They didn't claim to. They are responding to a claim that all the houses were demolished because they all contained booby traps, because "might contain booby traps" is obviously a legally and morally insufficient justification for demolishing every home in the city and cleansing it of the previous inhabitant race. Your home might contain booby traps, too.
> Like when packaged food gets potentially contaminated, you don't test each package for bacteria.
You're comparing wiping out tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian people's lives... to disinfection.
Like yeah, there's plenty of examples of israel's current leaders calling the Palestinian race sub-human, vermin, animal, saying it should be wiped off the earth, etc, but I didn't expect it on HN, JFC.
my dude, you just compared the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to getting rid of contaminating pathogens, and were called out on it, and you're gonna try to change the subject like you aren't walking around with freshly-crapped pants?
why should anyone continue to discuss this topic with you, when you're basically just channeling german dictators at this point?
If you check the parent for this thread, the conversation is about Israel use of bulldozers to flatten Rafah, and the reason they do it is the same reason you toss any possible contaminated food. It's impractical to check a bunch of empty buildings for booby traps. Rafah was evacuated about a year and a half ago.
Here is a link to the conversation topic to help clear your confusion:
Again, you're comparing the ethnic cleansing of an entire city to "tossing possibly contaminated food".
Take a step back and see the echoes of your words in history.
> It's impractical to check a bunch of empty buildings for booby traps
That's life. That you might find it hard to achieve your military conquest without engaging in ethnic cleansing isn't a legal or moral excuse for perpetrating ethnic cleansing. Find a way that doesn't require ethnic cleansing or pick more realistic military objectives.
> Rafah was evacuated about a year and a half ago.
A forced expulsion of all existing inhabitants of a city without any right of return is commonly called "ethnic cleansing". So is razing the city. It's called that because it is cleansing the city of all people and/or traces of an ethnicity, like israel did here. Both constitute crimes against humanity, regardless of the excuse (the nazis had excuses for their similar crimes too, look how that went for them).
> Sure, buildings were demolished, is that unusual in a war zone?
I'm going to assume good faith in your framing, rather than intentional minimization. Suffice it to say, more has happened than "buildings were demolished", and those more things are the subject of the article. Like, for example, an entire city systemically flattened with every single civilian inhabitant killed or exiled on their own land.
To answer your question in that context: yes, that is unusual in war these days, because it is tantamount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
They just use bulldozers to flatten whatever the bombs don't. They can drive a bulldozer pretty precisely, especially when they don't care who's in front of it or under it.
Caterpillar even supplies the IDF with bulldozers just for this purpose, which then get up-armored and sent into Palestinian civilian areas to do this (including unmanned versions).
Worth noting that Corrie was killed 23 years ago during a different phase of the conflict and under a previous government. (In which Netanyahu served as minister of finance.)
Interesting: the word "nakba" translates to Hebrew as "shoah" which is what many Jews call the (German) Holocaust - they're not even trying to hide what they're doing.
Interesting claim. Where did you hear that? The IDF is pretty infamous for crushing people alive with these bulldozers, and also for denying search & rescue access to find civilians buried in the wreckage (and also for just killing said SAR and hiding the bodies and lying about it*).
> Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
Yes, meanwhile something completely different happens somewhere else. All sorts of different things are always happening all over the world. Luckily we don't see Canada trying to negotiate tariffs with individual states, or else the thing you mentioned might be similar to the situation we're discussing.
Also, as an aside, it's rude to dismiss the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the harmful tariffs and the related government mismanagement of the economy, as "self-hating American Redditors". They likely love their country at least as much as those who favor destroying the economy and Americans' finances in the name of unprecedented partisan brinksmanship and power grabs.
> Also, as an aside, it's rude to dismiss the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the harmful tariffs
OP didn’t say everyone who opposes the tariffs. He said people who support Canada openly stating they will impose retaliatory tariffs on red state products specifically, which is meddling with internal U.S. politics.
> retaliatory tariffs on red state products specifically, which is meddling with internal U.S. politics
As you said, they are retaliatory tariffs. This is no more meddling in politics than pissing into the wind and getting wet. Retaliatory tariffs were a foreseeable result of policy some people voted for, and now the results have splashed them.
There's no reason they shouldn't be disproportionately concentrated on those who caused them. In fact, that approaches an ideal world, right? One in which negative externalities are primarily borne by those responsible for them? And importantly, there is no negotiation, no quid-pro-quo. It is just the law of nature manifesting (you attack someone, it is expected that they will retaliate). There's no way to change that law.
