Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Teacher Asks Students To Plan a Terrorist Attack

Posted by samzenpus on from the one-heck-of-a-take-home-test dept.

Tired of looking at an endless parade of dioramas, an Australian teacher had her class plan a terrorist attack that would "kill as many innocent Australians as possible." "The teacher, with every best intention, was attempting to have the students think through someone else's eyes about conflict. I think there are better ways to do that. ... This is not what we expect of professional educators," said Sharyn O'Neill, director-general of the state's Department of Education.

55 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. How do you anticipate weak points by sheddd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Without thinking like that?

    1. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, it's more like let "the authorities" think about it.

    2. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by William+Robinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you anticipate weak points without thinking like that?

      Yeah Right.

      So let's start asking students to come up with some new innovative concepts for 'how to steal laptops', 'how to make a kid blind so he could be used as begger', 'how to rape', 'how to murder somebody and dispose body in acid' and many more.

      Seriously, anybody who is trying that on students is out of his mind.

      --
      hilarious
    3. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "How do we secure this area from attack?" is not just a question of putting up standard safety procedures. It's about thinking how people would attack, and finding ways of stopping that. On a practical example "How would someone break into your house?" If you wander around it, find the weak points, and figure out how to do it, you can actually fix your security. "Oh, that second floor bathroom window that is always open is near a tree branch. The wood is rotting around this back door glass panel, and could be easily removed." That sort of thing. Even simple stuff, like "How would you attack someone on this street" can be quite useful. "Oh, there is a dark alley there, I'll walk in the street at that point. We need more lights at the park entrance. Let's keep people from parking at this spot, as it obscures the view of the corner."

      If we don't get kids thinking realistically about how one could attack, they're never going to be able to anticipate and defend against real threats as adults. They'll just be standing around looking like fools when someone thinks to make bombs out of shoes, or drive a boat into the levees at New Orleans, etc. Or they'll live in fear of perceived dangers, which have little chance of turning into something real.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    4. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by niftydude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hell - if you are not allowed to think like that, then how do you even write the next season of 24?
      The assignment would have covered such a large range of critical and creative thinking skills - it really seems to me like a good idea. I can't ever remember seeing a school project or assignment that would exercise such a large range of skills in one go.

      And for the people who find thinking about it "extremely offensive" - all I can say is: harden up - terrorism in one form or another has existed throughout history, and it won't go away just because you choose to ignore it.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    5. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by txoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only does this kind of thinking teach preparedness, but it opens up discussions. This would be an amazing opportunity to talk about what terrorism is, why it happens and who is involved. Students that understand the whole package are less likely to lash out at minority groups and deal with future terrorism more sanely. That being said, As a teacher, I would definitely write a carefully worded curriculum plan and be ready to defend it. It wouldn't hurt to have the department head on my side either. People tend to freak out whenever teachers try something new...

      --
      This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    6. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by Lumbre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we don't get kids thinking realistically about how one could attack, they're never going to be able to anticipate and defend against real threats as adults.

      To me, this sounds like a professor asking students to hack a computer.

      It's a learning process to learn the safeguards of what to do to provide computer security. There will always be a subset that use the knowledge maliciously.

      There are also home-grown hackers (like there are home-schooled children), so I wouldn't blame the schools. I'd blame the person's character.

      I think it's all right if the children (year 10 .. think high school) are mentally prepared for a hypothetical and critical thinking. We do, of course, offer violent video games to teens in the U.S. Don't think just because they are rated 'Teen' or 'Mature' they don't make it into the hands of younger children.

    7. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's more like let "the authorities" think about it.

      The only thing that will come of able bodied, intelligent students thinking about flaws in the system is able bodied, intelligent students realizing that the system is flawed.

      Which is bad, from the POV of someone who knows there are flaws, but keeps his/her job by making sure the general public is too stupid to realize / too fat to care.

    8. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by Kelbear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a silly argument. A single student in the class turning into an attacker invalidates the educational process?

      Shit, I'm sure some TV shows or movies have been used as a reason for violence, but I don't think we should ban TV or movies.

      I definitely believe there is indeed an acceptable casualty rate for certain freedoms.

      Look, even in middle-school, pre-911, without being asked. I had worked out that with enough savings, I could take a knife, stab random strangers and ride across America on an unstoppable pattern-less killing spree. This strategy still rings true in the age of terrorism. This doesn't happen because I'm not a batshit crazy murderer, not because anybody can stop me, or because I didn't think about it.

      If the teacher was advocating terrorism, then there is a problem, but just trying to get kids to think and gain perspective is a worthwhile cause (Even if he probably could have accomplished it with a less inflammatory method).

    9. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by lxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't go looking through the eyes of THE EMEMY. Before you know it you will recognise the humanity in THE ENEMY and suddenly bombing his family and stealing his recources will start to feel wrong. Can't have that now can we?

