look what my son's being taught in HS....his homework assignment

this has me a tad upset....I'm not sure who wants to know what these kids think about what or who is a terrorist. especially in lieu of the new "homegrown terrorist act" that was just passed by the House and to be voted on in the Senate this week.

on edit: that is not my sons name on the top of the paper.

It always worries me when personal info is given out.

for him to educate his classmates -- and teacher? -- about the very white, very Christian terrorists we have (and have had for some time) in the good US of A who bomb abortion clinics, harass people, try to force their religious beliefs on others through sometimes violent, underhanded methods, etc and so on. Not every terrorist need be from "somewhere else" or have dark hair and features.

:wtf:

Not nearly enough time to research and flesh out a reasonable paper..

The Ministry of Truth: We tell you, you believe. Or else.

the tiny and isolated parts of the earth that are statistically getting colder. You know, because that makes about as much sense as what you're suggesting.

gets. here in the US rightwing terror is the more pervasive or dangerous terror. absolutely. But what grade is this? I agree with the parent. WOuldn't like that taught to my child, unless the teacher is really fantastic.

of their tendancy to vote puke (which hasn't been my experience at all with the church going folk I know) does not give them the right to skew an issue to incredible levels.

It really is a Rush Limbaugh tactic. The VAST VAST majority of terrorists and terrorist acts are related to Islamic fundamentalism, just like the VAST VAST majority of data says that global warming is real and happening. Rush would say, "but Lincoln Nebraska had a colder winter in 2006 than in 2002!!! global warming isn't all that bad!"


Yes, those that bombed abortion clinics were terrorists. I believe those actors numbered somewhere less than a dozen, and deaths caused by those incidents was probably less than a dozen. To compare the two is absolutely laughable. A joke that nobody with a reasonable thinking mind would take seriously.

I played little league baseball for a year when I was 8. You cannot compare me in any reasonable way to Babe Ruth. Yet the poster would say "but, YOU played baseball TOO!!!!111!!!! You're just as much a baseball player as Babe Ruth!!!!"

The concept of the ku klux klan is terrifying, and is a real and present danger here. The concept of people who kill doctors in clinics is terrifying, and probably numbers more people in this country than all of the muslims combined. In other words someone being killed for being gay or black is NO different from any other hate crime. Islamic terrorism is exactly that: a hate crime. If you look at our country, which types of hate crime are more likely to happen?

I would not live in Saudei Arabia. I would be terrified there. So I don't live there. There I would be terrified of the hate crimes against women. I see them all as terrorism equally. They all kill people; their hatred and ignorance is so deep.

That's what happens when you let your politics cloud your vision of reality.

"The concept of people who kill doctors in clinics is terrifying, and probably numbers more people in this country than all of the muslims combined."

Islamic terrorists have killed more than 3,000 Americans domestically, and proabably an extra couple hundred abroad, NOT counting military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Compare that to your laughable assertion... http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm The worst year for violence was 1993. Four people died. Four. Since 1999, only 1 person has been killed.

And if you are still afraid of the KKK, you are liiving in a dream world. Just a bunch of boozed up pussy rednecks reveling in their past.

who are anti-abortion.

As for the kkk, tell that to the people who marched in Jena and saw trucks riding around with nooses in the back. Tell them that they're not dangerous. I've seen them rally in my hometown (in Pennsylvania) and it was absolutely terrifying.

I'm not sure why 9/11 happened, but I do know that our government had three chances to kill BinLaden and they let him walk away three times, so our gov't is obviously not afraid of them.

the KKK, the Nazis, are all made of the same stuff. They are all capable of killing their chosen people to hate. There are many more rightwing christians in this country than there are rightwing muslims. Therefore they are the bigger danger here.
If we were sitting on this board in Saudi Arabia, or Iran, I would be more afraid of the rightwing muslims. And I wouldn't be worrying about the kkk or skinheads.

There are an estimated 5,000 Klan Members nationwide. That's about .0014% of the US population. (Yikes! lol) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

And I have yet to see a Klan rally where the protestors didn't outnumber the cowards under the white sheets. They are a joke, and about as dangerous as getting stung to death by killer bees while being stuck by lightning and contracting Bird Flu all at the same time. Being scared of drug dealers and gangs would be more worth your time.

