responding to common objections to bible part 4

[Ronin]

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

[HoreTore]

it truly does not take long, but if you guys could stop assuming what i have written, than actually read under spoiler, you will see the genocide did not happen.


so to you HT
Learn to read before criticizing and responding to my opening post. Otherwise I see a wall of F's should you ever attend higher education. Imagine your teacher gives you book to read, than you read cover and falsely assume what book is about. Than write a report on your false assumption, that should get a f.

Hold your sanctimonious tone, please. Here's what Sigurd wrote(my bolding):

To.9. God ordered genocide on the Canaanites? According to the Bible ... Yes.

To which you replied:

9-according to bible and archaeology..no, i have to disagree.

You back this up by apparently going off on a tangent(in your OP) about how evil the Caanites were, which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the claim you objected to. If you feel Sigurd misrepresented your intent with the way he phrased his statement, you would point that out instead of objecting to it. By objecting to just its conclusion, you assert that the way it is phrased is correct.

I, like almost everyone else on this board, already have my degree(some are still in the process of getting theirs). Unlike you. I'm no longer being graded - in fact I now grade the work of other students.

A side note on that - The last paper I graded before the summer break was "written" in the same style as your posts - it was the easiest 0 I have ever given in my life(but then again a 0 isn't a common thing). The assessment comment was also my quickest yet - a simple comment of "Breach of academic honesty policy".

[HoreTore]

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

And it gets extremely hilarious when the definition attempting to prove "not a genocide", ie. removing a religious group from a limited area, is in fact the textbook definition of genocide.

[total relism]

entire large sections of my op deal specifically with your guys claims, please read my op past the very first section sins of Canaanites.

You attempts to "massage" the supposed biblical events so that they fall somewhere outside the definition of genocide do not impress me.
it is a sure sign of a weak position when a man starts pulling out semantic tricks.

I can only take that as showing you cannot respond to the op. Unsupported claims as you have made above, is a sure sign of a weak [in this case non existent] argument.

Hold your sanctimonious tone, please. Here's what Sigurd wrote(my bolding):



To which you replied:



You back this up by apparently going off on a tangent(in your OP) about how evil the Caanites were, which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the claim you objected to. If you feel Sigurd misrepresented your intent with the way he phrased his statement, you would point that out instead of objecting to it. By objecting to just its conclusion, you assert that the way it is phrased is correct.

I, like almost everyone else on this board, already have my degree(some are still in the process of getting theirs). Unlike you. I'm no longer being graded - in fact I now grade the work of other students.

A side note on that - The last paper I graded before the summer break was "written" in the same style as your posts - it was the easiest 0 I have ever given in my life(but then again a 0 isn't a common thing). The assessment comment was also my quickest yet - a simple comment of "Breach of academic honesty policy".

You should not be grading papers imo, if you only read beginning of every paper, as you did my op [sins of Canaanites] you would come to a false conclusion apretley, if you falsely apply my post to be about that all alone. If you keep readingmy whole op on subject, you will find that your post that picked up on what Sigurd wrote, and the false assumptions that followed. Are giving you the wrong conclusions on my post and argument. Is it to much to ask to have people read my entire op on a subject before responding?.


so when i posted this
"9-according to bible and archaeology..no, i have to disagree."

to back up is not naming the sins of the Canaanites [that is important for op] but the whole op post i made, i encourage you and all others to read my op before responding and making false assumptions. Than we dont have to make post after post of talking on things no one said or posted.

And it gets extremely hilarious when the definition attempting to prove "not a genocide", ie. removing a religious group from a limited area, is in fact the textbook definition of genocide.

if i needed any more proof, this shows again they have not read past first section of my post on sins of Canaanites, nor read my second reference [if they did not want to read all that] a debate on subject.

[HoreTore]

Failing a paper due to a breach of academic honesty policy is done after glancing through a paper in under a minute. It's extremely quick to do.