    10. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      German students are exposed to violence and social disorder. German history class is 50% "German history between 1928 and 1945", under the premise that teaching the students about the inhumane cruelty of the Nazi regime will keep them from repeating these mistakes. There's some really gruesome stuff in there, especially when you get to the concentration camps. Mind you, this is not the same as showing them gory depictions of artillery shell victims. It's perfectly possible to teach someone about gruesome matters in school without sinking to the level of a B-movie.

      Having gone through that, I not only know how to effectively gas people but also the basics of how to take over a poverty-stricken country and about the logistics of efficient genocide. Those are the side effects of having learned about the rise and fall of the Nazis - and the "how to take over a poor country" thing is in there explicitly so we can identify and potentially do something about people using similar tactics (and to prevent these tactics from becoming applicable in the first place).

      Now, if the school teaches you how to build a bomb you know how to tell that someone is building a bomb and you can tell that not everything with wiring and batteries is an explosive device. You don't become more dangerous, usually, because at least all male teenagers I knew back when I was one were perfectly aware of how to construct a pipe bomb and many also knew how to improvise a somewhat functional fuel-air explosive using flour. We knew that because things going "boom" are naturally interesting to teenaged males and because it was trivial to find out how they work even back then. (And no, none of this was covered in school.) Granted, most girls probably wouldn't look into explosives on their own but I'd expect the deranged ones to do so.

      Nowadays I wouldn't expect anyone with a serious intent to do harm to pick up his knowledge in school. Wikipedia can already tell you a lot and a Wikipedia session followed by half an hour of googling will give you everything you need to build an effective bomb. The schools are not imparting any new knowledge to those who already wish to kill someone.

      Likewise, it's fairly easy to learn about effective bomb placement by reading/watching reports about terrorist attacks. Comments like "the terrorists did X wrong, otherwise the explosion would have been much more severe" aren't exactly rare. And given how a lot of amok runners spend quite a bit of time preparing for their run and tend to have a fascination with thiese things it's prefectly reasonable to assume that they will inform themselves about how to go about their business.


      Unless American minds are extremely fragile, I'd say that teaching them about how terrorism works is unlikely to scar them. And teaching them about the methods of terrorism is unlikely to make them much more dangerous than they already are.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    11. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "It's about thinking why people would attack, and finding ways of stopping that."

      There. Fixed it for you. You wouldn`t happen to be working for US foreign policy department by any chance, would you? Would explain a lot of things.

    12. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well how about your GOVERNMENT spending xxxx bIllion on security measures, while taking xxx billion out of Hospitals and health care. Evey dollar spent means another dollar not spent where it can do the most good.
      Net result: The government is a terrorist, because its first priority is not about saving lives, but being seen to do something. The national road toll is how many people?
      The Afghanistan .gov defines lawful terrorism

    13. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by stdarg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why we don't see destruction on that scale regularly if it would be easy.

      The rational answer is of course that terrorists aren't such a great threat as they're made out to be.

      That's rational based on the assumptions of the assignment. The danger with teaching this lesson to children is that they may not see the flaws in the assignment itself, and the teacher didn't seem likely to point them out either. For instance, in reality, terrorist hopefuls don't have easy access to military grade chemical weapons. A big way domestic terrorists are caught is when they start networking with other terrorists to get supplies of advanced weapons (not homemade fertilizer bombs). It's probably also a huge barrier to entry. If everybody just automatically had WMDs, then you probably *would* see destruction on that scale regularly.

      Another big flaw is that the assignment presumes motivation on the students' behalf. It doesn't ever ask, how would you *become* convinced that you need to make a terrorist attack to make a political statement. It just says, you *are* convinced, so how would you do it. Is that realistic?

      The lesson learned after asking those questions is about how to fight terrorism. The answer isn't "don't worry about it" as you imply. It's "we need to watch people who seem motivated, such as religious extremists, before they take the first physical step to an attack" and "if we miss that, we need to catch them at the networking/supplying stage where they are most exposed" and "people like me probably won't be terrorists because we lack the motivation, and it's actually quite difficult to acquire that motivation without some obvious signs, so we need to watch 'others'."

    14. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surprisingly, only a few of us students ended up in prison. Out of my class of 40 or so, only 8 of us ended up as wards of the state prison system.

      20% of your 7th grade class wound up in prison, and this was surprisingly low? Unless you were already in Juvie, I'll rather not see the rest of your school.

    15. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by anegg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Year 10 students would be about 16 years old, I believe. This is a fairly fluid time for many people in terms of morals and social consciousness.

      Depending on the context in which such an assignment was issued, there could be a lot of value in it. Examining a potential threat by planning an attack yourself is an excellent way in which to uncover vulnerabilities, especially vulnerabilities that exist due to invalid assumptions. Its too bad we didn't do this prior to 9/11 when we might have realized that the assumption that hijackers wanted to survive the hijacking was no longer valid. This is something that adults should be doing, but also one in which students may have a more "fresh" and unassuming state of mind that could prove useful in uncovering those unwarranted assumptions.