And your logic that " There are many more rightwing christians in this country than there are rightwing muslims. Therefore they are the bigger danger here. " is a laughable statement fueled by the political leanings of the group your focusing on. Whenever Rightwing Christians destroy 2 massive skyscrapers, blow up 4 jetliners, attack the Pentagon, and kill 3,000 in a single day, then you will be right. Do you base your "dangermeter" on the large numbers of a peaceful group, or the severe damage the less populous group inflicts? Duh. You sound like the morons who claim that illegal immigrants are a dangerous threat because a minority of them have committed murders while in the US. And I assure you the number of convicted killer illegal immigrants is far higher than the number of abortion clinic bombers.

And I'm not saying that we should be terrified of islamic terrorism, there are many more worthwhile things to fear, like drunk drivers and cancer. Terrorism is something that needs to be addressed but not obsessed about. But to say that RW Christians are more dangerous is unfrickingbelieveable. And stupid.

Yer inglish aint all that gud.

And if the government LET them blow up buildings, of course they would.
I'm going to take a wild guess here; my guess is that you are white, not a person of color or of any other ethnic minority.
Many more than 3000 blacks were lynched in this country. All people of all minorities and all colors have known the dangers of hatred for a very long time.

or spelling errors. It would take too much of my valuable time to point them ALL out, there are just too many. Not to mention the lack of any effort toward correct capitalization. Amazing. You have some nerve.

how to spell.

But I never called you a moron. I said you SOUNDED like the morons who claim that illegal immigrants are inherently dangerous because a percentage of their population has been committing heinous crimes. Oh, and I said your opinion was stupid, not that YOU'RE stupid, just your opinion.

We invaded their country, and some of them are fighting back. They have a perfectly good reason to fight. All the more reason why we need to haul ass out of there.

I clearly said NOT Iraq and Afghanistan combat related military deaths. Where is the disconnect here? I don't understand what you're saying. Are you agreeing with my post in a convoluted way or are you just dense?

"They have a perfectly good reason to fight."

I've seen that ignorant crap echoed here often, and I always get pissed off. Is killing Shiites/Sunnis because they are slightly different Muslims a "good reason"? Are foreign born terrorists blowing up crowded market places and killing politicians and police officers freedom fighters? Is imposing a radical Islamic caliphate government, and cleansing the country of infidels a noble aim? How progressive of you. :puke:

At this point we're basically a peacekeeping force there at the request of the Iraqi government, who was legitimately elected by the people of Iraq. The U.S., Iraqi army and police are basically trying to keep the peace between warring religious factions and to drive out foreign born terrorists, who EVERYBODY, including the Iraqi people, despise.

Would native Sudanese have the right to kill U.N. troops in their country if they came in to stop the genocide? Did the Somalis have the right to kill UN/American troops who were there to stop a humanitarian crisis?

And while the actions of the Iraq insurgency are at least (somewhat, sorta) debatable, defending the actions of the Taliban, by saying they have a "perfectly good reason to fight" is vile and disgusting. And ignorant.

There's no such thing as a "Terrorist". There are people who choose to terrorize others, usually the powerless, as a tactic or, in the case of nations like USAmerika and Israel, as a strategy to further what they see as their "national interest".

The terror practiced by Osama and other alleged "Islamists" is directly comparable to that practiced by "Christians" like g.w.bush, Jews like the Mossad and the Zionists in Palestine, the IDF in Palestine, the KKK and their modern equivalent, the police departments of most cities and towns, and yes, wing nuts like the anti-abortion protesters and shooters.

Your assertion that most terrorists are related to Islamic fundamentalism denies the supreme terrorism of g.w. bush, the Christian fundamentalist.

You and Ruth both played the game called "baseball". That's the point!

terrorism.

"as of yet, you will find no clearly agreed upon definition of terrorism."

Yes, interesting back story to that, there used to be an official government definition I guess, there was just one problem: they fit it.

"But what I write causes extreme anger for the very simple reason that I use the U.S. government's official definition of terrorism from the official U.S. code of laws. If you use that definition, it follows very quickly that the U.S. is the leading terrorist state and a major sponsor of terrorism and since that conclusion is unacceptable, it arouses furious anger. But the problem lies in the unwillingness to recognize that your own terrorism is terrorism. This is not just true of the United States, it's true quite generally. Terrorism is something that they do to us. In both cases, it's terrorism and we have to get over that if we're serious about the question."

"The biggest international terror operations that are known are the ones that are run out of Washington." - Noam Chomsky

I hope he isn't frozen by your concern.

