Female Security Guards coerced into helping commit a massive terrorist attack are torn between protecting their loved ones and National Security.

In future please post revisions of the same concept in the original thread. It's a better way to track the evolution of a concept, and provides a better overview of the comments already given.

The fundamental logic at the base of this concept seems flawed.

Once a person admits to being a terrorist they lose all credibility, as such nothing they say can be trusted - cooperation of any kind is inexcusable.

Don't you think it might be difficult to evoke audience admiration or empathy for 3 women who believed the terrorists weren't telling a bad joke and didn't have the wits or moral integrity to report them?

Whatever, that still leaves 1 woman to qualify as the designated protagonist around whom an audience might rally and root for.

Are the terrorists holding their loved ones hostage? ?IOW: how are the security guards exercising emotional extortion over them?

?Whatever, I am still unclear how the scales of the predicament are evenly balanced. ?How their dramatic choice constitutes a true dilemma. (To be a true dilemma, the scales must be evenly balanced.)

The moral predicament presented to the women seems to be: ?let tens of thousands of strangers die or a few , their precious loved ones. ?How equal are those choices?

The emotional agony of being confronted by such horrific choices would be excruciating, of course. But how likely is it that their feelings will exonerate them in the audience's mind ?for choosing the greater of 2 evils, for opting to cooperate in order to save their precious few, the lives of thousands of others be damned? ?How likely is it that an audience would accept anything less than that despite their feelings, they do the right thing; ?they do what heroes are supposed to do and opt ?for the lesser of 2 evils, for the greater good and refuse to cooperate?

Don't you think it might be difficult to evoke audience admiration or empathy for 3 women who believed the terrorists weren't telling a bad joke and didn't have the wits or moral integrity to report them?

Whatever, that still leaves 1 woman to qualify as the designated protagonist around whom an audience might rally and root for.

Are the terrorists holding their loved ones hostage? ?IOW: how are the security guards exercising emotional extortion over them?

?Whatever, I am still unclear how the scales of the predicament are evenly balanced. ?How their dramatic choice constitutes a true dilemma. (To be a true dilemma, the scales must be evenly balanced.)

The moral predicament presented to the women seems to be: ?let tens of thousands of strangers die or a few , their precious loved ones. ?How equal are those choices?

The emotional agony of being confronted by such horrific choices would be excruciating, of course. But how likely is it that their feelings will exonerate them in the audience's mind ?for choosing the greater of 2 evils, for opting to cooperate in order to save their precious few, the lives of thousands of others be damned? ?How likely is it that an audience would accept anything less than that despite their feelings, they do the right thing; ?they do what heroes are supposed to do and opt ?for the lesser of 2 evils, for the greater good and refuse to cooperate?