There's a popular American republican trope that those who support higher taxes should be the exclusive ones paying those higher taxes. That's precisely what's happening here (tariffs = taxes). Everybody is getting what they want, except the majority of people who want a sane, fair, and predictable tariff regime built upon a foundation of mutual respect between equals – but at least this gets us closer to that. In a crap world, I can see that being progress worth celebrating.
> Retaliatory tariffs aren't interfering in politics. Targeting them specifically at red states then publicizing that fact is interfering in politics.
I respectfully don't agree, for the reasons stated in the above post and ignored in your reply. "Interfering in politics" better describes the more dire actions alleged in this article, with direct trade negotiations between a country and a state/province behind the back of the federal government – a significantly different situation indeed.
But I think we need to be handling it differently. We need to make some structural changes, because the reality is that every global power center is going to be waging covert trade war against red states going forward. We need something comprehensive that makes individual states difficult to target. Because this response strategy is just a new reality. And will be the reality even if the left gets into power in the US. They won't let up. It's not in their interests to do so.
It's just reason number 5 million that the reality of conservative rule has fallen so far short of the promise of conservative rule for the US. I'm not certain there was any plan put in place to anticipate and mitigate likely responses. (And punishing trade policies targeting red states was an entirely predictable response.) Just gross ineptitude from the conservatives to not be prepared for that.
I don't even agree with their policies, but for Christ's sake, if you're gonna pursue those policies, wargame all that out and be prepared.
Now we gotta suffer through amateur hour while the keystone kops drive our country into the ground for two more years. This sucks.
I think a significant portion of the political culture war does revolve around this idea of anti-partiotism.
There is a vocal population that say america is evil, as are it's institutions, laws, and principles. This faction is particularly dominant in places like reddit.
A patriot can see faults in what their country does, as everybody and every organization of bodies makes mistakes. A patriot seeks atonement for those mistakes, to make things right, and come back stronger, with more support from the world.
It seems you're confusing patriotism with jingoism: "we're the greatest country in the world, we never make mistakes, so we don't need to learn from them, suck it victims, everyone is in a grand conspiracy against us because they're jealous, everything bad is bad because of that conspiracy", etc, that sort of thing. That's how you get the sort of "patriots" that one could find in 1939 Germany. I guess some people want that.
I agree that a patriot can be cognizant of shortcomings and Im not advocating jingoism.
I think there is a class of people who are less interested in constructive reform, and more interested in seeing america fail. They would rather everyone suffer than improve and thrive. Maybe they do see that as a form of atonement.
Alternatively, Matt can resign if he doesn't like what his bosses did. Instead he chose to vote out his bosses: also an apparently legal option, albeit one much worse for the company's fiscal situation.
Indeed, Matt has a fiscal responsibility to resign from the company and stfu. He's dragging it down for all the investors, of which he is only one, and doing it purely for personal glory. That is unethical.
Boards vote themselves pay packages all the time. It was unwise for Matt to agree to pay it out by firing them for reasons purely personal to Matt.
Matt, since we know you are reading this: Do what is best for the company, not yourself: go away.
All you're really saying here is that you wish Mullenweg had lost this power struggle. I get that. I'm not sticking up for Mullenweg. But the adults in the room all knew that Mullenweg wasn't going to lose, and created chaos anyways. You can't pin that on Mullenweg.
> Alternatively, Matt can resign if he doesn't like what his bosses did
The board members weren't "his bosses", he's "the boss" and the board serves as his pleasure, within the limits of the Delaware statutes with regards to the protection of minority shareholders.
That's sort of true and sort of not, right? He's not in fact "the boss" of the board, though with his voting ability (and that of his committed proxies) he can replace the board instantly.
The board has every right to fire the CEO. That's not at issue. The board could reasonably do that even if the CEO has majority voting control --- iff the board is certain the CEO won't immediately reverse the decision and replace the board. If they fire the CEO performatively (or as a hail mary) knowing the CEO will reverse them, they're causing operational chaos with no upside, and that's not something the board can legitimately do.
There's a subtext in some comments about this that the board can legitimately express a position that it's better that the company not exist than exist with Mullenweg at the helm. That's not a legitimate thing for the board to pursue.
> That's sort of true and sort of not, right? He's not in fact "the boss" of the board
He is the boss by virtue of having 84% of the voting power; and, as the board represents the will of the shareholders, the board should always consult with the shareholders before taking such action, if nothing else because majority shareholders have the power to dissolve the board and appoint a new one.
