r/SGU • u/NarrowSalvo • 5d ago
Is Zelensky committing war crimes? And does the skeptical community have a moral obligation to speak out?
Much like climate change, we cannot say definitively the singular cause of this war crime. But, I think we all know that this stuff is the inevitable consequence of Evan Bernstein's war crime advocacy. As skeptics, do we have a moral and ethical obligation to get involved, since we didn't put an end to that quickly enough?
12
u/Rookiebeotch 5d ago
The fuck? You trying blow some sort of referee whistle on the defenders of a total war invasion? Imagine a surviving Ukrainian hearing that.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Your post is under review because your account is either new or has insufficient karma to post. Thanks for your patience as we keep spammers out.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-9
17
u/DARfuckinROCKS 5d ago
Huh looks like some of Russian botfarms are still running business as usual.
-10
6
u/Dances_with_mallards 5d ago
I thought his drones knocked out the Russian bots?
3
u/Shoggunik 3d ago
Unfortunately any reports about this having any significant impact on traffic on websites seems to be at best exaggerated at worst completely not true.
1
u/JitteryJet 4d ago
Yes I saw that article about some of the troll farms getting hit. I have no way of knowing if it was true or not, but it made me laugh.
-2
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
Everyone who disagrees with you is a bot.
Also, fuck Russia. That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.
4
u/Dances_with_mallards 5d ago
Blessings... It was a joke. Remember though, Russia invaded Ukraine. I'm not sure Zelinski is as squeeky clean as I would like, but Putin is the devil and an actual war criminal.
12
u/OblatestSpheroid 5d ago
Your verbiage seems to say that it's a foregone conclusion that this is a war crime, but in your title it seems you're "just asking questions". The Geneva Convention says that dual purpose energy sites (for military and civilian purposes) can be considered legitimate military targets, depending on certain circumstances.
-4
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
If so, then why was Evan's advocacy for "attack their grid" considered a war crime?
Shouldn't we apply a consistent standard? Or are we falling back to just advocating for our "team"?
5
u/CatShot1948 5d ago
You seem to be operating under the assumption that any attach in energy infrastructure is a war crime. That's not true by any definition.
According to the international criminal court and the united nations, energy and fuel cutoffs imposed by israel in gaza face war crime allegations because shutting down power crippled water desalination, sewage processing, and hospital life support for a captive population. In contrast, drone strikes carried out by ukraine against refineries and depots in russia focus on the fuel supply chain sustaining frontline armor and military logistics, which international legal bodies treat as permissible targets because they disrupt combat operations without depriving a trapped civilian populace of basic biological survival needs.
Hope that clarifes how these aren't the same at all
1
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
According to the international criminal court and the united nations, energy and fuel cutoffs imposed by israel in gaza face war crime allegations because shutting down power crippled water desalination, sewage processing, and hospital life support for a captive population.
Israel? Gaza?
I thought Evan's tweet was about attacking Iran's grid?
You kind of gave away the game there on what this is really about. LOL. Aren't you supposed to pretend this wasn't just about collecting the pelt of a "zionist"? Ooops!
4
u/CatShot1948 5d ago
This is very conspiratorial.youre funding patterns where none exist. I don't remember exactly what Evan was accused of doing. If you say it was regarding Iran, fine. I believe you.
Either way, youve posited that Ukraine is committing a war crime. They are not for all the reasons I mentioned.
0
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
You brought up Israel. Why?
5
u/CatShot1948 5d ago edited 5d ago
Because you linked this post to Evan and his supporting war crimes on behalf of Israel were the entire subject of his controversy? What exactly are you trying to imply? Please explain instead of asking cryptic questions.
Edit: you seem to think it's a gotcha or something that I mentioned gaza instead of iran. I just thought Evan was talking about gaza in the previously mentioned controversy. I was wrong and he was referring to action against Iran. Regardless, he was proposing war crimes. Because he was supporting targeting civilian energy infrastructure that would meet the previously referenced definitions of war crimes. Ukraine'a actions dont meet that threshold. That's why none of this is relevant to Evan. Because you're comparing apples and oranges.
