Are you seriously comparing "general purpose compute" to ballistic missiles?

A general purpose technology that happens to be used for harm does not make the technology harmful, only its wielder.

Yes, that's the point. Munitions are not general purpose, so equating compute to munitions is unjustly ascribing moral weight to the compute.

Rockets are general purpose though. They can bring up civilian satellites or fall down as weapons.

If the 'general purpose compute' is used by rocket, then yes?

So you would be fine with sharing criminal liability if you, for example, bought a car from someone and later that person committed a crime?

I wouldn't, that's why there are rules everyone adheres to.

By the same token, if Microsoft provides "general purpose compute" to a state that does something harmful, Microsoft should not be expected to share moral culpability for that harm. That's why I objected in the first place. It is not as if they provided something exclusively or primarily used for causing harm.

MS said they wouldn't, that's where the conflict arises. The fund doesn't want to be involved with any shady stuff and is trying their "humanity clause".