My kids enjoyed opportunities like these to dance on their teachers' heads. Let him do the assignment in great earnest and see where it all shakes out. I'd suggest reading the finished product and talking to him about it after he turns it in.

and might be appreciative of the info (having been a teacher, I certainly wouldn't have time then to spend on boards such as DU!)

I've spoken to my son's teacher when things made me uncomfortable and it was much milder than this (my son is 10).

I'd at least discuss it with the teacher--this made ME uncomfortable.

The very first question I'd ask about the assignment would be what risk I would be assuming (if any) for promulgating a definition of terrorism at odds with the conventional wisdom of the United States. Although the first paragraph claims that as yet there is no clearly agreed-upon definition of what constitutes terrorism, the remainder of the assignment definitely points the discerning student in a particular direction.

There also seems to be a lot to review for a project that is to be turned in by the end of the week. Will critical, original thinking be rewarded, or will it put the student on a government watch list?

it seems to be out of the normal curriculum....what i want to know is who supplied the teacher with this supplement assignment and why?

and call it done

put terrorism in a historical perspective with an analysis of McCarthyism. Those who do not learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. Or some such.....

It depends a lot on which side you're on whether you're a patriot or a terrorist.

If your kid is at all like mine, it's been sitting around in the bottom of the back-pack for awhile.

I applaud the assignment, because the definition of "terrorism" has never been adequately explored in the national media (or Congress, for that matter).

This is a viable, current topic, and one that we're going to be dealing with for a while. What, you don't want him exposed to this? Why? There seems little or no overt bias, so what's your beef? If he goes to college he's going to be running into this also, so he might as well get expsoed now.

Sorry I think that you're over-reacting. I also think that you should remove the teacher's name from the paper. It is not only inappropriate to be publishing this, but it could also get you in legal trouble.

We simply don't know. All we're going by is this assignment sheet, which appears farily standard and benign. I simply don't get the OP's concern with this.

At every turn, students should be given the tools to decide for themselves. Force feeding a political agenda (either way) is a mistake.

That's part of why I like student debates - they're not told which is really right or wrong, they're just given the premise that they're supposed to defend and told to research it.

Heritage Foundation?
Front Page Mag?

See a right wing, McCarthyite bent to fascist propaganda sites yet?

Is it a thoughtful assignment, or is it indoctrination disguised as such?

routine fire inspections and report any suspicious activity and or even any persons who are disgruntle with the US gov't...hell he would have to report me then....because i am disgruntle about the present gov admin and its policies.

so yes i am a little disturbed

has the union considered any statement or reaction to that?

It seems to me that this would be of great concern to all of you, not to mention the added workload--and as Olbermann or his guest mentioned, isn't there a serious liability issue there?

Sorry to go off topic and if this is getting too personal, I understand.

Thanks--good luck!

calling them when there is a fire.....or other incident...this is bad news all the way around.

At least I hope not.

I despise where this administration has gone, how it has ripped our Constitution and country to shreds. If I were a NYC firefighter, I would tell DHS to shove it.

However to be disturbed about what is going on in your child's HS class seems to be taking it a little far. It is common for HS or any other group of students to study current events, and terrorism is indeed one of the largest events out there right now. How to define it, how to deal with it, these and many more questions need to be confronted, thought about and dealt with. It seems as though this is what the teacher is wanting to do. When I was a kid, we dealt with the topics of the day, communism, the war in Vietnam, etc. This is simply a continuation of that policy. I really don't understand why you are upset about it unless you want your kid to live in complete ignorance of the topic, or worse yet, form his ideas from whatever garbage is spewed on TV, the MSM or our government. In a classroom he should have the opportunity to examine all sides of the issue and be presented a set of facts from a divergent range of sources, and hopefully this is done in an atmosphere of academic honesty.

they may be looking for disgruntled parents just like the firefighters are looking for people badmouthing the regime.

this is very very much to be concerned with - it is exactly what Noami Wolf is telling us.

I don't know know exactly how to advise the OP, my first reaction is to not let your son speak your truth too obviously in his paper. If there is time, please advise him to just coast it 'neutrally' and don't make any bold statements again the regime. I know that sounds cowardly, but again like Noami said, once she starts seeimg her peers get shut down and taken away, she's shutting the hell up.

