Australian Politics Forum - AWB complicit in funding terrorists

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #15 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 1:36pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #16 - 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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 8^th, 2008 at 1:53pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #17 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:12pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #18 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #19 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:24pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48856 At my desk.	Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support Reply #20 - 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
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #21 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:42pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38556 Gender:	Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support Reply #22 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:45pm .....and how is Old Mate Haneef going these days?
Back to top	IP Logged

deepthought Gold Member Offline In Defence Of Liberty Posts: 2869	Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support Reply #23 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:46pm Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2008 at 4:45pm: .....and how is Old Mate Haneef going these days? Being fully investigated I understand.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #24 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38556
Gender: male

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #25 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #26 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:10pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #27 - 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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #28 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:23pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Haneef charged with terrorism support
Reply #29 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 5:29pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged