Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Tok Presentation Plan for Michael and Metin

1. The real life situation under consideration will be the poison gas attack
by Saddam Hussein on the Kurdish town of Halabja.

2. “How can authority figures use ethics to determine when the use of
weapons of mass destruction and biochemical warfare is justifiable?” or
“How do leaders such as Saddam Hussein use belief to justify their
actions when others disapprove?” or “How can science be used to
justify the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction such as those
used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish town of Halabja?

• The presentation will explore the areas of ethics, science and belief in
relation to the use of weapons of mass destruction using the events of the
Iraq-Iran war, namely those which took place in the gassing of the Kurds in
Halabja.

• The presentation will take a form similar to that of a talk show or


documentation. One will play a military official arguing that weapons of
mass destruction are a necessary precaution while the other will argue
against, citing that the use of these weapons is not worth the collateral
damage and stockpiles should be prohibited.

• Both sides will discuss ethical and ToK issues more than in normal
conversation. Neither will argue their side obstinately and very little
opinion will be advocated.

• We will link this topic to herd mentality as well as the negative effects of
extreme beliefs, using the example of Saddam Hussein.

• We will use statistics and images of the event to spark “arguments”


between the two characters.

Characters played:

1. Metin: Defence minister for iraq


Michael: Humans rights activist

1. What, if anything justifies the use of weapons of mass


destruction such as those used in the Halabja gas attacks?

2. Who should be responsible for deciding what weapons are legal


and which aren’t? How can scientific data be used to support
this?
3. How did saddam use belief and religion to justify his actions to
the people of his country?

4. How can knowledge about the global effects of weapons of mass


destruction be transferred to those who possess them?

5. Are ethics sufficient justification to condemn Saddam’s actions or


does more need to be presented?

Our country and its military believe that any threat to our country
has to be dealt with immediately. Our belief is that we can justify the use
of these weapons because the Kurdish population in our country was a
threat and needed to be dealt with immediately. We would have preferred
to remove this population through other means, but when this failed we
reached the realization, thanks to the justifications of our leader Saddam
Hussein, who convinced us that these steps were necessary. In addition,
our country as a whole believed that the Kurdish population was not
entitled to the same rights as us, as we believed that they were a
subhuman population, much like the anti-Semitic attitude present in the
Second World War.

If you ask me personally what my opinion is, I believe that the


military has sufficient knowledge of combat and understanding of ethics to
be responsible for the use of such weapons. I believe it is moral that those
entrusted with the safety of a country should also make decisions as to
what degree of force or lethality can be used. In the case of the Halabja
gas attacks, the final decision was made by our superior, although some of
our military believed that such a degree of force was unnecessary.
However, it was not our place to question the ethics of our leaders.

Our leader Saddam Hussein has always told us that we are never to
be punished because Allah is on our side. This is the belief of the military
as well as our people. Looking back, perhaps it was not a good enough
reason, but people respond well when blame is shifted to those above. The
use of religion to justify our actions in these attacks is still seen today by
so called “developed” countries. E.g. the United States dollar bills “In God
we trust.”

Вам также может понравиться