Simply put by Corlixia in my first novel while pondering over a book of fairy tales: In an odd way, I can see the light shed on the many happy ending tales. The good defeats the evil, but who defines who is good, and who is evil?
After reading the replies most likely not as it seems like a bad idea when set forward unlike in my head...
That wasn't exactly my plan, i guess that i did not explain it too well but, it was to have the kid's that have committed something against. lets call them the Good guys, and for to most likely end up recognising what they had done and join with the good side to stop the bad side. (Yes i would need to find a name for the good and the bad but i think you get my point...)
Well this got more attention th My original idea was not to have them as the main characters to be rooting for, at the start at least, but have them do something against the lets say good side and then be chased down until they join with the theoretical good side to stop others from following what they had done if that makes sense.
Everything that you guys have brought up here has made me kinda see the, consequences of choosing to base the story around that topic. I probably need to think up how to set it out a tad better after reading the replies here.
I can see it working. I think it might even be timely. If readers can relate it to something like Anon members getting 'turned' and then going after a bad guy, it would work.
As you can see in the thread, this type of content can bring up a lot of controversy. I'm going to ignore all the arguments on the labels and assume that you mean terrorists in the most often used definition of the word: extremists violently attacking public venues with the intent of causing terror among the populace. The biggest issue you're going to face is that readers wont really want to see that many positive sides to the villain protagonists, purely because it's a villain that exists in the real world. I once heard someone mention that Umbridge in Harry Potter is more hated among fans than Voldemort because she's a villain people could meet in real life. And this is the same issue you're going to have. Give your villain protagonists any real depth or any hints of goodness or verification for their deeds at all and most people will likely reject the idea entirely. If you have a story you're desperate to write with this subject, and you think you can really do it justice, I'd say tread lightly and expect backlash. If not, I'd put it aside altogether.
@malaupp well terrorism is so vague though. Cops (Lawful good): Gunning down people with rubber bullets, tear gas, and chasing people with MRAPs (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) (Military Truck used in the war in the Middle East) down city streets. Terrorism Unibomber (Lawful bad) : decides he is pissed off at some university, so he sends mail bombs to many across the country killing Uni staff in wanton fashion. Terrorism I could keep going back and forth between both sides of the law when it comes to terrorism, but I think I have made it clear (well clearer). So when you look at it any person/organization can insight terrorism, by simply causing mass terror with their actions. Even the worst of the worst still thinks what he is doing is justifiable and correct in his own mind, even if it is ultimately neither.
Police usually don't break out rubber bullets and tear gas unless there's a riot, though. And they aren't intending to cause fear for political ends, they're trying to restore public order. So in a broad sense, I wouldn't call it terrorism. If you look at terrorists, they're usually pretty upfront about desiring to strike fear into their enemies through their actions.
Terrorism isn't just any group that does something that makes people scared, otherwise the word would have come up a long time ago. To be considered a terrorist they have to have an end goal of making the population at large terrified enough to affect the entire country toward some political end. Either they want the economy to collapse because everyone is so scared they wont go out and spend money or they want the population at large, government included, to turn their political thought a certain way. Cops don't use rubber bullets randomly, they're in response to something. The unibomber wasn't trying to scare the Uni staff to force some change, he was literally trying to kill the people he disliked. They're not terrorists because they're not specifically seeking to cause terror for political change. The word was made for people and groups that had a very specific political motive in their attacks. It had a very clear cut meaning. It only became vague when people kept misusing it because it was so polarizing and sensational.
Ahem - the Unabomber (note the spelling) spent 18 years sending letter bombs and death threats with the intent of promoting his 35k words manifesto for change (which basically opposed modern technology and industrialization and promoted a nature based anarchy) , he was absolutely the definition of a terrorist, in that he sought to terrorise in order to promote his cause. The word itself comes from the French 'terrorisme' which was originally coined to mean the french governments rule of terror in 1793-4 after the revolution. its meaning was somewhat changed when it was used in 1869 by Sergiy Nechayev the Russian revolutionary and author of "Catchetism of a revolutionary" , and was popularised by VI Lenin who stated that the purpose of "terrorism is to terrorise"
Thank you BSM. But I still stand by my thoughts in regards to terrorism being kinda vague, Mala. Person or organization that creates mass terror is terrorism. (FYI Rubber bullets and beanbag shot shotgun rounds can be lethal too.) Military vehicles should used against the citizens with out declaration of Martial Law, is a direct violation of Posse Comitatus.
And in that case, it would make him a terrorist. Admittedly, that's one of the attackers I haven't looked into. My point still stands. Terrorism by today's standards is terror with political ends, not any crime that makes people afraid. To quote the oxford dictionary, terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." It's not as vague as people make it out to be.
So the actions of the police and security at standing rock , which have the aim (at least at the high level that ordered the action) of forcing the indians and various others to back down over their opposition to the DAP to the benefit of high placed political donors who own the companies that would benefit ... ie intimidation for political ends
Well...yeah, essentially. Since the police are enacting violence on peaceful protesters (not rioters) for political ends, it's terrorism. A la the police actions against civil rights protesters. Terrorism is definitely not just Islamic extremists. Although the mainstream media will rarely label anything else as such.
Well one side you have a guy that answers the call of his nation. The other is law enforcement. So for fifty points who can tell me which one is more likely to need an MRAP? (Hint: It is the one more likely to encounter RPG-7s and IEDs) Notice any similarities between the two? Point is when the Police play Army you know things are not well at home. So we ask one man to sacrifice himself for the whole, and the other to serve and protect. Problem is I have more faith in a soldier to play police, over the police playing army. So yeah let the police violate Posse Comitatus so they can feel the need to bring out their new toys. @malaupp (Fun fact the Veterans are put on a terror watch list, despite their service to their country. How many police persons are on a similar list? My guess would be none, even though we pay them to 'serve and protect us' even though they kill more civilians than soldiers do. )
