Split from the Haneef thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1184426736/135

In response to mantras post:

Why aren't the AFP using some of these resources to lay charges on the executives and directors of the AWB who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism?  

mantra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 8:57pm:

Quote: Witch hunt?  Is she the judge and jury?  Has she decided whether police investigations are valid or invalid?  Is she a policewoman?  Is she a Greeny and likes to tell everyone what they may do The Greens have every right to comment because this has been a witch hunt.  Haneef has been cleared by the highest Court of Law in the land and had his visa returned, so he is lawfully entitled to his freedom. Why aren't the AFP using some of these resources to lay charges on the executives and directors of the AWB who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism?

Have they?  Your evidence of the determination that they have been  "complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism" if you would be so kind.  I hope you are not defaming them.

And your proof the ongoing AFP investigation is a 'witch hunt' would be appropriate too.  Merely saying it does not make it true.

Quote:

Have they?  Your evidence of the determination that they have been  "complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism" if you would be so kind.  I hope you are not defaming them. And your proof the ongoing AFP investigation is a 'witch hunt' would be appropriate too.  Merely saying it does not make it true.

Obviously there is some evidence DT otherwise Terence Cole wouldn't have made this finding.


Quote:

Commissioner Terence Cole's 2,000 page tome also predictably exonerates the Howard government, but criticises the lack of action by foreign affairs officials in investigating the scandal. AWB faced its final humiliation on Monday, with the government agreeing to Mr Cole's recommendation to set up a taskforce including federal and Victorian police to consider a string of possible offences by its former senior staff. AWB's conduct was spurred by the arrogance associated with its monopoly powers, Mr Cole said, which also saw it deceive the United Nations under the oil-for-food program run by the world body. "At no time did AWB tell the Australian government or the United Nations of its true arrangements with Iraq," the report said. "And when inquiries were mounted into its activities it took all available measures to restrict and minimise disclosure of what had occurred. Necessarily, one asks, why? "The answer is a closed culture of superiority and impregnability, of dominance and self-importance." Mr Cole's list of individuals he recommends be investigated as accessories to AWB's alleged offences includes former company chairman Trevor Flugge, former chief executive Murray Rogers and former chief financial officer Paul Ingleby. He also suggests further investigation of a 12th person - Norman Davidson Kelly - a former BHP executive who founded a related company, Tigris Petroleum, which was central to an allegedly illegal debt recovery conducted by AWB. "Mr Davidson Kelly is a thoroughly disreputable man with no commercial morality," the report said. The taskforce will determine if the actions of AWB and the individuals amounted to breaches of the federal Crimes Act, the commonwealth Criminal Code and Victoria's Crimes Act. The alleged offences relate broadly to official deception, including dishonestly influencing public officials. Mr Cole also recommended AWB and its former executives face further investigation for possible breaches of the Corporations Act and federal banking regulations.

As far as my statement "complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism", it no doubt is a little premature, but hopefully Rudd will re-open this can of worms at a later date and ensure that these 12 men are investigated and charged accordingly.

In regard to Haneef - he has been exonerated - end of story.  If the AFP keep up this persecution, the Australian government will be sued for millions.

mantra wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 10:53pm:

Quote: Have they?  Your evidence of the determination that they have been  "complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism" if you would be so kind.  I hope you are not defaming them. And your proof the ongoing AFP investigation is a 'witch hunt' would be appropriate too.  Merely saying it does not make it true. Obviously there is some evidence DT otherwise Terence Cole wouldn't have made this finding. [quote]Commissioner Terence Cole's 2,000 page tome also predictably exonerates the Howard government, but criticises the lack of action by foreign affairs officials in investigating the scandal. AWB faced its final humiliation on Monday, with the government agreeing to Mr Cole's recommendation to set up a taskforce including federal and Victorian police to consider a string of possible offences by its former senior staff. AWB's conduct was spurred by the arrogance associated with its monopoly powers, Mr Cole said, which also saw it deceive the United Nations under the oil-for-food program run by the world body. "At no time did AWB tell the Australian government or the United Nations of its true arrangements with Iraq," the report said. "And when inquiries were mounted into its activities it took all available measures to restrict and minimise disclosure of what had occurred. Necessarily, one asks, why? "The answer is a closed culture of superiority and impregnability, of dominance and self-importance." Mr Cole's list of individuals he recommends be investigated as accessories to AWB's alleged offences includes former company chairman Trevor Flugge, former chief executive Murray Rogers and former chief financial officer Paul Ingleby. He also suggests further investigation of a 12th person - Norman Davidson Kelly - a former BHP executive who founded a related company, Tigris Petroleum, which was central to an allegedly illegal debt recovery conducted by AWB. "Mr Davidson Kelly is a thoroughly disreputable man with no commercial morality," the report said. The taskforce will determine if the actions of AWB and the individuals amounted to breaches of the federal Crimes Act, the commonwealth Criminal Code and Victoria's Crimes Act. The alleged offences relate broadly to official deception, including dishonestly influencing public officials. Mr Cole also recommended AWB and its former executives face further investigation for possible breaches of the Corporations Act and federal banking regulations.

As far as my statement "complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism", it no doubt is a little premature, but hopefully Rudd will re-open this can of worms at a later date and ensure that these 12 men are investigated and charged accordingly.

In regard to Haneef - he has been exonerated - end of story.  If the AFP keep up this persecution, the Australian government will be sued for millions.
[/quote]


I think you should be apologising for your defamatory comments mantra.

The article you posted says

The alleged offences relate broadly to official deception, including dishonestly influencing public officials

I see no mention of the "heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism".

That's a very serious allegation you have made.  And it is completely unsupportable.

As is the claim that the AFP are 'persecuting' Haneef.  He and his lawyer were unaware of any ongoing investigation.  How can you call it persecution when it is a normal police investigation going on without anyone's knowledge?

Once again your defamatory comments could lead you into hot water.

Quote:

has been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism?

At least quote me correctly.  Terence Cole determined that at least 11 AWB executives be investigated - possibly a twelfth.  Did the $300 million go to the "Oil for food Program" or did it go to Hussein's trucking company, while he was still in power?  Do you believe Hussein and his henchmen fed the people with this "bribe" money, or did it go to buy weapons to fight the Coalition of the Willing?

How are the AFP investigations going into the 12 AWB suspects?  Why are all these extra resources going into investigating Haneef?  Maybe they could split the investigation team and pursue those who were complicit in feeding Hussein's arsonal?

Treason or terrorism - what do you think DT?

mantra wrote on Apr 7^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

Quote: has been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism?   At least quote me correctly.  Terence Cole determined that at least 11 AWB executives be investigated - possibly a twelfth.  Did the $300 million go to the "Oil for food Program" or did it go to Hussein's trucking company, while he was still in power?  Do you believe Hussein and his henchmen fed the people with this "bribe" money, or did it go to buy weapons to fight the Coalition of the Willing? How are the AFP investigations going into the 12 AWB suspects?  Why are all these extra resources going into investigating Haneef?  Maybe they could split the investigation team and pursue those who were complicit in feeding Hussein's arsonal? Treason or terrorism - what do you think DT?

I copied your post so I have no idea why you think it was incorrect.  They were your words.

That aside the money paid to Saddam by AWB was not intentionally paid to aid or abet terrorists.  And they were certainly not "complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism" as you allege.

No one has stated that - except you.

It seems the kick backs were the cost of doing business and for the most part either approved by, or ignored by, the UN Security Council   Over 2000 companies paid kickbacks totalling over $2billion. But that was dwarfed by the illegal oil sales with kickbacks totalling over $14billion - again, some of this was with UN Security Council knowledge.