0
u/NarrowSalvo 4d ago
You started talking about Israel, when the comment was about the US bombing Iran.
It's almost like cancelling Evan had nothing to do with what he actually said, but just because he supports Israel at baseline. Or is of Jewish descent.
That's what this is really about.
The rest is just your motivated reasoning.
2
u/CatShot1948 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sounds like you've made up your mind. My reasoning is motivated by nothing other than reasoning.
I looked it up and yes, you're right. He was advocating for the US to commit war crimes. I misremembered what it was all about. Still deserving of being cancelled. I think I was conflating that in the SGU episodes explaining controversy around Evan, they mentioned october 7 as a radicalizing moment for Evan. That must've been why I was thinking about Israel.
1
u/NarrowSalvo 4d ago
It's not about making up my mind.
You're unable to even follow your own 'logic' consistently about why you canceled him. I think it's safe to say that wasn't the real reason.
Look inside. You know, analyze your own biases like the podcast asks you to...
→ More replies (0)
12
12
6
u/GuruFoxx 3d ago
No, and you need to shut up. Ukraine is doing everything it can to legitimately knock out russia's ability to wage war through its oil industry, logistics networks and communications networks which fuel, supply and command its war machines and to make profit to fund its ongoing endless war crimes.
It is also attacking Yandex hubs to destroy the network that russia uses for its command and control communication network, as well as it's ability to wage propagandistic and electronic warfare anywhere in the world.
They are also attacking Wilberries depots, because they are used in supplying goods to the russian military.
The fact that the russian oil industry and the Yandex network are also used by civilians is tough shit. Cry me a river. Ukraine has every right to destroy any infrastructure that russia uses to subjugate it.
"we cannot say definitively the singular cause of this war crime"
Are you an idiot? russia invaded Ukraine with no valid reason to do so. There is no "doubt" as to the cause.
At this time, russia is committing war crimes day after day, and Trump is kowtowing to Putin and throwing Ukraine to the wolves because he seems to like ruthless autocrats and wants to do business with him. He does not give a rat's ass about the horror khuilo is throwing at Ukraine every day.
Any moral obligation should be to express support for the nation that was invaded without a just reason, where children and civilians are being murdered every day by russian ordnance. History never looks kindly on those who support an illegal, immoral and unjust attack on a sovereign nation.
Try telling an actual Ukranian your opinion, and see how far you get.
-4
u/NarrowSalvo 3d ago
That whooshing sound is the point going over your head.
This is a skeptical sub. Not a political one. Or it used to be.
Consider the possibility that it wasn't within our purview to exile Evan for "advocating war crimes" in the first place -- precisely because, as you point out, there are levels of complexity and nuance that go well beyond the scope of skepticism.
This is precisely why I chose this example. There's so much motivated reasoning around here that I had to choose this example to have any chance of people seeing that.
And I'm not going to shut up. I'm going to make it my mission to show up periodically and remind all the sanctimonious blowhards here what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Also, fuck Putin.
6
u/GuruFoxx 3d ago edited 1d ago
Nothing is whooshing over my head. Your original post is poorly composed and makes little sense.
If your intent was to post about Evan's opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict (as seems to be the case based on most of your replies), why is the focus of the title and main text the war in Ukraine? These two topics are utterly not connected in any way.
The only person to bear responsibility for Evan's opinions is Evan.
"I think we all know that this stuff is the inevitable consequence of Evan Bernstein's war crime advocacy"
Your statement bascially says reads as: Ukraine' war crimes ("this stuff") are a result of Evan's opinions..? So, no, we don't all know that, because that is nonsense. Outside of listeners to the podcast, the wider world has no idea who Evan is or what his opininons were, least of all anyone in power. What do his opinions on Israel/Palestine have to do with Ukraine's battle strategy?
"since we didn't put an end to that quickly enough".
Put an end to what? Evan having opinions? How would we have done that when most of "we" didn't know what his opinions were?