If you let these people silence your voice, then they've won. Sorry if I sound harsh, but it is attitudes like yours that allowed other fascist regimes take over in Germany, Italy and elsewhere. Where do you draw the line? Oh, don't have anything out for firefighters to see, don't speak your mind to a teacher, don't speak to your neighbor, your spouse, your kid. You and Wolf may wish to play the "good German" but I certainly won't, nor, hopefully, will millions of others. That's OK, just keep quiet, we'll get our country back for you.

Teaching one's children to shut up and be acquiescent in the face of clear and present evil is not a value that one should instill in children. It leads to evil taking over from a spineless and voiceless people.

of what I am saying.
I am saying do not use your children for your own message and make your views against this administration public for a school paper, basically. No I dn't think the answer is to shut up at all, we should all be hollerin' our heads off - in demonstrations, in writing to congress, etc. etc., supporting groups like Code Pink, people like Wolf and the so many others that are fighting hard against the machine. just leave the kids out of it.

You start shutting them up in school, and that is what they learn and take to adulthood. There is, at least in theory, a sense of academic freedom in schools, and that should be exercised. By asking your child not to speak his/her own mind, you are denying them that academic freedom and teaching them to be silent in the face of that which they don't agree with. I'm not speaking of the student speaking the parents views, I'm speaking of the student speaking their own mind.

maybe just a sense of what we think it should be, but it's not. sorry, that was lost, if ever it was really there, a long time ago. Schools are deliberate in grinding out groupthink and suppressing individual free expression - and it's been the program all along. just have to look at the victors of history books.

We shouldn't fight to retain it, fight to get it back, fight against the machine? Just let that shitball roll right on down the hill, stifling voices and suppressing expression, don't rock the boat, live in fear of what we say, be a good little fucking German?

Fuck that!

in essence.
I know your frustration. but if it was My kid in a situation like this, I would want her under the radar while I find My way to get way above or below it, in My name only.

And would be speaking truth to power no matter what I said. I understand your wish for the kids to go under the radar, to be anonymous, but I shudder at the lessons that is teaching them.

isn't it?
homeschooling in the true sense. be wary.

you have to be very, very, careful what you say these days.
I would not want to be caught in their snare.

to endanger my child.
but it's all in the family anyways, isn't it. no way out.

seriously?

I remember a history class my junior or senior year where we covered topics that were in the news. I think it's ok to learn how to apply analytical reasoning to current events and topics.

If it were slanted, or the teacher's biases were showing, I'd have a problem with it, but the above paper seems neutral.

Considering that the government says we are involved in a long-lasting War on Terror, having high school students define terror seems like a worthy exercise.

hmmmmm typos on homework assignments are never a great sign.

Forrest is a Gump.

A forest has trees.

Nathan Forrest (1821-77) lead a massacre of 300 Black Union soldiers at the surrender of Fort Pillow, Tennessee on April, 12 1864.

Now who would massacre a bunch of surrendering soldiers and who would name a fort "pillow". . .?

I had forgotten that Forrest was a proper name and couldn't figure out for a second why spell check didn't show when I retyped the typo so I wanted to see if it was one of those weird words that it's acceptable to spell in more than one way like judgement/ judgment so I actually looked it up.

on edit-I made a typo on a post making fun of a typo

LOL

Calvary (Golgotha) is the English-language name given to the site, outside of Ancient Jerusalem’s early 1st century walls, of Jesus’ crucifixion..

Cavalry 1 a: an army component mounted on horseback b: an army component moving in motor vehicles or helicopters and assigned to combat missions that require great mobility
2: horsemen <a thousand cavalry in flight>

:hi:

I'm slain by instant grammatical karma.

:rofl:

I think I should contact the teacher and suggest proofreading before handing out assignments. The teacher should set the standard.

:eyes:

:hi:

and the bushies can't speak for 2 mins without invoking 9/11 and the treat of further attacks.

So I guess it could be argued that the GOP is a terrorist organization.

Evidently the teacher is not very skilled at finding sources. I wonder why she did not "suggest" database search terms rather than these most suspect sources. One of the keys to a successful education is the ability to find information -- and not just information supporting a partisan position.

For example, Russell Ackoff's article on the way to stop terrorism is on the internet, but it is "hard to find" as not that many people read Ackoff except for his management and systems theory works; yet in my opinion, it is one of the most important short works on the subject.

High school students enter college and then are totally blank at the concept that the vast majority of the world's questions are not dialectical black-white issues. Their entire mind frame up to that point has been to spit out "fact" and work problems that are not complex, that require little analysis and are not open-ended.