      However, having 16 year olds do this in a context that doesn't also examine why it wouldn't be right to make such an attack would be unacceptable to me. Its likely that the review would uncover lots of situations where causing mass mayhem is fairly easy, especially if the perpetrator/perpetrators doesn't/don't mind being caught. The fact that such attacks aren't made more often is probably related more to our basic social contracts than anything else. To cover this well with the age range in question would be difficult, and to fail to cover it well could possibly be disastrous, if only on a small scale (think Columbine).

      I started off this response ready to argue against censorship and in favor of free thinking everywhere, but I find I must put some constraints on my thoughts. Interesting.

    16. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure about empathy, but it might be worthwhile to understand why they attack civilians. I don't think it's a preference, I think it's just that military targets are difficult and have a lesser effect. When your goal is to "get attention" (to put it too nicely), civilians are easy to kill and you get more shock value for your terrorist buck. Then they justify attacking civilians by saying we've killed plenty of their civilians too, directly and indirectly. I couldn't speak to the truth in that, but that's my understanding.

    17. Re:How do you anticipate weak points by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dumb people cannot do smart things, even if told in general terms how.

      Look at that Times Square bombing idiot. Generally, that was a reasonable plan.

      But, as he is a total moron, it didn't work at all. He didn't bother to find out exactly how to explode propane tanks, he locked his keys in the car, he waited far far too long to blow the thing up, the guy he bought from remembered him, etc.

      Dumb people can do smart things if someone actually plans out every step, and they practice and drill, but that generally would not happen as part of a hypothetical.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  2. so... by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do they expect? I expect from teachers to be teaching the ability to learn. No matter how touchy this subject is for some people, this isn't something that should be punished. Hell, read the wikileaks of the CIA message today... They are doing the exact same thing!

    1. Re:so... by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do they expect? I expect from teachers to be teaching the ability to learn. No matter how touchy this subject is for some people, this isn't something that should be punished. Hell, read the wikileaks of the CIA message today... They are doing the exact same thing!

      Yes, but the CIA pretend they don't do that sort of stuff. Given how stupid and paranoid most people are, I can see how they want to crucify the teacher. I wouldn't have an issue with that sort of lesson, but at the same time, it might not be overly appropriate. The teacher was a year 10 teacher (that means the students are around 15) and thinking about it, that allows kids to watch just about any movie or play any game released in Australia. I don't see how it is a gross stepping over a "maturity level" line in the sand.

      Especially given some of the recent curriculum around how early Australians treated indigenous Aboriginals and the content taught there, this isn't out of line with expected maturity levels of our children. If they are old enough to be expected to understand that, I fail to see how an assignment like this is stepping over a line to ensure that they have actually understood their classes.

      FTFA: "There is a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism." - quote from Student in the class who got this assignment.
      To me, that simply means that all her class work went in one ear and out the other. Total head buried in the sand mentality if you ask me.

      FTFA: "Brian Deegan, whose son, Josh, was killed in the 2002 Bali bombings, said the reality of terror plots at home in Australia is exactly why students should learn about terrorism in school. He said the teacher could have been on to a good idea if the end result of her lesson was to extract feelings of regret and sympathy for the victims of their fictional massacre."
      Couldn't agree more with this guy. It's good to see that at least some of us Aussies still have common sense and are able to get past all the media frenzy that anything to do with words like "terrorism" or "war on [insert topic]" seem to stir up.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:so... by scotty.m · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. So? This is a nothing issue, parents should never have complained, media should never have published it. I do understand people want to protect their children from sensitive issues, but this real life. Terrorism is real - not learning about the issue will turn impressionable kids into naive adults.

      --
      Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
      [ST8Z6FR57ABE6A8RE9UF]
    3. Re:so... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FTFA: "There is a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism." - quote from Student in the class who got this assignment. To me, that simply means that all her class work went in one ear and out the other. Total head buried in the sand mentality if you ask me.

      Can you please explain why you feel this statement suggest the student hasn't grasped the substance of the lesson? It sounds to me like the student is quite correct: knowing about terrorism doesn't mean you're going to commit acts of terror anymore than knowing about WWII means you're going to invade Poland.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    4. Re:so... by zarzu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I was shocked and quite offended," she said. "I'm offended that it's Australia but I'm disgusted because it doesn't matter where it is, it's still not something you ask someone to do or think about. ... There is a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism."

      that is the original quote from the student. the problem is that she actually implies that thinking like a terrorist makes you a terrorist which is why this sentence is actually against the assignment. of course if this sentence were just standing there alone, any reasonable person would be thinking otherwise because clearly thinking like a terrorist does in no way make you one and this student did miss most of the lesson. just like everyone else who is outraged.

    5. Re:so... by zarzu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      only in the context of her answer. she is arguing against the assignment as you can clearly see (shocked, offended, blabla). the over and over quoted phrase from her point of view means that there is a difference between learning about terrorism (your teacher tells you what it's all about, why it happens, where it happened, etc) and being a terrorist (planning a terrorist attack). she equates the planning of a terrorist attack (thinking like a terrorist) with being a terrorist. now if you don't agree you're quite welcome to explain how she means with the last sentence, in context of her previous outrage of course.

