Australian Politics Forum - AWB complicit in funding terrorists

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #45 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:36pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #46 - 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.'

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.

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: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #47 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:46pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #48 - 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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 8^th, 2008 at 6:57pm by freediver »

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: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #49 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38556
Gender: male

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #50 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #51 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:20pm

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'.

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #52 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:21pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #53 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:21pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

oceanz Gold Member Offline Auzgurl.. Posts: 3531 Gender:	Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists Reply #54 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:36pm I will give you one thing DT..you do actually read what pple write.
Back to top	&&Jade Rawlings on Cousins " He makes our team walk taller..a very good team man , Ben Cousins" IP Logged

deepthought Gold Member Offline In Defence Of Liberty Posts: 2869	Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists Reply #55 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:44pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38556
Gender: male

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #56 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:44pm

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

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...............

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48856
At my desk.

Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #57 - 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.

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: AWB complicit in funding terrorists
Reply #58 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:47pm

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

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

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...............

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38556 Gender:	Re: AWB complicit in funding terrorists Reply #59 - Apr 8^th, 2008 at 7:49pm Why, he was terrorising Kurds was he not?
Back to top	IP Logged