In this teacher's defense, I must say, she does realize that there is no telos on the question of terrorism. However, she either doesn't think the students have the ability to perform any indepth reading or are capable of finding their own sources. One learns by doing, and part of that is to sit side by side as the kids do their searching, to assist them in their sourcing once they find potential ones, and to help them reveal any/whatever bias there is in a source.

Few high school kids are capable of knowing who Bill Kristol is, his ties to various right wing anti-Moslem groups, and that he is not a good example for kids' scholarship -- unless they are trying to assail his spin or do an expose on how a topic can be so widely divisive in the print/online/AV media, using Front Page as an example of spinning to the right.

I find it odd that no foreign English language websites were used as "sources." What about Harretz v. Jerusalem Post? How about transcripts from Democracy Now? The "problem" with the assignment is not the assignment per se, rather the superficial way in which it is doled out and the short time used to present a final product. That is too short a time for a decent seminar paper, much less a high school assignment, where the kids are unable to apply themselves -- largely through no fault of their own -- to the amount of reading such a topic would require.

A much better topic would be one facet of terrorism and not the whole megilla. One would be pressed for time in analyzing one act of terrorism alone, much less a huge topic such as domestic v. international!

The fact that this assigment is so superficial troubles me. The topic is too serious to be given short shrift. However, it won't be on the No Kids Left Behind standardized test, so don't worry about it, kids. It won't affect our funding.

In conclusion, I wonder if the teacher attempted to do her own presentation first in two weeks or so? I doubt it. She would see how hard a job it would be.

But then again, it is the librarians who have to deal with the BS that teachers assign when the kids have no concept on how complicated a topic s/he assigned and think they can dash it off in one long session and get a gentleman's C.

This is a semsester length project, not an aside! And most government teachers, to be fair to them, again, through no fault of their own, are unprepared to undergo instruciton of sourcing individually for each student -- their degrees are not in intellectual development or advanced searching techniques, rather civics/government/history, and then an undergrad degree most probably, with a lot of pedagogy included.

One must recall the findings from Bill Perry's seminal work The Intellectual and Moral Development of College Students at Harvard and realize that beginning students want black-white answers to the world, that they bow to authority, and that therefore an educator's quest should be to help them break that cycle early on, say, in high school! But if the teachers themselves have not progressed on the nine point scale to full intellectual maturity, then how can they expect the students to supercede them?

Suggested links include the Heritage foundation and Horowitz's Frontpage (online) Magazine.

So either the teacher is a partisan right wing douche with no sense of subtlety or is ripping off the work of somebody who is.

I'd insist on an alternate assignment, at the very least.

but otherwise the assignment itself is not much of cause for alarm, is it?


eta: the students aren't bound to those sources, are they?

And though we may disagree with the Heritage foundation's position it would be foolish to assert that that organization hasn't played a major role in shaping US foreign policy and the war on terror. Exhortations to avoid it are akin to advocating ignorance.

With emphasis on the protection granted him by this administration and others before it. A free terrorist.

Study all the government terrorists first - and all the acts of terrorism by our country where the remains were buried or thrown into the sea while innocents were blasted out of the air or their hotel and home.

Peace. Where are the curriculums, exercises, and lessons having to do with peace?

Poor Mr. Gump.

and turn in a paper about right wing terrorism in america, timothy mcveigh, state sponsored terrorism.

see if the teacher lays an egg over it, muhuhahahahaha

causes of terrorism: religious propaganda

incitement from right wing groups in america

opposition to freedom of choice

understanding the terrorist: the mindset of those who watch the 700 club, etc etc

and work your way up through lynchings, Red Scares, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, and the likes of Timothy McVeigh.

That's just a superficial skimming across the history of terrorism in America.

http://www.splcenter.org/

Good place to start for lots of goodies on our own homegrown-RW terror orgs.

RUN Forrest, RUN!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112907J.shtml


(snip)
Odette Wilkens, the executive director of the Equal Justice Alliance, a constitutional watchdog group, compared the legislation to the McCarthy Commission and to the FBI's Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which infiltrated, undermined and spied on civil rights and antiwar groups during the 1950s and 60s.

(snip)

In a speech on the floor of the House before the vote, Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-California), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and author of the bill said, "Free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution - but violent behavior is not. Our plan must be to intervene before a person crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior, to understand the forces at work on the individual and the community, to create an environment that discourages disillusionment and alienation, that instills in young people a sense of belonging and faith in the future."

In the same speech, Harman explained why "homegrown" terrorists are a threat to the US. She offered the explanation that adolescents who might be susceptible to recruitment by gangs might also be potential terrorists.

"Combine that personal adolescent upheaval with the explosion of information technologies and communications tools - tools which American kids are using to broadcast messages from al-Qaeda - and there is a road map to terror, a 'retail outlet' for anger and warped aspirations. Link that intent with a trained terrorist operative who has actual capability, and a 'Made in the USA' suicide bomber is born," Harman said.

The bill specifically identifies the Internet as a tool of radicalization. "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

In a press release, Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington American Civil Liberties Union legislative office, took issue with this characterization. "If Congress finds the Internet is dangerous, then the ACLU will have to worry about censorship and limitations on First Amendment activities. Why go down that road?" Fredrickson asked in a press release.

The ALCU has "serious concerns" about the bill. Fredrickson said, "Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme."

According to Wilkens, the bill, in its current form, lacks specific definitions. which would give the Commission expansive and possibly dangerous powers. The Committee would be set up to address the process of "violent radicalization," which the bill defines as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." According to Wilkens, the bill does not adequately define "an extremist belief system," opening the door for abuse.

"An 'extremist belief system' can be whatever anyone on the commission says it is. Back in the 60s, civil rights leaders and Vietnam War protesters were considered radicals. They weren't committing violence but they were considered radicals because of their belief system," Wilkens said.

The bill would also create a "Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States," on an unspecified University campus. Unlike other Centers of Excellence university-based government research centers created by the Department of Homeland Security, the Center established by this bill could have a chilling effect on political activity on campus because of its specific mission to "assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism," according to Wilkens.

"If you are on campus and the thought police are on campus are you going to want to join a political group?" Wilkens asked.

(snip)

<b> Neither the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) nor Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, voted on the bill.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut). With overwhelming support from the House, it is likely to pass quickly through the Senate.</b>

I think this exercise is intended to promote a certain view about the subject matter. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room to answering the questions based on the information given. If it were my son I would have him do this assignment much like a book report...and then counter propaganda with information from other sites. Really could be an excellent learning tool about how entrenched propaganda is in our daily lives....from two sites listed above...

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/darwinism_materialism.html



maybe your son should write on the bias in the links instead of terrorism.

The link under Section II at answering-islam.org talks specifically about Muslim terrorism. There are homegrown Christian terrorists like Eric Rudolph and those "Army of God" wingnuts, too--unless assassinating doctors who perform abortions and bombing abortion clinics is somehow not terrorism.


Edited for clarity.

Or the sources. Part of teaching US government is having the students understand all sides. She lists some rightwing sources, and she lists things like mediapeace as well as the ICJ. Moreover, this is a very open-ended question asking the student for him or herself to define terrorism and what their thoughts are on the response to it. Finally, outside sources are required, and she does not make any recommendations on what kind to use (other than that she has some Newsweeks available). Frankly, she seems to be starting the discussion, gives some places to start, and then asks students to interject their own thoughts.

I think it is a valid assignment.

If your child puts enough time into it. Define terrorism for himself, explain where he decided on that definition, cite the sources, and then get into the sectional analysis. A good chunk of his paper can even be how terrorism changes depending on the background of the person explaining it.

Sometimes I really miss teaching.

They're going to kill you!!!!

/obligatory

By all means, encourage your child to form his/her own conclusions and cultivate his/her own sources on this one. To me, it appears that this teacher has a lot of respect for the children and asks a lot of them. Such teachers are most often open (and fair) minded.

I don't understand why the links cannot be to straight up news sources instead of sites with a clear agenda.

As to "terrorism", I'm not sure there is any objective authority. Part of the assignment seems to be that you must sort through many voices to form an informed opinion.

Like I said, it seems like the teacher has a great deal of respect for his/her students, imo.

I'd give credit to the teacher for selecting a broad range of sources across the cultural and ideological spectrum. Your son, I imagine is probably welcome to consult additional sources for his project beyond the listed ones (but I wouldn't substitute for the ones listed if your point is to avoid sources that you disagree with -- I would deduct points for that type of activity)

Of interest after the exhaustive list of hate websites (mostly ayaran, skinhead, KKK, religious intolerance) there is a much shorter list of "anti-hate" webistes, and among them is one I've contributed to- the Southern Poverty Law Center. They advocate tolerance and a watchful eye on the hate groups, but mostly education (teach your children well).

