrorism.
At the time of the Irish war of independence Ireland was part of Great Britain, officially it was never a war. The British called it an Irish rebellion. It is only years later, after Ireland had won would it be truthfully called a war.
It's all words Shawn, nothing else. Most terrorists believe they are fighting in a war. It depends on who's side you are on as to whether or not they are right.
I think you are specifically talking about Muslims here and 9/11. I am talking about terrorism in general, which has been around forever and has not always concerned Muslims.
You wrote... I think you are specifically talking about Muslims here and 9/11. I am talking about terrorism in general, which has been around forever and has not always concerned Muslims.
Easy here buddy. I never said that so you need to be careful because first and foremost a muslim and a terrorist are TWO DIFFERIENT THINGS.
An extreamist terrorist who happens to be a muslim is a person who dies for his own personal rewards in heaven. The men who murdered 3000 people in new york on September 11th, were pathitic terrorist, not solders.
If we are to continue on this path, be mindful please of the fact that many people who have served believe that it "is all words" my friend.
You wrote... I think you are specifically talking about Muslims here and 9/11. I am talking about terrorism in general, which has been around forever and has not always concerned Muslims.
Easy here buddy. I never said that so you need to be careful because first and foremost a muslim and a terrorist are TWO DIFFERIENT THINGS.
An extreamist terrorist who happens to be a muslim is a person who dies for his own personal rewards in heaven. The men who murdered 3000 people in new york on September 11th, were pathitic terrorist, not solders.
If we are to continue on this path, be mindful please of the fact that many people who have served believe that it "is all words" my friend.
Shawn..
Okay, sorry, I never meant it like that. I would not presume you would think that at all.
It just sounds to me that what you are saying is that if a school is hit by a cruise missile then it is war, if it is blown up by a home-made bomb then it is terrorism. But then that totally goes away from your original argument which was it is all about the actions and not the motivations. In the minds of the people planting the bomb then they are every much fighting a war as the guy in the uniform pushing the button.
And while Yes, I am in full agreement with you that acts committed in warfare should be viewed differently than acts not committed in warfare, it is irrelevant to the original question.
This is why it is an impossible task, nobody can be right here. In order to get into the mind of anyone who commits these acts you need to know that they truly believe what they are doing is right, and is for a higher purpose, and they do believe they are at war.
Therefore soldiers and terrorists are exactly alike.
But don't take that out of context, I am not suggesting soldiers are terrorists. I am pro war in many instances and certainly not anti-American. But their motivations are often the same, in that they are serving a higher purpose. Whether that be God, Allah, their Government, Freedom from tyranny, whatever. Just as a soldier believes what he is doing is is right, then so do terrorists. Whether they are right or not really does depend on the context of their situation.
Pages: 
Author
Screenwriting about terrorists
Okay, so I'm not sure if this belongs here, but it seemed the most appropriate place to ask this...
Logged
)
Locked Board