In order to get any money to the people of Iraq it seemed to be necessary to pay Saddam his bribes.  Not ideal but the alternative of starving Iraqis was considered to be worse.

And unfortunately not legal in Australia.

However Australia, under the coalition, was one of the only countries which launched an investigation.  Nothing much at all happened to the 2000 plus companies who paid kickbacks which are not Australian companies.

Treason?  No   Terrorism?  No.

Dishonestly influencing public officials?  It seems so.

Quote:

Dishonestly influencing public officials?  It seems so

Well that's a sugar coated version - but we have to look at the results of the dishonesty of the AWB and where this has led.  It's not a good look on the global wheat market and the US is taking some legal action I believe.

The farmers aren't altogether happy either and neither would those Iraqi families who had loved ones murdered as a result of the bribery and corruption scandal officially overseen, but carelessly overlooked by a coalition Minister.

The AWB was a pet hate of Rudds so there would be some optimism that he will have this matter followed up eventually and penalties and charges dealt to the criminals.  

---

mantra wrote on Apr 7^th, 2008 at 5:30pm:

Quote: Dishonestly influencing public officials?  It seems so Well that's a sugar coated version - but we have to look at the results of the dishonesty of the AWB and where this has led.  It's not a good look on the global wheat market and the US is taking some legal action I believe. The farmers aren't altogether happy either and neither would those Iraqi families who had loved ones murdered as a result of the bribery and corruption scandal officially overseen, but carelessly overlooked by a coalition Minister. The AWB was a pet hate of Rudds so there would be some optimism that he will have this matter followed up eventually and penalties and charges dealt to the criminals.

The 'sugar coated version' as you call it is yours - you posted the article which contains the alleged offences.

You are very fond of defamation aren't you?

From defaming the people at the AWB (and they are serious claims you made), to the AFP and now the 'coalition minister' -

Iraqi families who had loved ones murdered as a result of the bribery and corruption scandal officially overseen, but carelessly overlooked by a coalition Minister.

I expect you will withdraw your allegation that any 'bribery and corruption scandal' that caused 'loved ones to be murdered' was 'officially overseen' and 'carelessly overlooked' by a coalition minister and level the charge where it belongs - you should know that the OFF program was overseen by the UN.  If you wish to spit venom at least spit it in the right direction.

Pig Iron Kev will do the same as he has done about everything since getting his nose into the trough - nothing.

Calm down DT.  You haven't stopped defaming and denigrating Rudd since he got into power and singing the praises of Howard - who is now defunct thank goodness.  

I have said nothing that the papers haven't already printed.  The bribes went to Saddam's trucking company for weapons.  Those weapons added to the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Most thinking people are aware of how limited the Cole Inquiry was and that the perimeters were narrowed by Howard (mate of Cole's), to ensure no government Minister was investigated.

mantra wrote on Apr 7^th, 2008 at 7:11pm:

Calm down DT.  You haven't stopped defaming and denigrating Rudd since he got into power and singing the praises of Howard - who is now defunct thank goodness.   I have said nothing that the papers haven't already printed.  The bribes went to Saddam's trucking company for weapons.  Those weapons added to the killing of innocent Iraqi civilians. Most thinking people are aware of how limited the Cole Inquiry was and that the perimeters were narrowed by Howard (mate of Cole's), to ensure no government Minister was investigated.

I don't believe the papers have made defamatory claims as you have but if you believe they have then post a few of the news items.  It is very dangerous territory you are in.

And I have not defamed Kevvy, I have made political comment about Kevvy and the freedom to do so is enshrined in Australian common law.

Your comments have AWB members enabling terrorism and ministers overseeing murder.

Those defamatory statements are decidedly different to calling Pig Iron Kevvy a wally which would have the defence of truth anyway.

Incidentally the Cole Commission had all the muscle it needed and wanted.  It dragged MPs including the PM before it and the government always made it clear that whatever power Cole wanted he could have.  Your claims, again, have no basis in truth. You sound like a parrot of the Liebor Party who continually whined that refrain during the whole inquiry.

Quote:

Your comments have AWB members enabling terrorism and ministers overseeing murder.

They are your words DT.  You need to read and dissect my posts properly.  If that's how you've interpreted it, it proves just how defensive you are when it comes to any insinuation that Howard and his government were less than perfect.

My point is that the AWB scandal needs thorough investigation, equal to the one involving Haneef.

mantra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:46am:

Quote: Your comments have AWB members enabling terrorism and ministers overseeing murder. They are your words DT.  You need to read and dissect my posts properly.  If that's how you've interpreted it, it proves just how defensive you are when it comes to any insinuation that Howard and his government were less than perfect. My point is that the AWB scandal needs thorough investigation, equal to the one involving Haneef.

Really?  My words?  So I said this and not you?



Quote:

executives and directors of the AWB who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism

Quote:

loved ones murdered as a result of the bribery and corruption scandal officially overseen, but carelessly overlooked by a coalition Minister

In that case I withdraw those allegations at onc . . . . .

Wait a minute.  It was you who said it.

I am not in the slightest bit defensive.  Because I am fully aware that the investigations into AWB exceeded any other investigations anywhere in the world following the Volcker Report and the ultimate Cole Commission.  Subsequent to this the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission also launched full investigations.  There is every likelihood that not only will criminal charges be laid but ASIC has also indicated it will be laying civil charges as well.

Keeping abreast of the news is wise to avoid looking foolish.

I recommend withdrawing your defamatory allegations still.  Once it hits the courts your comments will break the law.

Quote:

Keeping abreast of the news is wise to avoid looking foolish. I recommend withdrawing your defamatory allegations still.  Once it hits the courts your comments will break the law.

I will agree with the first part of your statement - I haven't read or heard "everything" on the news, but as far as defamatory allegations, I don't think so.

You conveniently highlighted certain words of my statement:

who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism

If the AWB execs hadn't been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism - why are the AFP and ASIC still investigating them - in your words?

"There is every likelihood that not only will criminal charges be laid but ASIC has also indicated it will be laying civil charges as well."

As far as this statement goes - you've only highlighted certain words and part of the sentence - this is how it reads!

The farmers aren't altogether happy either and neither would those Iraqi families who had loved ones murdered as a result of the bribery and corruption scandal officially overseen, but carelessly overlooked by a coalition Minister.

You can't dispute that because you stated yourself there is an investigation into the criminality of the AWB executives.  It has already been stated by Cole that "nothing" was brought to the attention of Downer but everyone associated with his ministry was blamed for not "notifying" him.

No-one believes this for a second.

mantra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 9:00am:

Quote: Keeping abreast of the news is wise to avoid looking foolish. I recommend withdrawing your defamatory allegations still.  Once it hits the courts your comments will break the law. I will agree with the first part of your statement - I haven't read or heard "everything" on the news, but as far as defamatory allegations, I don't think so. You conveniently highlighted certain words of my statement: who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism If the AWB execs hadn't been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism - why are the AFP and ASIC still investigating them - in your words? "There is every likelihood that not only will criminal charges be laid but ASIC has also indicated it will be laying civil charges as well." As far as this statement goes - you've only highlighted certain words and part of the sentence - this is how it reads! The farmers aren't altogether happy either and neither would those Iraqi families who had loved ones murdered as a result of the bribery and corruption scandal officially overseen, but carelessly overlooked by a coalition Minister. You can't dispute that because you stated yourself there is an investigation into the criminality of the AWB executives.  It has already been stated by Cole that "nothing" was brought to the attention of Downer but everyone associated with his ministry was blamed for not "notifying" him. No-one believes this for a second.