This assignment should be quite an eye opener, and I am hoping that useful dialogue is what this teacher will facilitate in class. It sounds like an assignment that won't soon be forgotten.

There sure are a lot of haters out there... If this is "home grown terrorism, I'm hoping the point of how SPLC "fights" against it will prevail. I'm hoping that HR 1955 passage will also be discussed!

and this is HS? Sounds like a near college-level assignment to me. Kudos to the instructor for challenging the students!

Because there are no non-Muslim or Caucasian terrorists. :eyes:

The sources and assignment seem appropriate enough. However, without knowing the context (the curriculum, supporting instruction, even specific grade level) it isn't really fair to judge a worksheet/assignment. If students had been studying the concept of ideological bias and how to identify it on the Web, it becomes an even better assignment (obviously, every assignment isn't going to recap every concept the teacher has covered in the class).
However, if this is an assignment for a music class and the students haven't been exposed to the Internet at all, well, Jeez, that teacher needs to be fired. If it isn't for a class, but was given to all the students by CIA visitors--then be afraid, very afraid. The point is, the assignment itself is neutral and being alarmed (or pleased) by the assignment doesn't make sense without context. Talk to your kid about the rest of class to get some context, then go talk to the teacher, but don't go breathing fire assuming the worst.

What kind of a NAZI teacher is this??

An enemy combatantis anyone I say it is.

GW Bush

but I can't even get what the assignment is.

This is the kind of assignment you get the feeling where the grade is going to really count on knowing the teachers mindset. This is an assignment not to find out more about terrorism but to guess correctly what your teacher wants to hear.

Such as "how likely is it for you to be injured or killed by an act of terorism compared to ____________.

Seems to me, that's a worthy skill to know. Might be something worth going into in section #1.

That really is an interesting collection of data your son and his classmates are required to accomplish in one day.

What will be done with the results after the kids turn in their papers?

If someone doesn't answer the questions according to the teachers beliefs, what will the teacher do with all that data supplied to them by the students?

Will the teacher call in "Homeland Security" if they "think" they have a problem?

I have to be a little concerned about this since "Homeland Security" is now training NY Fire Fighters to start reporting on people who fit a certain profile.

Please keep us updated on this topic, ElsewheresDaughter.

and the inevitable bias towards islamic terrorism. islamic terrorism is certainly worthy of studying, but the teacher phrased the project as if "terrorism" could ONLY be "islamic terrorism".

that is not a good lesson to be teaching our children.

they will go to the web-sites listed and blah, blah repeat for their grade... But for me, I would go straight to the library, if they have a good one, and get real poli-sci journals and psych journals that try to understand human's and religion along with political events that shape people's immediate lives.

I would approach the subject very broadly like this because schools have become a crazy place where they keep your records, and you wouldn't want the school up in arms over your child recognizing that the USA is a terrorist nation to other's.

Of course, there's not much time left on the subject to really involve him/ herself in the project. This is a great discussion topic for our young people to learn about. Hopefully, its taught without r.w. objectives.

Assuming of course thats the belief system of you and your son. Our side has good answers imo to all those questions. Assuming the teacher is not some freeper I am sure your kid will get an A! :)

Assignment aside, just the spelling and grammar mistakes, makes me look askance at the actual assignment.

x(

but there is plenty of wiggle room and it looks like it is trying to encourage a bit of critical thinking. Had it been limited to only the websites provided by the teacher, I would have a problem with it. He doesn't have to go with the Heritage website but could go to PNAC and discuss how they perpetrate terrorism. This is actually an incredibly rich topic and I can't believe it's due tomorrow. Surely, that's wrong, isn't it?

my view of such assignments has shifted quite a bit from what I naiively once would have thought was an attempt to explore a current topic.

Shaping public opinion through the schools is not respectful of students as diverse individuals. I never imagined that it could be so hard to distinguish the teaching of "critical thinking skills" and a tool for fascism or indoctrination.

The hardest part to get your head around is that teachers can even be unwitting accomplices -- at my son's elementary, the school requires that teachers keep a permanent file with each child's writings. What gets done with that?

I am starting to wonder whether it is appropriate to have graded curriculums on anything more than basic reading, writing, and arithmetic...perhaps geography and hard science. Let the individual mind be equipped with such tools, and then let each mind be free to shape itself, and not be graded in the process of doing so. Of course, with the severe warp imposed by TV, the result of that probably wouldn't be pretty either.