    6. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you look at that quote out of context and in isolation, it looks like what you think it looks like. But that's actually your mistake.

      Consider:

      a) Yes, I'm happy to do this assignment. There's a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism. It's fine.
      and
      b) No way am I going to do this bullshit assignment. There's a difference between being a terrorist and learning about terrorism, ya know!? This crosses the line!

      You're reading the statement in isolation as if it was used in context (a). Which is perfectly reasonable.

      But if you'd actually read and comprehended the article, you'd see that the student was *complaining* about the assignment, and was actually using it similarly to (b).

      IMO, (a) is perfectly valid statement by an intelligent rational person. (b) is a reactionary statement made by an idiot who doesn't even understand what they're saying themselves.

      Yes, it can be hard to understand idiots, sometimes.

  3. Sounds like a good exercise by johnhp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If nothing else, it may make the children more aware of the possibilities regarding terrorism.

    For best effect, they should do it a few times with different criteria. For example they could plan a scenario for ten men, and another for three. Or they could form plans about how to best disrupt commerce, or affect public opinion, etc.

    Best of all would be for them to write origin and outcome stories for their scenarios that are based on real world conflicts. The students could get some interesting insight by taking a look at WHY a terrorist makes an attack, and by exploring the outcome.

    1. Re:Sounds like a good exercise by joocemann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would imagine it served to illustrate the truth about terrorism and the farce of what is claimed to be successes in the supposed 'war' against it. Most people either have a working knowledge, or immediate/easily-found access, to various approaches to the harm/killing of large numbers of people; they just don't know it until they try to think in that mode. I'm sure most people reading this article, or my post, may be inspired to also brainstorm --- and thus uncover the obvious: it is very easy to kill lots of people and terrorize.

      I think the main barrier to terrorism isn't the ways by which it can happen, but rather the incapacity of most people to actually do it.

      It's a shame that some groups of people are left with no other options (some cases), and other groups of people are deceived/manipulated by their faith (other cases), to use terrorism. But its also a shame to carry out multi-billion dollar war efforts against only a fraction of all terrorists, and then continue barking out faux success stories through accomplice and complicit media, as if they are in any way based in reality; the truth being that we've done almost nothing that will truly protect us and while having barely dented the numbers of those in that fraction, we have enraged easily influenced youth to replenish the ranks.

       

    2. Re:Sounds like a good exercise by joocemann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The PLO/PLFF/etc have faced Israel in exactly that sense with Israel basically destroying palestinians in exchange. And yet some palestinians still foster enough hate to continue.

      Scorched earth won't solve terrorism. Terrorism has little to do with any specific group, purpose, or culture. Terrorism is a means by which a small group or individual can garner attention and fear for some purpose.

      The point being that 'some purpose' could be anything. DC Sniper. Red Brigades. IRA. Militant Islam.

      Hell, the owner of LEGO could wipe out hundreds in some easily brainstormed plot --- like driving a large bus into a Linkin Park concert crowd at 120mph -- and then make an announcement that he wants us all to say we love his LEGOs.

      Terror. Terror-ism.

      And if you desire a world that has any sense of freedom, even far less than we enjoy now --- terrorism will not be defeated in any serious sense. Given the risks, such that I'd more likely die from a car accident, or eating meat, or food poisoning --- I say lets keep the freedom going and take basic precaution to known threats.

    3. Re:Sounds like a good exercise by LongearedBat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gorillas are quite peaceful. They like to eat leaves in misty mountains.
      Guerrillas, on the other hand, are humans who fight in small skirmishes.

      Also, I disagree.

      You only win a war when you convince your enemy to stop fighting,
      whether due to exhaustion, lack of ability, or lack of incentive.

      The ultimate victory is not to wipe out your enemy. That’s usually very costly, extremely difficult and can earn you more enemies. (In fact, these are the very reasons why terrorist attacks are counter productive, in that they generate more animosity.)
      The ultimate victory is to turn your enemy into your friend. That usually costs less, is still difficult, but you earn respect from everyone, and you gain a willing ally.

      Having said that, finding a way to make peace can be very difficult. And that’s exactly why situations such as the current floods in northern Pakistan are so important politically, as they give an opportunity for people to show that they want to be friends. If the Taliban hinders foreign aid, then the people will more likely prefer to help friendly foreigners rather than disruptive Taliban, if they can.

    4. Re:Sounds like a good exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This reminds me of over a decade ago, when the "anthrax letters" were circulating through the post office addressed to congress critters.

      At the time I was taking a network plus course at the local community college, and commented to the teacher that the terrorists were not actually trying to kill congress critters, or were woefully incompetent. When asked why I felt that way, I pointed out the following things:

      1) Weapons grade anthrax is difficult to procure. VERY difficult to procure. Especially in the quantities that were being transmitted through the post mail service.
      2) Everyone and his brother knows that congress critters do not answer their own mail.