I can only advise you but it is up to you what you ultimately do about defamatory statements or breaches of sub judice rules.

As far as I am aware no one from AWB is being investiagted for anything to do with terrorism in any way - this is entirely your creation (and as I keep saying it is very serious to make such allegations).

You will find the alleged charges will be along the lines of breaches of trade practices/fair trading (civil) and bribery of public officials (criminal).

I strongly doubt any 'terror related' issues will arise and your speculation is entirely fictional.

And as far as your belief that no one 'believed for a second'?  Cole did.   He said so quite clearly in his report.


Quote:

"There is no evidence that any of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade or the Minister for Agriculture … were ever informed about, or otherwise acquired knowledge of, the relevant activities of AWB. "At no time did AWB tell the Australian Government or the United Nations of its true arrangements with Iraq,"

You are probably alone in your belief.  Unless you think Cole is telling porkies.

So DT - you're a law student (albeit an overly enthusiastic one), or are you the one remaining censor on behalf of the now defunct coalition?

I can assure you I'm not breaking any laws - but if you want to test it -complain to the Internet Censorship Tribunal, which I believe the coalition revamped to restrict negative views or criticism of their performance while they were in government.

mantra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 12:46pm:

So DT - you're a law student (albeit an overly enthusiastic one), or are you the one remaining censor on behalf of the now defunct coalition? I can assure you I'm not breaking any laws - but if you want to test it -complain to the Internet Censorship Tribunal, which I believe the coalition revamped to restrict negative views or criticism of their performance while they were in government.

Who or what I am is irrelevant (though I can not recall saying I was a law student), what matters is truth.

No one has found the AWB people guilty of, nor have they been charged with, any acts of terror, giving any aid to terrorists or offering comfort to terrorists.  To say that it has already been determined that they have been complicit in the heinous act of enabling terrorism as you did is a very serious allegation and is clearly defamatory.  Unless you know your claims to be true and can offer a defence of truth you would lose any case brought against you. That is the truth.

But I have no idea why you should think I am a 'censor' for the Libs.  I champion the Libs, that is true, but the AWB and the AFP are not members of the Liberal Party.  Did you think they were?

That's a very odd thing to say as is the speculation about my private life.  I am not important, what matters here is the facts.

The AWB gave money to Saddam, an enemy of the state, while there were laws in palce specifically forbidding this. That money no doubt ended up aiding the enemy while we were at war with them. Whether they get charged with a specific offense is not the same question as whether they actually did it. To pretend that what they did amounts to nothing more than bribery or whatever in a place where it is part of doing business, because that was all they were charged with, misses the point completely.

Deepthought your argument is little more than a strawman because wherever there is ambiguity in mantra's claims you interpret in an a way that is clearly contrary to the intended meaning. It's easy to show how your misinterpretation of her claims are technically wrong, but totally pointless.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 1:48pm:

The AWB gave money to Saddam, an enemy of the state, while there were laws in palce specifically forbidding this. That money no doubt ended up aiding the enemy while we were at war with them. Whether they get charged with a specific offense is not the same question as whether they actually did it. To pretend that what they did amounts to nothing more than bribery or whatever in a place where it is part of doing business, because that was all they were charged with, misses the point completely. Deepthought your argument is little more than a strawman because wherever there is ambiguity in mantra's claims you interpret in an a way that is clearly contrary to the intended meaning. It's easy to show how your misinterpretation of her claims are technically wrong, but totally pointless.

I'm afraid you are wrong.  Again.

This is like the argument you made about Australia being at war with Japan before any war commenced.

The Oil For Food program ran from 1995 to 2003 - the program ended around the time of the second Gulf War.

The period covered was between wars and was a humanitarian program to get food to the Iraqis while sanctions were starving them of regular supplies.  No one could possibly know the second Gulf War was going to erupt until very close to the time.

Please try to gather a few facts before involving yourself in discussions you don't understand and in which you are clearly out of your depth.

a humanitarian program to get food to the Iraqis while sanctions were starving them of regular supplies

Tell me deepthought, did those sanctions forbid the payments to Saddam? Where I was ambiguous by not mentioning the specific laws, you deliberately misinterpretted my post to mean laws which did not apply, then pointed out that the laws did not in fact apply. Well done. You are getting very good at shooting down strawmen.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:20pm:

a humanitarian program to get food to the Iraqis while sanctions were starving them of regular supplies Tell me deepthought, did those sanctions forbid the payments to Saddam? Where I was ambiguous by not mentioning the specific laws, you deliberately misinterpretted my post to mean laws which did not apply, then pointed out that the laws did not in fact apply. Well done. You are getting very good at shooting down strawmen.

When you read my posts for the first time you will see I have already mentioned the illegality of the payments.  Do you need me to say it again for the slow of reading?

freediver while I congratulate you for trying to understand, it is required that you read the posts before commenting on what should be in them.

you will see I have already mentioned the illegality of the payments

You mean when you tried to play it down by comparing it to bribing public officials in a place where bribery is part of doing business?

It seems the kick backs were the cost of doing business

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:33pm:

you will see I have already mentioned the illegality of the payments You mean when you tried to play it down by comparing it to bribing public officials in a place where bribery is part of doing business? It seems the kick backs were the cost of doing business

They were.  The Volcker Report at the time made it clear that billions were paid in kick backs by thousands of companies and individuals.  

Probably close to $15billion paid in kick backs.

If that is the culture and the UN apparently overlooks it what would you call it?

And the comment about "bribing public officials" was straight out of the quote by mantra - you will see that when you read the posts for the second time.

What's with your sudden urge to get involved in a discussion you haven't been following and do not understand?

.....and how is Old Mate Haneef going these days?

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:45pm:

.....and how is Old Mate Haneef going these days?

Being fully investigated I understand.

The Volcker Report at the time made it clear that billions were paid in kick backs by thousands of companies and individuals.

Is that supposed to somehow excuse their actions?

Businesses are always assisting enemies of the state by 'doing business' with them, because the laws against it are hard to enforce. What the AWB did is still wrong and still contributed to the deaths of innocent Iraqis and allied soldiers.

Oh well, clearly I have failed to get this Thread back on track, so I might as well get dirty too.


Quote:

Why aren't the AFP using some of these resources to lay charges on the executives and directors of the AWB who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism?

What's the problem with that statement?  The key word is 'complicit,' not 'actually committing the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism.'

It goes like this DT.......

I know you are a tyrannical, murdering dictator.  I don't sell you guns or weapons of war, but, through deception and disguise, I put money in your back pocket which allows you to go buy guns and weapons on war.

All of that makes me 'complicit' to the outcomes of your use of those guns and weapons of war.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:53pm:

The Volcker Report at the time made it clear that billions were paid in kick backs by thousands of companies and individuals. Is that supposed to somehow excuse their actions? Businesses are always assisting enemies of the state by 'doing business' with them, because the laws against it are hard to enforce. What the AWB did is still wrong and still contributed to the deaths of innocent Iraqis and allied soldiers.

No, that is why there is a law against it.  As I have said and repeated.

That is a highly emotive and largely specious argument that any particular dollar paid in kickbacks by any particular firm "contributed to the deaths of innocent Iraqis and allied soldiers".

I have seen this same pathetic attempt before - by the opposition (Liebor) at the time of the whole unravelling of the AWB.  In fact night after night on the broadcasts of Question Time Swan and Rudd gormlessly asked the same questions and got the same factual responses from the coalition.

I have no doubt that next you will regurgitate the line Kevvy barfed up repeatedly about weapons of mass destruction for wheat.