"This is a skeptical sub. Not a political one. Or it used to be."
And yet you make a political post. What?
So, do skeptics need to get involved because you think Ukraine did war crimes? Or because Evan has distasteful opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict? Those are two separate subjects and I have no idea how you are connecting them. And how exactly are we to "get involved"? With what? Doing what? How do we apply skeptical thinking, reasoning and the scientific method to the war in Ukraine?
I think you need to take a step back and think what your actual point was, as honestly I have no clue and it makes no sense. Either you are posting about Evan, in which case move on, that's old news and long dealt with, or you are posting about perceived Ukranian war crimes, in which case that is a political matter and not a skeptical matter that merits skeptical discussion. Your OP just comes across as pro-Russian shit-stirring.
1
u/NarrowSalvo 3d ago
Nothing is whooshing over my head.
as honestly I have no clue and it makes no sense.
I don't think I can add much to what you have here.
2
u/GuruFoxx 2d ago
Lol that was perhaps unfortunate wording on my part there 😄
My premise is that I cannot have missed your point, because your original post HAS no actual point and was nonsensical to start with. So please address what I covered in my previous post.
To clarify, here's how your original post reads to me :
1) No-one knows the cause of Ukraine attacking russian energy sites
2) Is Ukraine bombing russian energy sites a war crime?
3) Are skeptics morally bound to get involved in the issue of Ukraine's military tactics because we let Evan get away with saying bad things about the Israel/Palestine conflict?To which the logical responses are:
1) Yes we do, UKraine is legally defending itself against an illegal russian invasion
2) This is not an issue for skeptical debate, it is a political issue
3) This has nothing to do with 1) or 2) and is completely irrelevantSo again, I can't MISS your point because there IS no point.
3
u/JitteryJet 4d ago
"Much like climate change". What? There is a preponderance of evidence on what causes climate change.
3
u/JitteryJet 4d ago edited 4d ago
I do not think you know what a "skeptic" is. So my qualified answer is no. Your post is bizarre. And I think you are trolling.
4
u/JitteryJet 4d ago
Sigh. This has nothing to do with Skepticism, but why on earth does the new media report stuff President Trump clearly made up? It just gives that clown free publicity. He should stick to slandering Somali immigrants.
6
u/Texas_Sam2002 5d ago
This is a sub-optimal question. The link provided gives no context on anything that could be considered a "war crime" in any rational way. Certainly not in contrast to what the Russians are doing. This isn't so much a "skeptic" question as a propaganda post. You even assume in the post that a war crime has been committed, which is hardly skeptical. Back to Moscow with you.
-1
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
Isn't advocating we attack energy sites the "war crime" that was Evan's primary offense?
Or does that only matter if it peripherally involves Israel?
6
u/CatShot1948 5d ago edited 5d ago
What does this have to do with skepticism? Why would skeptics be obligated to weigh in here more than any other political conversation?
What war crime are you alleging? The article you linked doesn't reference war crimes. If you're talking about "energy sites" being targeted, the energy sites in question are oil refineries, which doesn't meet the definition of a war crime. Russia, on the other hand, targets Ukrainian energy infrastructure that affects their electrical grid, which does meet the definition of a war crime.
What does this have to do with Evan?
-2
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
Aren't his posts advocating we "attack their grid" the "war crimes" that were his primary offense?
6
u/CatShot1948 5d ago
Gotcha. Just wasn't clear what you meant.
But Ukraine energy attacks dont affect the Russian grid. It's oil refineries. Under IHL rules, Ukraine's attacks are considered lawful. Russia, on the other hand, actually has many ICC arrest warrants outstanding for senior officials for targeting electrical gruds in Ukraine.
Apples and oranges.
-1
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
I don't believe this is accurate. An attack on an oil refinery is a war crime if it doesn't have a sufficiently directly military role.
It is unambiguously unlawful if the primary purpose is to apply economic pressure to the country.
I think there's a lot of motivated reasoning going on here. But, I am unsurprised as that is the primary lesson of the Evan debacle. That's who this community is now -- just another team-sports political debate society.