Now, let's have a look at your OP, shall we? Let's start here:

The nations in cannan were given 4 options
1] leave- some left
2] war
3] join isreal
4]make peace treaty

Two of these, 2 and 3, are always genocidal, while whether 1 and 4 are genocidal depends on other factors. In this context, 1 is a definite genocide, while 4 would depend on the terms of said treaty.

This statement:

The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them..

....is a textbook definition of a genocide. It simply does not get any closer to genocide than this.


Do I have to teach you how the Convention on Genocide works as well, or what?

[total relism]

Failing a paper due to a breach of academic honesty policy is done after glancing through a paper in under a minute. It's extremely quick to do.

Now, let's have a look at your OP, shall we? Let's start here:



Two of these, 2 and 3, are always genocidal, while whether 1 and 4 depends on factors. In this context, 1 is a definite genocide, while 4 would depend on the terms of said treaty.

This statement:



....is a textbook definition of a genocide. It simply does not get any closer to genocide than this.


Do I have to teach you how the Convention on Genocide works as well, or what?

number 3
so when a atheist tries to convince a christian of atheist, that is genocide? when a christian asks a atheist to become a christian that is genocide?


number 2
so when france went to war against germany after being attacked, and britian invaded germany, you count that as genocide?


statement "The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them.."


you clearly leave out other statements made in my op, seems almost like academic dishonesty. As you have done the whole time, your being dishonest and cherry picking parts and ignoring all else to enable false info to come about.

a few of the many points you missed

Canaanites initiated the attacks on isreal first
The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when Israel was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22


so already we have self defense.



No were in ot does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.

upon entering the land Israel simply asked for safe passage and were than attacked first by Canaanites numbers 21.1 21 21-24 21.33 20 14-17

isreal was than after attacked, asked for peace.


when Canaanites rejected [those that did some did make peace and kept land and no war] and continued attacks, isreal gave the 4 options

The nations in cannan were given 4 options
1] leave- some left
2] war
3] join isreal
4]make peace treaty



isreal was than ordered to drive them out of the land not kill them, for reasons given on op.
Drive out not kill
Isreal was to drive out Canaanites not annihilate num 21.32 33.52 dt 9.1 11.23 18.14 19.1 ex 23.28 lev 10.24 num 33.52 etc just as adam and eve were “driven out” of the garden of Eden gen 4.14



land originally Israel's and gods the promise land
they were not to just go fight anyone to take land,The land belongs to god and Israel,so they were taking there land back


5#Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.
Deuteronomy 2.5 also 2.9 and 2.19 also Deuteronomy 2:2-23

Deuteronomy 20.16 limits “holy war” to the promise land. Only people who did not have right or title to land would be dispossessed,Unlike edom dut 2.4 23.7 and moab/ammon dut 2.9,19 gen 12-12 promises isreal the land gen 13 14-17.


Canaanite lived with and among isreal and next to isreal with peace treaties from beginning and for thousands of years after.


none of the OT wars were fought with the purpose of forcibly converting the pagans to the religion of Israel. God commanded these wars for the specific purpose of punishment and judgment

Canaanites destruction was not genocide or racism but because of moral behavior.



a group that practiced today what Canaanites did, even in liberal west would not be tolerated in society.


thir is much more in op you are ignoring.

[HoreTore]

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.

[total relism]

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.

here is article HT posted on genocide,you will quickly find how self contradictory he is trying to be to try to push it on isreal, while his un is guilty of what he claims is genocide.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html


not to mention, he changes circumstances with isreal slightly [ignoring op and post 36] to try to create this idea of genocide. You can tell hes getting alittle testy,[when they attack person not argument, a logical fallacy, they shows they cant deal with content] but he constantly ignores important facts given to him, than distorts the narrative to create a starwman genocide, to argue against.



self defense- does not apply, you ignore some of the facts.
First my authority is not the un, thank god. What makes them for you be the ultimate provider of truth?. Isreal follows gods law, not liberal un law. So what in your mind puts un above a creator? how do you justify morals if atheism is true?. What makes war wrong in your worldview?.