That is a highly emotive and largely specious argument that any particular dollar paid in kickbacks by any particular firm "contributed to the deaths of innocent Iraqis and allied soldiers".

So funding the enemy isn't really that bad then? We should stop getting emotive about it just because it contributess to the deaths of allied soldiers? Or can we safely ignore the contribution because you can't trace a specific dollar to a specific bullet in a specific soldiers head? Maybe Saddam spent that AWB dollar on a cream puff and it was a Canadian dollar that put the bullet in the soldier's head?

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:06pm:

Oh well, clearly I have failed to get this Thread back on track, so I might as well get dirty too. Quote: Why aren't the AFP using some of these resources to lay charges on the executives and directors of the AWB who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism?   What's the problem with that statement?  The key word is 'complicit,' not 'actually committing the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism.' It goes like this DT....... I know you are a tyrannical, murdering dictator.  I don't sell you guns or weapons of war, but, through deception and disguise, I put money in your back pocket which allows you to go buy guns and weapons on war. All of that makes me 'complicit' to the outcomes of your use of those guns and weapons of war.

It was driven off track by mantra with her introduction of the AWB.  Take it up with her.

You are wrong about 'complicity'.  But you have followed the confusion created by freediver's sudden rush to cloud the real issues with his emotionally charged and false statements.

'Complicity' has a plain meaning.  It requires the party (who is complicit) to be aware of the offence committed by the other party and as such liable for prosecution for the offence or a lesser related one.

To state, as mantra did, that the executives at AWB "have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism" is quite specific.

With this statement mantra is claiming that the executives of AWB were fully aware of, and criminally liable for,  "the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism".

As you should be aware no such determination has been made.  To say it is so is defamatory.

No charges have been laid.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:13pm:

That is a highly emotive and largely specious argument that any particular dollar paid in kickbacks by any particular firm "contributed to the deaths of innocent Iraqis and allied soldiers". So funding the enemy isn't really that bad then? We should stop getting emotive about it just because it contributess to the deaths of allied soldiers? Or can we safely ignore the contribution because you can't trace a specific dollar to a specific bullet in a specific soldiers head? Maybe Saddam spent that AWB dollar on a cream puff and it was a Canadian dollar that put the bullet in the soldier's head?

You are still making the argument that a war was taking place.  Please understand it was not. The wheat was humanitarian aid paid for by the OFF program - the bills were paid by the UN.

I believe your spurious claims are what is called a 'strawman' argument.  It is quite unrelated to the real events taking place and your words have no meaning at all if you keep time shifting events to a time and place which suits your argument.

Do you understand the discussion?

There was no war, but there were sanctions, post September 11, against a middle eastern dictator that had already started a few wars including the 'first gulf war'. AWB violated those sanctions. It broke the law to give money to Saddam. The actions were immoral regardless of whether a war started at a later date. The AWB can hardly claim they had no way of anticipating the next war. The sanctions were in place to stop Saddam getting the money for his next war, which if you consider his history was inevitable - if idiots like the AWB funded it.

Your argument is like saying that drink driving is only immoral if you kill someone.

You are still making the argument that a war was taking place.

No I wasn't. This is a strawman. The argument is that AWB contributed to the deaths. You don't have to have 20/20 forsight to argue that your actions contribute to their result.

Quote:

With this statement mantra is claiming that the executives of AWB were fully aware of, and criminally liable for,  "the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism".

Yay, you've got it, except Mantra did not say "criminally liable for."

Mantra said, 'complicit.'  Let's keep this debate honest DT, and leave that straw man poo out of it.

I'll try another short story.

I know you rob banks, you do it regularly, as I know.  I know you need some expertise you need to pay for, but you are short of the readies.

I've got some wheat you need to feed your cows.  You pay me for the wheat, but I pay you $A300M to your trucking company, knowing full well that to truck the wheat costs $A10.00, and that the surplus will very likely go to your obtaining the expertise you need.  In fact, I know, OR ought to know, you will use the money I put in your back pocket to assist in robbing the bank.

I am complicit to your bank robbery.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:37pm:

There was no war, but there were sanctions, post September 11, against a middle eastern dictator that had already started a few wars including the 'first gulf war'. AWB violated those sanctions. It broke the law to give money to Saddam. The actions were immoral regardless of whether a war started at a later date. The AWB can hardly claim they had no way of anticipating the next war. The sanctions were in place to stop Saddam getting the money for his next war, which if you consider his history was inevitable - if idiots like the AWB funded it. Your argument is like saying that drink driving is only immoral if you kill someone.

I think you may need to read my posts for the first time.  I have stated re-stated and now re-stated again - their actions were not merely immoral, they were illegal.

But to state they had fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it is entirely fictional.  I watched the Liebor Party make the same absurd claims nightly.

Why was a war inevitable?

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:42pm:

Quote: With this statement mantra is claiming that the executives of AWB were fully aware of, and criminally liable for,  "the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism". Yay, you've got it, except Mantra did not say "criminally liable for." Mantra said, 'complicit.'  Let's keep this debate honest DT, and leave that straw man poo out of it. I'll try another short story. I know you rob banks, you do it regularly, as I know.  I know you need some expertise you need to pay for, but you are short of the readies. I've got some wheat you need to feed your cows.  You pay me for the wheat, but I pay you $A300M to your trucking company, knowing full well that to truck the wheat costs $A10.00, and that the surplus will very likely go to your obtaining the expertise you need.  In fact, I know, OR ought to know, you will use the money I put in your back pocket to assist in robbing the bank. I am complicit to your bank robbery.

I can't make sense of that Dr Seuss.

deepthought wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2008 at 5:37pm: There was no war, but there were sanctions, post September 11, against a middle eastern dictator that had already started a few wars including the 'first gulf war'. AWB violated those sanctions. It broke the law to give money to Saddam. The actions were immoral regardless of whether a war started at a later date. The AWB can hardly claim they had no way of anticipating the next war. The sanctions were in place to stop Saddam getting the money for his next war, which if you consider his history was inevitable - if idiots like the AWB funded it. Your argument is like saying that drink driving is only immoral if you kill someone. I think you may need to read my posts for the first time.  I have stated re-stated and now re-stated again - their actions were not merely immoral, they were illegal. But to state they had fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it is entirely fictional.  I watched the Liebor Party make the same absurd claims nightly. Why was a war inevitable?

Saddam, DT, was busy killing Kurds using military resources funded by many corrupt commercial transactions, including the AWB's payment to that trucking company.

Fact.

But to state they had fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it is entirely fictional.

Sigh. Another strawman.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:49pm:

But to state they had fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it is entirely fictional. Sigh. Another strawman.

And freediver finally comes to the realisation he really does not know what the discussion is about.

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:47pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 8th, 2008 at 5:42pm: freediver wrote on Apr 8th, 2008 at 5:37pm: There was no war, but there were sanctions, post September 11, against a middle eastern dictator that had already started a few wars including the 'first gulf war'. AWB violated those sanctions. It broke the law to give money to Saddam. The actions were immoral regardless of whether a war started at a later date. The AWB can hardly claim they had no way of anticipating the next war. The sanctions were in place to stop Saddam getting the money for his next war, which if you consider his history was inevitable - if idiots like the AWB funded it. Your argument is like saying that drink driving is only immoral if you kill someone. I think you may need to read my posts for the first time.  I have stated re-stated and now re-stated again - their actions were not merely immoral, they were illegal. But to state they had fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it is entirely fictional.  I watched the Liebor Party make the same absurd claims nightly. Why was a war inevitable? Saddam, DT, was busy killing Kurds using military resources funded by many corrupt commercial transactions, including the AWB's payment to that trucking company. Fact.