5
u/CatShot1948 5d ago
Under the standards set by the international criminal court, the international committee of the red cross, and the united nations, an attack only becomes a war crime if it intentionally targets civilians, inflicts grossly disproportionate civilian deaths, or destroys basic survival necessities like drinking water and winter heating grids. Drone strikes launched by ukraine steer clear of all of that. By hitting industrial refineries and fuel depots that directly supply the diesel and aviation fuel powering russia's military offensive, and doing so with negligible civilian casualties, ukraine is striking what the red cross, the un, and western militaries treat as legitimate dual-use military objectives. Even when strikes touch export infrastructure to squeeze state revenue, the issue is at most a technical disagreement over economic targeting, which the red cross generally frowns upon, but the u.s. department of defense actually defends under its own rules for war-sustaining industries. Because the campaign involves neither deliberate slaughter nor the devastation of civilian survival, it simply does not cross the criminal threshold under any recognized international definition.
I still don't see how this relates to Evan. The situation with Israel/palastine isnt comperable in any way. Further, the reason skeptics needed to have an opinion on this is because Evan was using his official skeptics platform to spread misinformation. No such similar action is occuring with the Ukraine Russia conflict. Skeptics are no more obligated to weigh in here than in any other international conflict.
0
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago
I still don't see how this relates to Evan.
Really.
Why was Evan canceled?
3
u/CatShot1948 5d ago
For using his skeptical platform to spread unspetical opinions? Doesn't mean all political issues require comment from skeptics.
Unless you've heard something from a prominent skeptic that is doing so with the Russia/Ukraine conflict, it isn't something any person who identified as a skeptic has any moral obligation to comment on
1
u/NarrowSalvo 5d ago edited 5d ago
The only specificity articulated on the show, to my knowledge, was "just to be explicit, he was advocating war crimes online".
This is how this relates to Evan.
Unless you've heard something from a prominent skeptic that is doing so with the Russia/Ukraine conflict, it isn't something any person who identified as a skeptic has any moral obligation to comment on
Do you consider Cara Santa Maria to be a "prominent skeptic"? Because that's what she said on #1095.
That was the episode where Steve said they had gotten feedback, but when he gave examples to people, they understood. Then he said that Evan was making tweets that were divisive, but they just gave the "war crimes" example. So, that's the reason. As far as I know, when people say he was advocating war crimes, they are apparently talking about a tweet where he said to "attack their grid".
Personally, I think that's all bullshit and what really happened was the usual collection of blowhards saw an opportunity to collect the pelt of a zIonIsT!!!!!111!! But, this is the cover they are using. I think it is fair and appropriate to check whether that war crimes standard is being applied consistently.
2
u/CatShot1948 5d ago edited 5d ago
Well if that's your standard, no other rigue has advocated for war crimes and what Ukraine is doing doesn't get the war crime label for the reasons I previously laid out.
If you're just me mentioning this as motivated reasoning fur claiming the rogues were unfair to someone supportive if Israel, that's a separate discussion. Bur Ukraine isn't commiting war crimes.
0
3
u/Sparky_6_4 4d ago
Poetin's whole war machine runs on refined oil products, so definitely a legitimate military target. Any nation in war would stack that
1
u/Tweedledee72 3d ago
No, it was something about sending Palestinians "back to the caves", now fuck off please
-1
u/NarrowSalvo 3d ago
He was supposedly advocating a "war crime".
And he was talking about Iran.
But, thanks for giving away the game that it was all bullshit and really about his support for Israel.
3
u/Covert_Cuttlefish 4d ago
If Russia didn't want to get punched back they shouldn't have started the fight.
Slava Ukraini!
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Your post is under review because your account is either new or has insufficient karma to post. Thanks for your patience as we keep spammers out.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Western-Juggernaut-9 8h ago
There’s no such thing as a war crime when another more powerful country is threatening to seize your country by force. If you have to kill innocent people to defend your country you are within your rights to do so period.
17
u/endual 5d ago
The definitive singular cause was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.