as i said in op

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Atheist must put themselves in place as god, as perfect judge of people living thousands of years ago, to decided what is morally correct or not.
1] we must assume we are god, that only we can tell and know what is morally acceptable or not.
2] we must assume their are such things as morals, “right” and “wrong” those ideas only make sense if a moral god created us.
3]we must assume our evolved brains of completely random chemical reactions and matter can somehow have the right idea of what is right and wrong, our evolved animal brains formed by random chemical reactions and matter [dirt] that combined for a survival advantage[according to atheist]. They only “feel” killing is wrong because the random chemical reactions give them a chemical feeling that killing is wrong.

so as i posted in op than again, isreal and god owned the land they were coming into, they did not take any land that was not rightfully theirs,they were atacked first as you know seem to admit, and were in defense.



WW2- does not apply to isreal for reasons given you ignore some of the facts.
so than is not the UN [not sure if it was un than or league of nations] itself guilty of genocide? they rid germany of the nazi culture by hanging its leaders and implementing a new goverment, Nuremberg trials etc. But never the less, this was not original intent of isreal/god at all, as i posted and you ignored.



religious conversion
joining isreal does not mean conversion, while they were ceratinley asked and some did rahab etc they were asked to live within isrealite society, many did keeping their own religion. That is why in joshua [contains most of conquest narrative] joshua says

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
joshua 24.15


yet they could not child sacrifice etc, break gods laws.


but is not the un guilty of this? by trying to convert entire germany of conversion from their political system?.



the rest
does not apply for reasons given since op. Isreal is not guilty of any genocide. Canaanites destruction was not genocide or racism but because of moral behavior..

4 “Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you.
Deuteronomy 9:4


a group that practiced today what Canaanites did, even in liberal west would not be tolerated in society.


it was gods judgment on evil, just as your ultimate authority the UN says it will do for bad moral behavior [genocide].
Article 1

"The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."
article 1 http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html



question for HT.
do you belive it was wrong for god to order what he did given the circumstances?please exspalin why.

[The Stranger]

Oh god, here we go again.

[HoreTore]

You are using legal and/or scientific terms to make your case. Thus, you are bound by the legal and/or scientific definition of those terms. That's why I suggested you use another term, like "massacre" for example. The term genocide is a term defined by the UN, and their definition is the one we go by, no matter how any gods feel about it. The same goes for the term self defense. These are not terms for you(or your god) to define as you(he/she/it) pleases, they are defined by others.

As for dismantling the German state being a genocide: no. That's the form of conquest which isn't a genocide(though it's sometimes followed by one). Also, the destruction of political groups and movements are (on purpose) left out of the convention on genocide.

If you honestly can't see the difference between the two forms of conquest, I really have no other thing to say than "educate yourself". You clearly are too daft to grasp even basic concepts, and does not seem to make any effort to understand what you do not understand.


My sole interest in this thread is your mangling of and failure to understand international law and UN conventions, not discussing the morality of supposed events 3000 years ago. You have presented events that are unquestionably a case of genocide. Beyond asserting that, I have little desire to comment beyond pointing out what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are....




EDIT: Also, I would advice staying clear of the term "crime against humanity" in any future posts.... That term is a lot wider then the definition for genocide, and the Bible is chock-full of events classed as crimes against humanity.

EDIT2: A nice summary of your failure to understand the term discussed, in just one short sentence(my bolding):

Canaanites destruction was not genocide or racism but because of moral behavior.

This is a clear contradiction of terms. If the Canaanites were destroyed, it was genocide. If it wasn't genocide, they weren't destroyed. Easy-peasy.

[total relism]

.

You are using legal and/or scientific terms to make your case. Thus, you are bound by the legal and/or scientific definition of those terms. That's why I suggested you use another term, like "massacre" for example. The term genocide is a term defined by the UN, and their definition is the one we go by, no matter how any gods feel about it. The same goes for the term self defense. These are not terms for you(or your god) to define as you(he/she/it) pleases, they are defined by others.