Perhaps he was Aussie.  But if you are going to take freediver's fantasy excursions over for him you need to address the questions freediver won't.

Why was a war inevitable?

How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future?

Why was the UN dealing with an 'enemy'?

Why did the UN keep paying the invoices if everyone allegedly knew the funds were paying for bullets as you dudes claim?

Why did the UN keep pouring money into Iraq if the war was (allegedly) inevitable?

Quote:

But to state they had fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it is entirely fictional.

They did have fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it, inadvertently or not.  


Quote:

The real crime was not the alleged breaking of UN sanctions by AWB and many other companies, but the sanctions regime itself that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Washington insisted on maintaining the sanctions via the UN “oil for food” scheme as a means of preventing its European and Asian rivals from securing control over Iraqi oil fields. Amid continuing pressure to lift the sanctions, the US toppled Saddam Hussein to subjugate the country and its resources as part of broader ambitions to establish US dominance throughout the Middle East. Australia’s participation in the war was driven by equally predatory considerations. Above all, it sought to reinforce the US-Australia strategic and military alliance and thus secure Washington’s backing for Australia’s own neo-colonial interventions in the Asia-Pacific region. It was also seeking to preserve Australia’s grip over the multi-million dollar Iraqi wheat trade, against its US and Canadian challengers. Documents released by the Cole inquiry just days before its final report reveal that the Howard government and the AWB were deeply concerned about the impact of the impending war on Australian wheat exports. More than a year before the war, one of the government’s most senior diplomats, UN ambassador John Dauth, tipped off AWB chairman Trevor Flugge—one of the so-called “dirty dozen”—that Australia would join a US-led invasion. Clearly, with an invasion looming, one of Canberra’s quandaries was how to shield Australia’s wheat trade. Dauth promised Flugge that he would ensure AWB had “as much warning as would be possible” of the war, so that it could cover its tracks on its dealings with the Saddam Hussein administration and prepare to deal with a US-led occupation. It is worth noting that Dauth’s briefing of Flugge, recorded in confidential AWB board minutes for February 2002, contradicts all the claims made by Washington and Canberra that no decision was made to invade Iraq until early 2003, when the pretext was that Iraq had blocked effective UN weapons inspections. With remarkable accuracy, he predicted that the Iraq regime’s offer to invite UN weapons inspectors to return was likely to stave off US action for only 12 to 18 months. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/awb-d09.shtml

The UN set up sanctions. They weren't pouring money in, they were restricting the flow of funds to Saddam - to the extent they could with people like the AWB execs trying to get around it to give Saddam money.

How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future?

This question has been answered in many forms already. For example I posted this above:

You don't have to have 20/20 forsight to argue that your actions contribute to their result.

We are not saying AWB put the bullets in the guns, we are saying they were complicit - that their immoral actiosn contributed to the deaths and that they should have known better.

Quote:

Perhaps he was Aussie.

Yay!!!!!!!!!

Give DT a lolly.

mantra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:03pm:

Quote: But to state they had fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it is entirely fictional. They did have fore-knowledge of a war and helped fund it, inadvertently or not.   [quote]The real crime was not the alleged breaking of UN sanctions by AWB and many other companies, but the sanctions regime itself that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Washington insisted on maintaining the sanctions via the UN “oil for food” scheme as a means of preventing its European and Asian rivals from securing control over Iraqi oil fields. Amid continuing pressure to lift the sanctions, the US toppled Saddam Hussein to subjugate the country and its resources as part of broader ambitions to establish US dominance throughout the Middle East. Australia’s participation in the war was driven by equally predatory considerations. Above all, it sought to reinforce the US-Australia strategic and military alliance and thus secure Washington’s backing for Australia’s own neo-colonial interventions in the Asia-Pacific region. It was also seeking to preserve Australia’s grip over the multi-million dollar Iraqi wheat trade, against its US and Canadian challengers. Documents released by the Cole inquiry just days before its final report reveal that the Howard government and the AWB were deeply concerned about the impact of the impending war on Australian wheat exports. More than a year before the war, one of the government’s most senior diplomats, UN ambassador John Dauth, tipped off AWB chairman Trevor Flugge—one of the so-called “dirty dozen”—that Australia would join a US-led invasion. Clearly, with an invasion looming, one of Canberra’s quandaries was how to shield Australia’s wheat trade. Dauth promised Flugge that he would ensure AWB had “as much warning as would be possible” of the war, so that it could cover its tracks on its dealings with the Saddam Hussein administration and prepare to deal with a US-led occupation. It is worth noting that Dauth’s briefing of Flugge, recorded in confidential AWB board minutes for February 2002, contradicts all the claims made by Washington and Canberra that no decision was made to invade Iraq until early 2003, when the pretext was that Iraq had blocked effective UN weapons inspections. With remarkable accuracy, he predicted that the Iraq regime’s offer to invite UN weapons inspectors to return was likely to stave off US action for only 12 to 18 months. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/awb-d09.shtml

[/quote]

Did you read the article you posted?  They actually start by saying "The real crime was not the alleged breaking of UN sanctions by AWB and many other companies".  They make the same point I have been making though they lapse into some conspiracy theory fantasy soon after.

And they have drawn a pretty crooked line to get from "John Dauth, tipped off AWB chairman Trevor Flugge—one of the so-called “dirty dozen”—that Australia would join a US-led invasion" to "contradicts all the claims made by Washington and Canberra that no decision was made to invade Iraq until early 2003".

Why do they believe Dauth is the only dude telling the truth (if Dauth did indeed say the things they claim) while the entire US and Australian governments are telling porkies?

Apart from this dubious claim from a socialist website I have seen no credible evidence anywhere that a war was inevitable until early 2003.

It is actually far more likely (reading between the socialist lines) that a commercial risk management procedure was being put in place.  Once again this is normal commercial practice.

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:08pm:

Quote: Perhaps he was Aussie. Yay!!!!!!!!! Give DT a lolly.

I don't believe I ever said Saddam was a good guy - in fact I said way way back that the starvation of Iraqis was not considered to be a better alternative to the kick backs the UN either overlooked or condoned.

Take your side arm and your horse with my blessing.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:04pm:

The UN set up sanctions. They weren't pouring money in, they were restricting the flow of funds to Saddam - to the extent they could with people like the AWB execs trying to get around it to give Saddam money. How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future? This question has been answered in many forms already. For example I posted this above: You don't have to have 20/20 forsight to argue that your actions contribute to their result. We are not saying AWB put the bullets in the guns, we are saying they were complicit - that their immoral actiosn contributed to the deaths and that they should have known better.

You have erected another of your strawmen.

The AWB were not "trying to get around it to give Saddam money" at all.  They were wheat sellers selling wheat.  You ascribe quite false sinister motives to a purveyor of wheat.

And what you believe to be an answer to the question of How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future? is in fact a circular riddle.

"You don't have to have 20/20 forsight to argue that your actions contribute to their result."

What result?  The war?  What war?  You don't have to have 20/20 forsight to argue that your actions contribute to their result.

What result?  The war?  What war?  You don't have to have 20/20 forsight to argue that your actions contribute to their result.

You will disappear up your own fundament one day if that is how you solve problems.

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:32pm:

Take your side arm and your horse with my blessing.

Thank you.  Perhaps a reading of the posts alongside freediver will help you see the questions you ask have already been answered though both of you seem to like re-phrasing them to see if the answers ever differ,

Truth is constant.

Incidentally you forgot to answer these . . . .




Why was a war inevitable?

How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future?

Why was the UN dealing with an 'enemy'?

Why did the UN keep paying the invoices if everyone allegedly knew the funds were paying for bullets as you dudes claim?