      Taken together, it would mean that the terrorists were savvy enough to either steal a shitpile of weapons grade anthrax from a government weapons facility ( a pretty awesome feat)-- or were savvy enough to culture it themselves without killing everyone in their cell (another awesome feat), but were somehow too stupid to plan an actually effective delivery technique. This does not follow. It is more likely that the actual intent was to cause national panic over a compromised postal system, or that the "attack" was a ruse designed to distract attention from some other issue, but the latter is fairly deep into the tinfoil hat domain.

      I further added that if *I* had been the terrorist, I would have delivered the weapons grade anthrax directly to the house and senate in the following manner:

      Hijack a fully loaded Krispy Kreme doughnut truck, and steal the driver's clothes and clipboard, then impersonate him.
      Liberally spike all the powdered sugar doughnuts it (the truck) is carrying.
      Drive up to the house and senate buildings, and "Deliver" a "Complimentary free sample" (on behalf of Krispy Kreme, in recognition of the work that they do for our country) to the congress and senate cloak rooms, complete with forged delivery confirmation paperwork. (bonus if you have hacked the delivery schedule database to confirm the delivery in advance. Afterall, this is a terror cell sophisticated enough to secretly heist weapons grade anthrax in the first place.)
      Drive away, knowing you will have gotten a surprisingly large portion of both legislative bodies directly exposed to GI anthrax.

      Needless to say, this line of thinking shocked my instructor sufficiently that she asked me to not talk about it any further, and completely dropped the subject.

      Personally, I thought it was an excellent way to frame the current political situation, and evaluate what was happening around me at the time. The prevailing theories being circulated by the mainstream press did not seem to hold up well under critical review, and motive was, to my knowledge, never fully disclosed. To me, the fact that I could concoct a superior delivery plan on the spot than the one utilized by the terrorists was reason enough to doubt that attacking congress critters was the actual intention. If their plan was to sow seeds of disruption and intrigue, then their plan worked perfectly. The question then, is why they would go through all the trouble of procuring actual anthrax, just to cause a sensationalist media firestorm, when the mere suggestion of anthrax would have been equally sufficient, and also what they stood to gain from creating this media blitz in the first place.

      Having more people think about that situation in the critical light that I did back then, would have instigated a more meaningful investigation by the mainstream press, and would have neutered much of the shock and awe value of the event in question, instead fostering useful, and rational inquiry.

      Personally, I think this teacher is on the right track here.

    5. Re:Sounds like a good exercise by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Scorched earth worked to end the Guerilla phase of the anglo boer war.

      The price was the slow death by disease and starvation of 27 000 women and children...

      But that wasn't terrorism, it was guerilla tactics in a formally declared war used by the invaded nation as a defense against the invaders.

      When you're dealing with actual terrorists - no it doesn't work. It worked because the Boers had lost a LOT but not everything - it worked because surrender meant saving the ones still alive.

      If you try to leave guerillas with nothing "to fight for" what you actually do is leave them with "nothing to lose" - every civilian you kill in a country means 5 formerly moderate family members signing up at the nearest training camp.
      In fact I think you'll find scorched earth policies is the best possible way to make a LOT more terrorists. When you make people feel that they are fighting a genuinely just war against a cruel and murderous nation - you remove all the moral blocks that stop people like you and me from using bombs to get our way. You remove the family ties that make us reconsider.
      Most of us won't risk our families suffer for our believes. But when we've already lost them - avenging them can become all we still care about.

      Scorched earth policies only work when you're fighting a properly declared war against a force using guerilla tactics against soldiers. It doesn't work against terrorist who target civilians as a matter of course.

      Not to mention there is the whole Geneva convention and such you know...

      It's easy to say scorched earth when you belong to a powerful nation. What if you were born in one of the smaller, oppressed nations - and some insane people in your country planted a bomb on the soil of a powerful one they have a grudge against ? Hell Timothy Mcveigh is your own piece of proof that terrorists targeting their own people is not unusual - rationality doesn't enter into it by definition.

      So after Mad Mickey plants his bomb, the powerful nation comes and levels your city with misiles, shoots at your children in school busses, their misiles "accidently" hit your schools and hospitals and their soldiers push you around on the streets, rape your mother who was innocently imprisoned because she has alzheimers and walks with a cane and couldn't make it home before curfew because she got disoriented and lost.
      You lose your job because their actions have destroyed your economy and the few family members you have left are struggling and starving and you remember that things were better before they show up.

      Do you say "It's all Mad Micky's fault- let's find him and his cohorts and hand them over so it will end" ?
      Or do you say "Mad Mickey was right all along - these bastards deserve to die for what they do, deserve to suffer as they made us suffer. As we suffer for the crimes of one, so they all should suffer for the crimes of a few of the soldiers. We don't have an army that can beat them in open combat, but we can plant bombs like Mad Mickey did, we can use suicide attacks to get in among them. They killed our women and children - we can kill theirs... we may not be able to win back our homeland, or win a war - but we can make them feel a little bit of the suffering they have made us feel."