As for dismantling the German state being a genocide: no. That's the form of conquest which isn't a genocide(though it's sometimes followed by one). Also, the destruction of political groups and movements are (on purpose) left out of the convention on genocide.

If you honestly can't see the difference between the two forms of conquest, I really have no other thing to say than "educate yourself". You clearly are too daft to grasp even basic concepts, and does not seem to make any effort to understand what you do not understand.


My sole interest in this thread is your mangling of and failure to understand international law and UN conventions, not discussing the morality of supposed events 3000 years ago. You have presented events that are unquestionably a case of genocide. Beyond asserting that, I have little desire to comment beyond pointing out what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are....

ok i can agree with using the un term, you are correct on that. But even given un definition, isreal is not guilty of genocide.

Self defense
Self-defense or private defense (see spelling differences) is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm.[1] The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.


so as i pointed out, isreal was acting in self defense.



german
you say un is not guilty, but un says this

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [nazi party]

how was the un not guilty of these after ww2?.



the rest is personal attack be cause you cant deal with the information showing isreal is not guilty in any way of your definition, in fact had you read my op in whole, this could have been avoided fully.


you cant defend the un that gives your definition of genocide, because they themselves would be guilty, you cant show bibically that isreal is guilty, without ignoring multiple facts you must constantly ignore. Had you read in full op,post 36 or 38 this would be clear. You cant show your argument "what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are" applies to anything but your straw-man bible conquest, you cant show it does not apply to un, you cant show any base or logical constant argument from your worldview that this would be bad, or that it was wrong in anyway for god to command as he did during the conquest of Canaan.

[HoreTore]

As already stated, the convention on genocide does not cover political groups. The Nazi party was not a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, and so the convention on genocide does not apply to them.

Had the repression of the Nuremberg trials(which was carried out under the London Charter, not the UN) been extended to germans as a people, it would have been genocide. The allies did not, so no genocide. Though several historians argue that events like the bombing of Dresden should be seen as genocide, and they have good arguments. To relate this to the Canaanites, if the Israelites had, after defeating the army, limited themselves to chopping off the heads of a few kings and generals and left the rest of the population to do as they wanted to, there would have been no genocide. Any and all action taken against the civilian population is a crime against humanity, and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide.

As for defining self defense, you are once again making your own definitions and doing as you please with them. The world doesn't work that way. Self defense under international law is defined as my post above explains, illustrated with the Iraq-Iran example. It is also extremely important to note that the convention on genocide still applies as normal(along with a host of other laws of war) even when we are talking of self defense. It is perfectly possible to commit genocide(or any other crime) even though the larger military operation is legal under the provision for self defense, and this has happened on several occasions.

Again: get yourself an education. I attribute your inclusion of "(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" to the Nuremberg trials to a lack of education resulting in a failure to understand what C means.

[The Stranger]

.





ok i can agree with using the un term, you are correct on that. But even given un definition, isreal is not guilty of genocide.

Self defense
Self-defense or private defense (see spelling differences) is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm.[1] The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely.


so as i pointed out, isreal was acting in self defense.



german
you say un is not guilty, but un says this

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [nazi party]

how was the un not guilty of these after ww2?.



the rest is personal attack be cause you cant deal with the information showing isreal is not guilty in any way of your definition, in fact had you read my op in whole, this could have been avoided fully.


you cant defend the un that gives your definition of genocide, because they themselves would be guilty, you cant show bibically that isreal is guilty, without ignoring multiple facts you must constantly ignore. Had you read in full op,post 36 or 38 this would be clear. You cant show your argument "what wonderful chaps those who defend genocide are" applies to anything but your straw-man bible conquest, you cant show it does not apply to un, you cant show any base or logical constant argument from your worldview that this would be bad, or that it was wrong in anyway for god to command as he did during the conquest of Canaan.

