Irrelevant ramblings are usually ignored. I'll take the supposed self-defense first:

Military action is banned in all forms except one: self-defense. However, the right to self defense is not a blanket check to do whatever the hell one wants: there are extremely precise conditions on it. The self defense has to be in proportion to the attack, and the self defense does not allow further action after the enemy is driven back. To put it simple: Self defense stops at your border. Crossing the border is an illegal act of war in all cases.

The most common example to illustrate how the law works is the first gulf war, the Iraq-Iran war. When Saddam crossed his army into Iran, he committed an act of war violating international law. The Iranian military had the right of self-defense, and their military action against the invading Iraqi army was legal. After a while, the fronts stopped and reverted to around the Iraq/Iran border. Iran launched attacks which crossed the border. This action is not supported by the right to self-defense, and is an illegal act of war. The Iraqi military reaction(within the Iraqi border) to these invasion raids were legal acts of self-defense.

So in conclusion: the israelites could legally take military action to defend against attacks. They could not, however, cross the attackers border and attack them back. That's a breach of international law.

As for WW2:

If the French and/or British had invaded with the intent of clearing Germany of all Germans in order to resettle the land with French or Brits, then yes, that would definitely be genocide. Invading with the intent of proposing measures intended to destroy, whole or in part, German culture would also be considered genocide, even if they did not kill anyone(murder is only one of the five conditions of genocide). Examples of this would be things like enforcing English as the only language to be spoken in Germany, or forced conversion to another religion. That Germany attacked first with similar aims is completely irrelevant to defining it as genocide.

As for religious conversion:

Asking another to convert breaks no law. Demanding a conversion and threatening negative consequences for those who do not, as you claim the Israelites did, does break the law. When we're talking about individuals, it's a violation of religious freedom. If we're talking about whole groups of people, it's a genocide.


Genocide does not necessitate killing anyone at all, and only one of the five conditions for genocide is murder. Genocide also occurs when a national, ethnical, racial or religious group is destroyed in part, you do not have to intend to destroy the entire group. For example, it is still genocide if you try to destroy(and again, destroy does not mean "kill") all hindus in a given country, even if you do not advocate destroying all hindus in India. It is enough to enforce measures against smaller parts of a larger group living in a limited area(typically within the borders of the country in question, like no jews in nazi germany) intended to remove and/or end that groups presence in said area.

The forced conversion of Jews to Christianity in Spain was genocide. The deportation of Jews from Nazi Germany was genocide, sending them to the oven later made it "double-genocide". The actions of the Israelites intending to remove Caanite culture/religion from the land of Israel was genocide.


Stop talking about stuff you are utterly clueless about, TR. Make the claim that God didn't order a massacre instead. The claim that he did not order a genocide is definitely false based on your description of the events in question*.




*Which to be honest I do not trust to be an accurate account of the events, so until someone intelligent like PVC weighs in, I am only speaking about your version of the events, and make no claims of the actual account presented in the Bible and other sources.