      Honestly ? Do you think you wouldn't choose the second option ? Even if you say so - you do realize that almost every person alive WOULD take it.

      You're using scorched earth tactics NOW. All it does is make MORE enemies who have LESS to loose.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:Sounds like a good exercise by blackest_k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the first things declared in the constitution of the United States is all men are created equal and have freedom of religion.

      By tearing away at these fundamental rights, you tear away at the foundation on which America is built.

      Terrorists are not destroying America , misguided patriotic Americans are.

       

      --
      Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
  4. Terrorist lego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where can I acquire those terrorist legos? That just inspired me to get out my blackcats and m80s and recreate the twin tower scenerio, but now with a New York terrorist street battle.

  5. Wonderful idea by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There should be no taboo on thinking thoughts.

    Also, this will definitely get the attention of the class, as opposed to all the "nice thought" problems that are chucked their way.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    1. Re:Wonderful idea by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think this is a taboo on thinking as much as it's a taboo on getting others to think something specific.

      Children are a special part of society that do not carry the same rights and full blown adults. In most cases, children committing crimes aren't even charged with anything close to resembling the same punishment as adults. The reasoning for this is because the Child's mind is still developing and they are literally handicapped when compared to an adult. This reason is the basis in why children are restricted from entering into most contracts, why having sex with them is generally forbidden, why there is a certain age before being allowed to drink or drive or both, and so on.

      Instructing children to create these scenarios is not a good idea as they aren't really capable of the context necessary to fully comprehend the results or the ramifications from the results. what makes it even more disturbing is that the parental supervision, be it from school, from home, or any other organization which maintains control over the child, is most likely not capable of ascertaining when this presents a problem that could carry over to a life threatening situation.

      Pushing adaults to think about this is one thing, pushing children to do it is just a little different. I'm not saying they should never think about it, but when the assignment is a terrorist attack, and the real life consequences can be serious bodily harm including death, a great deal of caution needs to be taken into consideration too.

    2. Re:Wonderful idea by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And magically, on their 18th birthday, children suddenly become endowed with the wisdom of adults, and the ability to properly process such thoughts.

      Horseshit. You teach kids in a supervised environment, and discuss with them their trains of thought. Early. That is the only way that on their 18th birthday, they aren't as handicapped as they were at 17, 16 or even 12.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  6. This teacher should be marked Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The teacher, with every best intention, was attempting to have the students think through someone else's eyes about conflict. I think there are better ways to do that. ... This is not what we expect of professional educators", said Sharyn O'Neill, director-general of the state's Department of Education.

    Funny thing is, if I was a teacher, that is EXACTLY the type of assignment that I would give to students, because it will help them to THINK: analyze, empathize, question, ...

    When I was in school I would often take the most controversial subject that I could think of, and something that I had strong opinions about, and take the opposite point of view and write an essay about it. It was an amazing learning process.

    One of the reasons why I have never EVER considered getting into teaching is because I realized that schools aren't so much about learning as about teaching people to think like everybody else.

    1. Re:This teacher should be marked Troll by SakuraDreams · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny thing is, if I was a teacher, that is EXACTLY the type of assignment that I would give to students, because it will help them to THINK: analyze, empathize, question, ...

      Empathise with the guys planning to kill as many civilians as possible? They could look at the political reasons behind terrorism but to look at the planning of the tactical operation does not seem to add much but condone on some level the killing of innocent people.

    2. Re:This teacher should be marked Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Empathise with the guys planning to kill as many civilians as possible? They could look at the political reasons behind terrorism but to look at the planning of the tactical operation does not seem to add much but condone on some level the killing of innocent people.

      What you put into it is what you get out of it. I'm not sure the course would be as simplistic as the journalism would have you believe (but who knows, this IS high school after-all). Learning tactics alone and of itself isn't necessarily a bogus pursuit either, it all depends on how the exercise is framed, and how the educational experience is mentored.

      Such an activity could mean they learn a LOT about history, politics, sociology, psychology, etc. For example, they could learn:

      • They could create financing for enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend tactic, which is how Pakistan financed its nuclear weapons program and funded Islamist terrorists (all through the U.S. tax dollars, which were supposed to be going the the Mujahideen)
      • They could use religion and custom to create suicide bombers. Example: rape woman and then "convince" them to become suicide bombers because they are now social outcasts. Something which was (is?) common in Chechnya.
      • Just let injustice happen naturally, like in Isreal, IIRC a former Prime Minister interviewed many former terrorists in Isreali jails to discover their motivations and found that most of them had their families killed by Isreali soldiers, their houses bulldozed etc. Allowing ethnic cleansing to occur is a great way to spur terrorism.

      These are just three examples of how these (high school) "children" can learn what it is like to be a terrorist. It sure beats learning about terrorism on the news.