Just admit that it was genocide, and then dismiss it as irrelevant, because as HoreTore said, it is an UN definition, and applying moral obligations in retrospect is hardly fair and even less productive. Then proceed to say that the UN's Universal Civil Rights Codex is the result of a humanist ideology which gained alot of popularity after the Revolutions, but popularity is hardly a proper argument to prefer one ideology over the other. Then ask HoreTore if he can give an arguments as to why his ideology is principally better then yours, and if he cannot (and he can't), shake his hand... Only to return when he is sleeping to bash his skull in.

[total relism]

As already stated, the convention on genocide does not cover political groups. The Nazi party was not a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, and so the convention on genocide does not apply to them.

Had the repression(which was carried out under the London Charter, not the UN) been extended to germans as a people, it would have been genocide. The allies did not, so no genocide. Though several historians argue that events like the bombing of Dresden should be seen as genocide, and they have good arguments. To relate this to the Canaanites, if the Israelites had, after defeating the army, limited themselves to chopping off the heads of a few kings and generals and left the rest of the population to do as they wanted to, there would have been no genocide. Any and all action taken against the civilian population is a crime against humanity, and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide.

As for defining self defense, you are once again making your own definitions and doing as you please with them. The world doesn't work that way. Self defense under international law is defined as my post above explains, illustrated with the Iraq-Iran example. It is also extremely important to note that the convention on genocide still applies as normal(along with a host of other laws of war) even when we are talking of self defense. It is perfectly possible to commit genocide(or any other crime) even though the larger military operation is legal under the provision for self defense, and this has happened on several occasions.

Again: get yourself an education.

than you must admit that isreal is not guilty, they never attacked with intent to kill off cannanite population. You must say isreal is not guilty if un is not. If your willing to read any of my post in full or op, you would see this was not the case with isreal. But i think you have read and are just unable to respond, because you know it does not apply to isreal in this case.



self defense
i did not make my own got it from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense. You however have over and over made your own strawman against isreal, and did as you please with it. As i showed in my response you had to ignore on post 38, with your Iraq-Iran example. Isreal is not guilty of the situation you falsely put them in.


you said " and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide."

how does this apply to isreal? it does not, you still have yet to read my op.



so instead of worrying about my education, please try reading my op and my posts on 36 and 38, stop relying on your strawman conquest of cannan, and read my op and posts. If it makes you feel any better, i would agree with you if isreal was guilty of genocide in the strawman conquest you assume they are.. But as i showed over and over [from op on] you cant defend biblical your strawman, that is why you consistent ignore my post.. So unless you can show biblically isreal was guilty of Un genocide definition,your argument fails. Since we have seen you cant work with evidence showing it false [op 36 38], your argument fails.

[HoreTore]

Just admit that it was genocide, and then dismiss it as irrelevant, because as HoreTore said, it is an UN definition, and applying moral obligations in retrospect is hardly fair and even less productive. Then proceed to say that the UN's Universal Civil Rights Codex is the result of a humanist ideology which gained alot of popularity after the Revolutions, but popularity is hardly a proper argument to prefer one ideology over the other.

That line of argument would at least be legitimate, and it also requires very little education or knowledge to make.

My main concern here is the unintelligent misuse of terms. If TR simply decides to argue that what happened wasn't "a massacre"(or whatever) instead of arguing that it wasn't a genocide, he'd have at least half a leg to stand on.

In that event I wouldn't have any interest in commenting in the thread either, as I have very little interest in debating morals with someone obsessed with punishment and believes debt-slavery to be morally acceptable....