Why did the UN keep pouring money into Iraq if the war was (allegedly) inevitable?

The AWB were not "trying to get around it to give Saddam money" at all.  They were wheat sellers selling wheat.

..by trying to get around sanctions and give Saddam money. That is not 'business as usual.'

is in fact a circular riddle

It is no riddle deepthought. Your question missed the point. They didn't have to know for certain that there would be a war in order for their actions to contribute to their deaths and for them to be morally responsible. Just like you don't have to know for certain you will crash in order to be morally responsible for someone's death if you drink and drive. The sanctions were in place for a good reason.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:37pm:

The AWB were not "trying to get around it to give Saddam money" at all.  They were wheat sellers selling wheat. ..by trying to get around sanctions and give Saddam money. That is not 'business as usual.'

While thousands of businesses were doing business that way through the agency of the UN co-ordinating the business, it was, to all intents and purposes, business as usual.

Do you believe the UN was complicit in heinous acts of terrorism?  



freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:37pm:

is in fact a circular riddle It is no riddle deepthought. Your question missed the point. They didn't have to know for certain that there would be a war in order for their actions to contribute to their deaths and for them to be morally responsible. Just like you don't have to know for certain you will crash in order to be morally responsible for someone's death if you drink and drive. The sanctions were in place for a good reason.

Pardon?  Have you been reading Dr Seuss too?

Let's use your red herring then.

A drink driver causes a death.

Who is responsible?  The dude who pays his wages to make it possible for him to drink?

Or the drink driver?

It's called 'reasonably forseeable' deepthought. It is reaonably forseeable to the drunk driver that he might cause a death. Not so for his boss. Likewise it is reasonably forseeable that if you violate UN sanctions designed to stop Saddam funding a war then your payments might contribute to funding a war. It's not about 20/20 forsight. You don't need a crystal ball. Just common sense. Or a spine.

While thousands of businesses were doing business that way

Like I said earlier, this does not in any way justify their actions. There are plenty of businesses that did not violate the sanctions, even it it meant losing business to their less moral competitors like the AWB. This has never been a valid excuse. It is only 'business as usual' to the extent that drug trafficking is business as usual for drug traffickers, and the 1000s of other traffickers they compete with. For law abiding businessmen with a moral compass, violating UN sanctions is not business as usual.

Quote:

Incidentally you forgot to answer these . . . . Why was a war inevitable? How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future? Why was the UN dealing with an 'enemy'? Why did the UN keep paying the invoices if everyone allegedly knew the funds were paying for bullets as you dudes claim? Why did the UN keep pouring money into Iraq if the war was (allegedly) inevitable?

Dunno why I should do that.  I have not mounted those arguments.

I'm not discussing the UN.  I am discussing Mantra's perfectly correct proposition.

Quote:

A drink driver causes a death. Who is responsible?  The dude who pays his wages to make it possible for him to drink? Or the drink driver?

Assuming you are talking about a barman (and his Boss) who has plied said drunk with booze......

Both, nah.....all three.  

Not fact.  This time...............

Law.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:51pm:

It's called 'reasonably forseeable' deepthought. It is reaonably forseeable to the drunk driver that he might cause a death. Not so for his boss. Likewise it is reasonably forseeable that if you violate UN sanctions designed to stop Saddam funding a war then your payments might contribute to funding a war. It's not about 20/20 forsight. You don't need a crystal ball. Just common sense. Or a spine. While thousands of businesses were doing business that way Like I said earlier, this does not in any way justify their actions. There are plenty of businesses that did not violate the sanctions, even it it meant losing business to their less moral competitors like the AWB. This has never been a valid excuse. It is only 'business as usual' to the extent that drug trafficking is business as usual for drug traffickers, and the 1000s of other traffickers they compete with. For law abiding businessmen with a moral compass, violating UN sanctions is not business as usual.

Yes but it is only 'reasonably forseeable' if the AWB are clairvoyants rather than wheat sellers.

The AWB have no way of knowing Saddam is developing any weaponry  - in fact the UN who were overseeing the OFF program were satisfied that Saddam was not if I'm not mistaken.

It is only your time shifting which places the AWB in a war.

If the AWB were 'knowingly' paying off Saddam how would they know where it was going?   Remember he was building huge palaces and 'Saddamworlds'.

The boss paying the drunk driver is, according to your twisted logic, equally culpable.  He should have 'reasonably known' the employee was going to drink and kill someone if you believe the future is 'reasonably forseeable'.

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:02pm:

Quote: Incidentally you forgot to answer these . . . . Why was a war inevitable? How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future? Why was the UN dealing with an 'enemy'? Why did the UN keep paying the invoices if everyone allegedly knew the funds were paying for bullets as you dudes claim? Why did the UN keep pouring money into Iraq if the war was (allegedly) inevitable? Dunno why I should do that.  I have not mounted those arguments. I'm not discussing the UN.  I am discussing Mantra's perfectly correct proposition.

No you weren't.  You answered a post I directed to freediver.

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:

Quote: A drink driver causes a death. Who is responsible?  The dude who pays his wages to make it possible for him to drink? Or the drink driver? Assuming you are talking about a barman (and his Boss) who has plied said drunk with booze...... Both, nah.....all three.   Not fact.  This time............... Law.

So the AWB gave Saddam weapons for terrorists?

I will give you one thing DT..you do actually read what pple write.

oceanz wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:36pm:

I will give you one thing DT..you do actually read what pple write.

Thanks Oceans.

deepthought wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 8th, 2008 at 7:07pm: Quote: A drink driver causes a death. Who is responsible?  The dude who pays his wages to make it possible for him to drink? Or the drink driver? Assuming you are talking about a barman (and his Boss) who has plied said drunk with booze...... Both, nah.....all three.   Not fact.  This time............... That makes them, 'complicit' as Mantra correctly posted. Law. So the AWB gave Saddam weapons for terrorists?

No, the AWB, and many more, knowingly allowed him corrupt access to money which even Blind Freddy would know that Saddam intended to use to fund the purchase of the guns etc., he needed to kill his enemies.

That makes them 'complicit' as posted by Mantra.

Yes but it is only 'reasonably forseeable' if the AWB are clairvoyants rather than wheat sellers.

Well I guess what you see as reasoanble is different to everyone else here. The UN had enough forsight to put the sanctions in.

Remember, 'reasonably forseeable' does not mean the worst outcome is certain.

It is only your time shifting which places the AWB in a war.

Strawman. I did not put the AWB in a war. I did not time shift. You have made this strawman argument many times and your error has been pointed out many times. How many times can you repeat the same mistake?

The boss paying the drunk driver is, according to your twisted logic, equally culpable.

Even though I said the exact opposite? It is not my logic that includes the boss, but your inability to determine what is reasonably forseeable.

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:44pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 8th, 2008 at 7:21pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 8th, 2008 at 7:07pm: Quote: A drink driver causes a death. Who is responsible?  The dude who pays his wages to make it possible for him to drink? Or the drink driver? Assuming you are talking about a barman (and his Boss) who has plied said drunk with booze...... Both, nah.....all three.   Not fact.  This time............... That makes them, 'complicit' as Mantra correctly posted. Law. So the AWB gave Saddam weapons for terrorists? No, the AWB, and many more, knowingly allowed him corrupt access to money which even Blind Freddy would know that Saddam intended to use to fund the purchase of the guns etc., he needed to kill his enemies. That makes them 'complicit' as posted by Mantra.

Get Blind Freddy in here then.

Tell me this.  Did the UN believe Saddam was stockpiling weapons and supplying terrorists with them?

Why, he was terrorising Kurds was he not?