      BTW, I read a LOT (mainly REAL books) and learn from the Internet as well (blogs, Wikipedia, even Slashdot!). I was going to try to find some references for my learning points above but the first thing that came up was this little gem. So I figured I'll let people just do their own Google/research if they want specific references. It's not that hard, and it's a lot more useful than being spoon-fed (and time and laziness are never on my side :P)

      - regards,

      the OP

  7. I'm tired of this... by Superdarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we really that easily influenced? I mean, think-of-the-children-people are so affraid that if the kids watch a violent movie, play a violent videogame, listen to violent music and, in general, have any contact whatsoever with violent behavior, even if it's only in the theoretical level, they'll turn into killing machines who beat their wives and rape their children.

    Does "thinking like the enemy" really make you the enemy? Are we really so easily modeled that we need to shield our children from being in contact with any type of non-optimal behavior (whatever that is) so that they can be molded into model citizens?

    I know this is just anecdotal, but I have had contact with lots of violence, both in paper as in reality, and I have never been violent a single time in my life. I often think about terrorism as an empathy exercise and it doesn't mean I'm actually planning to do it.

    Think like the enemy is a good way to empathize. The enemy is made of people, just like us, and just like us they have their issues and problems that drive them to terrorism. Is it really that terrible that a teacher is trying to teach the students about other cultures? Hell, try to think like a suicide bomber. That's a good empathy exercise.

    Understanding terrorists might prove to be the only way to stop them.

    1. Re:I'm tired of this... by cduffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was more or less a military exercise in how to kill people which is disturbing considering the targets were innocent civilians and the desired outcome was to force an entity entirely different to adopt some political line.

      These are good reasons to think about such attacks; what vulnerabilities they would use, how to defend against them, the cost/benefit analysis of such defenses, and the like. How can we expect to be equipped to decide what constitutes a reasonable precaution or an effective security measure if hypotheticals are taboo?

      An assignment to work out the logistics of running an attack, beyond being creativity-inducing in and of itself, is certainly going to raise the ethical and moral questions -- at least among any students with the slightest bit of introspection and curiosity.

    2. Re:I'm tired of this... by Trintech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think like the enemy is a good way to empathize. The enemy is made of people, just like us, and just like us they have their issues and problems that drive them to terrorism.

      Thank you for bringing this up. Often, if you are able to actually empathize with the enemy, you realize that they are just a symptom of a bigger problem. As of late, our society has spent far too much time trying to treat symptoms (Root out and kill all terrorists) instead of tackling the real underlying problems (why they hate us in the first place).

  8. What's wrong with that? by Cosgrach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I think that there is nothing wrong with this sort of assignment. In order to anticipate just such attacks, you must think like a terrorist. It may actually increase the safety of the people by getting them to raise their situational awareness. Nothing wrong with that. However, our wonderful government really dislikes the idea of people actually thinking for themselves, especially in this area. Just what do you think would happen if everyone suddenly realized that all the 'security' at the airport does not mean a damn and if everyone also realized that their civil rights have been stripped away and agencies like TSA and DHS really don't seem to have much in the way of limits... The best security on an airliner are the passengers - the likelyhood of another 9-11 type attack is less likely than finding a snowball in hell. Unless they figure out a way to gass all the passengers before making their move. Oh shit! I must be a terrorist!!! I'm fucked now.

    --
    Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    1. Re:What's wrong with that? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      EXACTLY!

      The biggest epiphany one would get from this sort of exercise is just how pointless the security theatre is.

      As soon as you run through an exercise like this, its impossible to reconcile it with there being a need for millimetre wave radar at airports... you can kill just as many people by detonating in the backed up line waiting to go past the damn machine as you can getting on a plane.

      Or go to any of 1000 other venues where people gather... from a county fair to the line up to see a shopping mall Santa.

    2. Re:What's wrong with that? by pehrs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An airplane can have hundreds of people on it. Suicide bombers with man portable bombs can take out tens of people, if lucky. Killing masses of people with people aware of suicide bombers can be pretty tough.

      Yes and no. Sure, you can kill more people with the same amount of explosives if you bring down an airplane, but you forget that the attackers can change their tactics if they don't need to go through security, and large bags are common in an airport. Detonating two 50kg bags of explosives in a crowded airport can easily bring the death-toll into hundreds.

      Terrorists are adaptive. Don't expect them to be stupid and play the game the way you want them to.

  9. Re:It was a TRAP!! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You stupid tiny anklebiters!

    Ship the little shits over to GitMo.

    One man's 'flamebait' is another man's 'brilliant satire'.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  10. Promote this teacher! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the kind of thing that teachers should be teaching. The world can be an ugly place. It's important to teach high school students what kind of things they'll experience in the real world.

    Unfortunately, terrorism is the kind of thing that these young people might experience. Maybe if New York's public schools had done an exercise like this, fewer people would have died on 9-11.

    "Class. If you're on 61st floor of a skyscraper and it and the building next to it are struck by passenger jets, do you 1) Stay at your desk and keep working. 2) Get out of the building and go home for the day."