There's a parallel here with firing regular employees: there's dismissal with cause, and without cause. The dismissal *without cause* of a CEO that's also a majority shareholder makes non sense, so any dismissal would have to have a *cause* as codified by Delaware Law. IANAL, but it's usually mental unfitness, moral reprobation, or something of that gravity. Since they did not have a justified cause, I agree with you that the board should have resigned.
The interesting question here is whether the new severance packages, that the board gave itself in the brief interim, will be considered legal. We'll have to wait for a lawsuit to settle that.
> the board should always consult with the shareholders before taking such action
This is ridiculous. Boards are elected by shareholders to act on behalf of their fiduciary interests, the actions the board took were in that interest, and matt replaced the board, because he placed personal power above financial upside. He's explicitly said this is the case before.
The fact that one of the shareholders ultimately voted against all of the shareholders' fiduciary interest does not mean the board made a wrong or unethical or immoral decision. It means that Matt did (who, notably, approved the board and then changed his mind, no doubt causing further operational chaos at the company).
> The interesting question here is whether the new severance packages, that the board gave itself in the brief interim, will be considered legal. We'll have to wait for a lawsuit to settle that.
I'm excited for this proposition because it would mean discovery of matt's terrible management decisions for the company as evidence that the board acted in investors' fiduciary interest in removing him, and that he acted against it in removing them. And I have faith that matt is deluded and shortsighted enough to open himself up to that by trying such a suit. I just don't have faith that courts will look down on directors choosing company health and investor interests over matt's crazy.
> Boards are elected by shareholders to act on behalf of their fiduciary interests, the actions the board took were in that interest, and matt replaced the board, because he placed personal power above financial upside
Contrary to popular opinion, Delaware courts have given great leeway to majority shareholders in deciding a company's strategy, and placing certain things above short-term "financial upside" is among those.
> I'm excited for this proposition because it would mean discovery of matt's terrible management decisions
It's funny you don't see the contradiction between considering the board as the paladins of small shareholders, just while the board was allowing the new interim CEO to leech company money by giving himself (and the chief legal counsel) a golden parachute.
> Contrary to popular opinion, Delaware courts have given great leeway to majority shareholders in deciding a company's strategy
Are you sure this is the case?
Company shareholders less frequently decide a company strategy than elect people to a board, and let those people decide, like matt did here. The directors were approved by matt specifically.
Of course, matt didn't like his own decision, so he changed his mind. That's his right, I guess. It doesn't mean the board did anything wrong (and in this case, seems it didn't).
> placing certain things above short-term "financial upside"
Purely out of curiosity (since it is immaterial to whether courts have ever okayed boards getting severance packages), can you cite precedent for when those "certain things" are purely personal grievances by a paranoid lunatic of which pursuit harms both the short-term and long-term health of the company? I feel like we'd have to get presidential (if you know what I mean), since that is the most similar narcissist businessperson, closest in behavior.
That is why I'm pretty confident no court will affirmatively believe the board committed any malfeasance by trying to replace a crazy person who is taking down the company, rather than indulging him in his paranoid delusions (wish this was an exaggeration).
> The board members weren't "his bosses", he's "the boss" and the board serves as his pleasure
Both are true. The board as a whole is his boss in his role as CEO. He is the board's boss in his role as majority shareholder. That makes the situation a little less clear.
It doesn't "win" in the sense that they get a direct, share-proportional vote during board meetings. That is the role of the board: it is the one that votes on CEO.
I don't think a court examining the board's removal of matt would conclude they acted improperly based on some gross simplification to "the role as majority shareholder role wins", that's why the board was able to legally remove matt. They made the right call, and matt subsequently made a different call in removing them because he was mad and full of himself. Both calls seem technically legal.
A breach of fiduciary duty" describes Matt's behavior through all his escapades here. Minority shareholder rights are a thing, it just seems there are no minority shareholders willing enough to deal with Matt's nonsense to fight for it.
If there is any litigation, it opens Matt up to liability for the same thing. Unfortunately, as we've seen, Matt is willing to self-destruct himself and the company if it would effect sufficient self-glorification for him.
Minority shareholders rights generally include a right to fairness, transparency, and protection against abuse by majority shareholders, all of which were violated here.
If anything the breach of fiduciary duty for those severance packages would not be Matt alone, if the board was the one voting for it.
> Matt is willing to self-destruct himself and the company if it would effect sufficient self-glorification for him.
I've worked for at least one boss with control issues and/or delusions of grandeur, and I will say that, well, if he's at the top, it's his choice for better or worse.
reply