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:46pm:

Yes but it is only 'reasonably forseeable' if the AWB are clairvoyants rather than wheat sellers. Well I guess what you see as reasoanble is different to everyone else here. The UN had enough forsight to put the sanctions in. Remember, 'reasonably forseeable' does not mean the worst outcome is certain. It is only your time shifting which places the AWB in a war. Strawman. I did not put the AWB in a war. I did not time shift. You have made this strawman argument many times and your error has been pointed out many times. How many times can you repeat the same mistake? The boss paying the drunk driver is, according to your twisted logic, equally culpable. Even though I said the exact opposite? It is not my logic that includes the boss, but your inability to determine what is reasonably forseeable.

The UN set up the sanctions regime.

The UN set up the OFF program.

The UN oversaw the OFF program and the sale of goods to Iraq.

The UN appeared to officially condone kickbacks.

The UN oversaw billions of dollars of such kickbacks.

Did the UN 'reasonably forsee' the outcome?

You did put the AWB in a war when you built this strawman.  You said they "gave money to Saddam, an enemy of the state, while there were laws in palce specifically forbidding this. That money no doubt ended up aiding the enemy while we were at war with them".

You also said the AWB "contributed to the deaths of innocent Iraqis and allied soldiers".  When did it do that?  Outside a war or in a war?

Yes you did say the exact opposite about the drunk which is why I say you speak in riddles.  While you maintain some people can "reasonably forsee" the future and know where their money is to be spent, others can not.  Why not?

And no more riddles.  They confuse Aussie because he re-posts them.

What has the UN got to do with this Topic?  It is about the AWB and the Cole finding they corruptly handed Saddam lots of millions, what Cole otherwise found by way of adverse conclusion, and Manta's word,  'complicit.'

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 8:14pm:

What has the UN got to do with this Topic?  It is about the AWB and the Cole finding they corruptly handed Saddam lots of millions, what Cole otherwise found by way of adverse conclusion, and Manta's word,  'complicit.'

The AWB could not have supplied anything at all without the UN.  They ran the program, signed off on the shipments and paid the bills.

mantra has defamed them by calling them complicit in acts of terror.

Despite freediver's riddles, puzzlement about the time of the events, confused thinking and denials he said what he said, the facts remain.

And despite your Dr Seuss stories, skidding wildly about the place dragging in red herrings and shifting the goal posts completely off the field it is still true that mantra defamed them.

As I have said all along the truth is constant and your flurry of strawmen, strawwomen and strawpeople haven't changed that.

:D

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 8:21pm:

:D

Yes.

Deepthought is it just the terrorism bit you are hung up on? Do you think it was reasonable to expect the AWB to forsee that their money might assist Saddam in killing innocent Iraqis or allied soldiers, but not necessarily terrorism?

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 8:49pm:

Deepthought is it just the terrorism bit you are hung up on? Do you think it was reasonable to expect the AWB to forsee that their money might assist Saddam in killing innocent Iraqis or allied soldiers, but not necessarily terrorism?

I'm not hung up on anything.

I was discussing Haneef when mantra started in on defaming the AWB and I was telling her to be wary of her language.

The AWB did what they did but they were not complicit in any acts of terror.

What they did, along with thousands of others for whom there will be no consequences, was illegal and it is reported that they will be charged with the appropriate offences.  I have maintained that the appropriate charges will be in line with the findings by Cole, the AFP and ASIC.

Your speculation, mantra's defamation and Aussie's Dr Seuss stories are a long way removed from the facts as those authorities knows them to be.

That's it.

Nah.

QED.

There is, as always, no point in engaging you.

Toorah.


PS....you must miss IQ charging in here with it's usual coat tugging post!

OK, I'll rephrase so you don't get hung up on the hung up term:

Deepthought do you think it was reasonable to expect the AWB to forsee that their money might assist Saddam in killing innocent Iraqis or allied soldiers, but not necessarily terrorism?

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 9:21pm:

OK, I'll rephrase so you don't get hung up on the hung up term: Deepthought do you think it was reasonable to expect the AWB to forsee that their money might assist Saddam in killing innocent Iraqis or allied soldiers, but not necessarily terrorism?

No.


Now it is your turn.

Why was a war inevitable?

How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future?

Why was the UN dealing with an 'enemy'?

Why did the UN keep paying the invoices if everyone allegedly knew the funds were paying for bullets as you dudes claim?

Why did the UN keep pouring money into Iraq if the war was (allegedly) inevitable?

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 9:21pm:

Nah. QED. There is, as always, no point in engaging you. Toorah. PS....you must miss IQ charging in here with it's usual coat tugging post!

Have you fixed your bike?  I thought it must have been busted because usually you only last a few posts before backpedalling off.

I need no coat tugging.  You're about as easy an opponent as it gets dude.  The moment you start shifting the goal posts I know it's just a short hop onto your bike.  I can read you like a Dr Seuss book.

So the AWB violated sanctions against a dictator with a long history of killing innocent Iraqis and starting wars, but could not have forseen that the money might help him continue doing what he had always done?

Okay, DT.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 9:33pm:

So the AWB violated sanctions against a dictator with a long history of killing innocent Iraqis and starting wars, but could not have forseen that the money might help him continue doing what he had always done?

You forgot to do the honourable thing.  Your turn.

Why was a war inevitable?

How could AWB (a commercial concern) know what was going to happen in the future?

Why was the UN dealing with an 'enemy'?

Why did the UN keep paying the invoices if everyone allegedly knew the funds were paying for bullets as you dudes claim?

Why did the UN keep pouring money into Iraq if the war was (allegedly) inevitable?

I already responded to your silly questions a few times by rejecting the premise. The sensible response to that is to consider the premise, not repeat the question in the hope I will accept it.

Living in denial!

DT says

Quote:

Tell me this.  Did the UN believe Saddam was stockpiling weapons and supplying terrorists with them?

Yes - because the UN inspectors were in Iraq during 2002 looking for WMD.

You stated in one of your earlier posts "Why do they believe Dauth is the only dude telling the truth (if Dauth did indeed say the things they claim) while the entire US and Australian governments are telling porkies?".

This conversation was recorded in the Minutes of Meeting of the Board of AWB on 27th February 2002.  Dauth stated the following and there is no reason to disbelieve him.  These Minutes were submitted to the Cole Inquiry and were accepted as credible by Cole.  


Quote:

Mr Dauth - now high commissioner in New Zealand - predicted the Iraq war would be similar to the campaign in Afghanistan, with heavy use of air support followed by the deployment of ground troops. "He undertook to ensure that AWB was given as much warning as would be possible under such circumstances, but noted that in these instances often the Australian government had little notification," the board minutes said.

You need to take your blinkers off.  Flugge was paid $1 million tax free for one week's work in Iraq and that was an extraordinary payment for an official to tie up a wheat contract.  Why the urgency - a commercial contract isn't a viable excuse, when so many facts have come to light since then.

What you fail to see is that the Howard government and the US government were lying to us about WMD in Iraq and their reasons to invade.  This has since been proved.   A second Iraq invasion had been planned a year or so before 9/11, but that is a whole different topic

Unfortunately Howard was a consummate liar, although it was part of his job and his nature.  The majority of Australians eventually saw through his consistent evasion and misrepresentation of the truth, although a few die-hards remain holding on to the remnants of his falsehoods.  

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 10:05pm:

I already responded to your silly questions a few times by rejecting the premise. The sensible response to that is to consider the premise, not repeat the question in the hope I will accept it.