    I'm giving a lighthearted take on this, but I'm being completely serious. Thank God for teachers like this one.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Promote this teacher! by justinlee37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the parent had a good point that he expressed poorly.

      Basically, while most of us will never experience a terrorist attack, we may experience a home invasion, carjacking, bank robbery, kidnapping, or any other number of hostile actions that are perpetrated against innocents all around the world every day.

      Being able to ask yourself, "how would an assailant plan a crime against me?" is a useful skill as it will naturally lead one to think of ways that they could defend themselves against the crime.

      Furthermore, this sort of project may inspire some students to pursue a career in counter-terrorism. Inspiring children is one of the primary goals of education. Most of us won't go on to be doctors or engineers either, but that doesn't mean we should start cutting our biology and physics programs.

  11. Government Idiots by waltmarkers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I couldn't disagree more vigorously with Ms. O'Neill, it's exactly what I expect of a professional educator. Mature thought is supposed to make us challenge our current assumptions, not change them, but at least think about them.

    This teacher is making people think. And on a completely different note, this is standard practice in a security audit. Think like the bad guy.

    Move along, the only story here is an administrator acting stupidly and hindering someone trying to practice their profession well.

  12. This thinking is needed to understand security by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is therefore something that should be taught to every voter. This would prevent countless instances of fear-mongering, ineffective but costly security measures with negative impact on freedom, etc.

    Obviously, understanding the enemy and what it can do is not something that is desirable from a political point of view. It would be far too easy to spot incompetence and hidden agendas (such as less freedom and giving a lot of money to the industry for very little in return) with this understanding.

    On the other side, teaching this type of thinking does not make us less secure. Any good engineer and most good scientists can design, plan and execute devastating attacks. Practically none do, since these people also understand that terrorism is not an effective way to reach a goal and typically only serves the power-fantasies of the terrorists. This in turn means that the only effective protection from terrorism is not to make it hard to do (as it is not and cannot really be made so), but to make people understand its characteristics. Even less people would then consider terrorism as a way to "fight". The main problem is that understanding that, it becomes quite obvious that politics is either incompetent in this regard or has been lying shamelessly to us for about a decade now.

    Site note: I also think that the political outrage at terrorism has nothing to do with civilian casualties and anything to do with politics regarding terrorism as competition.

    Just to make this perfectly clear, I regard terrorism as ineffective, amoral and completely unacceptable. It is just that the other side (politics) has started to not look much better over the last few years.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  13. I would like my son to do this assignment by thewb005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounded like an amazing assignment. When you choose a side in a debate for class, you are asked to think of every tactic the opposite side will try to use against you. I don't see how an assignment like this would be considered overly insensitive unless it was assigned out of the blue. If it was suggested in the class syllabus and had good justification as a learning experience, then I don't see why it should fly. Wouldn't it be one hell of a learning experience to have your student experience 24 hours in jail to learn about risk and consequence? Wouldn't it be just as valuable to write a report thinking like a terrorist? I think radical assignments like this impacts a student's learning more then any other ho-hum history report would. Wake up parents and look at the world. People spend their lives (and giving them freely) planning to commit terrorist acts. By sheltering our children from reality, they may end up believing everything they see on TV and not KNOW the real world.

  14. Terrorists existed back then too... by denzacar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They were called resistance fighters, partisans and commandos back then.

    There was recently even an American Oscar winning movie glorifying such terrorists.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  15. school shooting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I share the views of most commenters here, that this could be seen as a reasonable exercise.

    But what about this one - an assignment to plan a school shooting.

    A bit more creepy, right?

  16. empathy is not sympathy by nten · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him.

            * Ender Wiggin

    I disagree with Ender. I think you can understand someone very well and not even like them. You may comprehend their motives without agreeing with their choices.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  17. Re:Schneier's Movie-Plot Threat Contest by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You know, I was about to write a post mentioning Bruce Schneier's movie-plot contests.

    One of the most important questions we ought to ask about this project is whether or not the teacher in question was actually prepared to address the implications of this sort of assignment, and particularly how this sort of thinking about painfully specific-but-scary plots distorts proper, rational security thinking. Schneier obviously gets it, but I'm not sure that the teacher here has nearly the same degree of clue. The assignment called specifically for a biological or chemical attack, despite such attacks representing a vanishingly small fraction of total terrorism attacks or deaths. Given that the project was to be evaluated based on the "students' ability to analyze information they had learned on terrorism and chemical and biological warfare and apply it to a real-life scenario", I fear that the assignment would have exactly the wrong effect on students' thinking.

    The project is almost certainly a bad idea not because it 'teaches children to be terrorists' (or some similarly-worded alarmist tripe), but rather because it teaches children to unnecessarily fear terrorists. Imagining a class set of superficially-plausible worst-case scenarios involving deadly chemical and biological agents being used to "kill the MOST innocent civilians" in "an unsuspecting Australian community" then describing in detail "what effects the attack would have on a human body" seems tailor-made to promote irrational terror: visceral fear and revulsion, rather than rational thought and analysis.

    --
    ~Idarubicin