Then I reject your premise.

mantra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 10:07pm:

Living in denial! DT says Quote: Tell me this.  Did the UN believe Saddam was stockpiling weapons and supplying terrorists with them? Yes - because the UN inspectors were in Iraq during 2002 looking for WMD. You stated in one of your earlier posts "Why do they believe Dauth is the only dude telling the truth (if Dauth did indeed say the things they claim) while the entire US and Australian governments are telling porkies?". This conversation was recorded in the Minutes of Meeting of the Board of AWB on 27th February 2002.  Dauth stated the following and there is no reason to disbelieve him.  These Minutes were submitted to the Cole Inquiry and were accepted as credible by Cole.   [quote]Mr Dauth - now high commissioner in New Zealand - predicted the Iraq war would be similar to the campaign in Afghanistan, with heavy use of air support followed by the deployment of ground troops. "He undertook to ensure that AWB was given as much warning as would be possible under such circumstances, but noted that in these instances often the Australian government had little notification," the board minutes said.

You need to take your blinkers off.  Flugge was paid $1 million tax free for one week's work in Iraq and that was an extraordinary payment for an official to tie up a wheat contract.  Why the urgency - a commercial contract isn't a viable excuse, when so many facts have come to light since then.

What you fail to see is that the Howard government and the US government were lying to us about WMD in Iraq and their reasons to invade.  This has since been proved.   A second Iraq invasion had been planned a year or so before 9/11, but that is a whole different topic

Unfortunately Howard was a consummate liar, although it was part of his job and his nature.  The majority of Australians eventually saw through his consistent evasion and misrepresentation of the truth, although a few die-hards remain holding on to the remnants of his falsehoods.  
[/quote]

The UN program UNSCOM, later replaced by UNMOVIC, was a program of regular inspections to find WMD.  During the inspections the OFF program was set up to allow humanitarian aid to get through.

The inspections were ongoing (with a break in the late 90s when Saddam threw them out) but the OFF program continued even so.  Can you explain why the UN allowed it to proceed while they believed Saddam was using the kickbacks that they were apparently condoning to go towards building the WMD?

Can you tell me why the AWB (a wheat seller) is responsible for overseeing the UN OFF program?

Thank you for posting the correct information about Dauth.  It is as I expected - he merely predicted there could be an invasion and the AWB were putting in place some sort of risk management procedure.  He even said the Australian Government would have little notification of an impending war.  This verifies what I have said.

Are you sure the Australian PM and the US President were lying about WMD?

Then I reject your premise.

Which premise and why?

Quote:

Are you sure the Australian PM and the US President were lying about WMD?

When Colin Powell showed the world his little map pointing out WMD's in Iraq and used it as an excuse to invade  - I, as well as millions of others, knew this was a lie.  Not only was it obvious from his body language, it was a pathetic and ill planned fabrication that any prominent politician would be ashamed of.  

Howard may not have had first hand information to this lie, but I find it hard to believe that he wasn't given other reasons for this planned invasion - but told to use WMD's as an excuse.  Nelson confirmed it wasn't true last year.

I didn't say the AWB were responsible for overseeing the UN OFF program, but Flugge was there to get the contract sewn up tight before war was declared.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 10:33pm:

Then I reject your premise. Which premise and why?

I already responded to your silly question by rejecting the premise.

mantra wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 10:45pm:

Quote: Are you sure the Australian PM and the US President were lying about WMD? When Colin Powell showed the world his little map pointing out WMD's in Iraq and used it as an excuse to invade  - I, as well as millions of others, knew this was a lie.  Not only was it obvious from his body language, it was a pathetic and ill planned fabrication that any prominent politician would be ashamed of.   Howard may not have had first hand information to this lie, but I find it hard to believe that he wasn't given other reasons for this planned invasion - but told to use WMD's as an excuse.  Nelson confirmed it wasn't true last year. I didn't say the AWB were responsible for overseeing the UN OFF program, but Flugge was there to get the contract sewn up tight before war was declared.

Yet only one post back you claimed the United Nations thought Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember I asked you this question.


Quote:

Did the UN believe Saddam was stockpiling weapons and supplying terrorists with them?

And you answered . . . .


Quote:

Yes - because the UN inspectors were in Iraq during 2002 looking for WMD.

Yet now you say that you "as well as millions of others, knew this was a lie".




So the United Nations, the governments of many countries including Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States believed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and only you and your "millions of others" knew they did not?

Can you understand why your contradictory statements are hard to believe?

Even your hero, Pig Iron Kevvy, was taken in by the 'great lie'.  He called Iraq's Foreign Minister a liar because he believed Iraq really did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.



Quote:

Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, has discussed the prospects of a war against Iraq with British Foreign Minister Jack Straw in London. Mr Rudd says Iraq's Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, is a liar for stating that his country has no weapons of mass destruction. He says British Prime Minister Tony Blair has a dossier detailing Iraq's capabilities. . . . Kevvy lied?

I can't figure your translation DT?

You asked:  Can you tell me why the AWB (a wheat seller) is responsible for overseeing the UN OFF program?

I replied: I didn't say the AWB were responsible for overseeing the UN OFF program, but Flugge was there to get the contract sewn up tight before war was declared

You say I contradicted myself.  Yes the UN had inspectors in Iraq during 2002 because of "WMD"'s - how has that got anything to do with AWB overseeing the UN OFF program?

Obviously Flugge wanted the wheat contract sewn up before a declaration of war was made.  Do you think he gave a damn where the bribes went - he had a deal to sign, seal and deliver.

mantra wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

I can't figure your translation DT? You asked:  Can you tell me why the AWB (a wheat seller) is responsible for overseeing the UN OFF program? I replied: I didn't say the AWB were responsible for overseeing the UN OFF program, but Flugge was there to get the contract sewn up tight before war was declared You say I contradicted myself.  Yes the UN had inspectors in Iraq during 2002 because of "WMD"'s - how has that got anything to do with AWB overseeing the UN OFF program? Obviously Flugge wanted the wheat contract sewn up before a declaration of war was made.  Do you think he gave a damn where the bribes went - he had a deal to sign, seal and deliver.

You can't figure it because you are not reading it.

My post has nothing to do with Flugge - it addresses the first part of your post.  Read it again ignoring your misapprehension it is about Flugge.

Quote:

My post has nothing to do with Flugge - it addresses the first part of your post.  Read it again ignoring your misapprehension it is about Flugge

Are you suggesting that because AWB are only guilty of bribing, without any forethought of war then they have clean hands?  If not - I don't know what you mean.

By the way the coalition could also be assumed to be complicit, as they directed AusAid to pay Flugge his tax free million dollars.  Pity the Inquiry didn't extend to the Ministers.

mantra wrote on Apr 9^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:

Quote: My post has nothing to do with Flugge - it addresses the first part of your post.  Read it again ignoring your misapprehension it is about Flugge Are you suggesting that because AWB are only guilty of bribing, without any forethought of war then they have clean hands?  If not - I don't know what you mean. By the way the coalition could also be assumed to be complicit, as they directed AusAid to pay Flugge his tax free million dollars.  Pity the Inquiry didn't extend to the Ministers.

It did extend to the Ministers - hence the finding by Cole.

I suspect you are acting dumb now mantra.  Now you have been sprung switching your story.  Others may judge your sudden loss of comprehension.

Quote:

It did extend to the Ministers - hence the finding by Cole. I suspect you are acting dumb now mantra.  Now you have been sprung switching your story.  Others may judge your sudden loss of comprehension

The questioning of Ministers had very strict guidelines and was a farce.  The responses were inappropriate and evasive and  definitely not acceptable to the general public as an "inquiry".  The hard questions weren't asked.

As far as acting dumb - maybe I am, because I don't have a clue what you're talking about.  Perhaps you could be more specific.