[The Stranger]

That line of argument would at least be legitimate, and it also requires very little education or knowledge to make.

damn and i thought i was being smart :S

[total relism]

Just admit that it was genocide, and then dismiss it as irrelevant, because as HoreTore said, it is an UN definition, and applying moral obligations in retrospect is hardly fair and even less productive. Then proceed to say that the UN's Universal Civil Rights Codex is the result of a humanist ideology which gained alot of popularity after the Revolutions, but popularity is hardly a proper argument to prefer one ideology over the other. Then ask HoreTore if he can give an arguments as to why his ideology is principally better then yours, and if he cannot (and he can't), shake his hand... Only to return when he is sleeping to bash his skull in.

I love most all that post sir, but if you read my op and especially post 36 and 38 [easier smaller but not all info] you will find isreal was not guilty of even un definition. HT knows this, that is why he does not respond to these post, but i do agree i think he knows the morality of the conquest is what matters and that is what he chooses not to disuse for whatever reason. Not a un definition of genocide.

[total relism]

That line of argument would at least be legitimate, and it also requires very little education or knowledge to make.

My main concern here is the unintelligent misuse of terms. If TR simply decides to argue that what happened wasn't "a massacre"(or whatever) instead of arguing that it wasn't a genocide, he'd have at least half a leg to stand on.

In that event I wouldn't have any interest in commenting in the thread either, as I have very little interest in debating morals with someone obsessed with punishment and believes debt-slavery to be morally acceptable....

were ht sees a " misuse of terms" anyone looking into will find it comes down to him ignoring/not reading my post and the biblical narrative. As for debt-slavery, that is responded to on this thread [link found on op HT runs from]
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...tions-to-bible

[total relism]

I just want to be clear, given what Ht assumes [or pretends] happened in the conquest, he is right that isreal would be guilty of genocide yet not necessarily wrong as he says. But as i have shown and bible clearly teaches, isreal was not guilty of genocide. That is why he ignores my post and op on the subject and cant argue against. he just keeps repeating that they did hoping if he says it long enough some might think it true [i guess not sure why].

[HoreTore]

than you must admit that isreal is not guilty, they never attacked with intent to kill off cannanite population. You must say isreal is not guilty if un is not. If your willing to read any of my post in full or op, you would see this was not the case with isreal. But i think you have read and are just unable to respond, because you know it does not apply to isreal in this case.



self defense
i did not make my own got it from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense. You however have over and over made your own strawman against isreal, and did as you please with it. As i showed in my response you had to ignore on post 38, with your Iraq-Iran example. Isreal is not guilty of the situation you falsely put them in.


you said " and if the intent is to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group, it's a genocide."

how does this apply to isreal? it does not, you still have yet to read my op.



so instead of worrying about my education, please try reading my op and my posts on 36 and 38, stop relying on your strawman conquest of cannan, and read my op and posts. If it makes you feel any better, i would agree with you if isreal was guilty of genocide in the strawman conquest you assume they are.. But as i showed over and over [from op on] you cant defend biblical your strawman, that is why you consistent ignore my post.. So unless you can show biblically isreal was guilty of Un genocide definition,your argument fails. Since we have seen you cant work with evidence showing it false [op 36 38], your argument fails.

Any claims of god-given land are disregarded completely, as it is complete nonsense. It carries no weight whatsoever. You cannot claim a land inhabited by others because God said it belonged to you originally. Other people live there now, and that makes it their land. That was why I completely ignored this point: it's complete nonsense, and irrelevant to the discussion.

To give a contemporary example of this: the US used to belong to the native americans. It was their land. However, if the native americans were to deport americans of european descent, it would be a case of genocide. This applies even though the native americans themselves have been subject to genocide from americans of european descent.

I know your definition was copy-paste, as I am well aware that your intellectual shortcomings keep you from constructing things on your own and instead relying on the good ol' "copy c, copy v". Since you make a point about not referencing properly I didn't know the source, but I suspected wiki(since that's where morons go to get confused).

Suffice to say, Wikipedia has listed a general description(not that I am using a different term than "definition" now) of the term as it is applied in various settings. This is irrelevant, because we are now talking about a specific use, namely its use in international relations. That definition and its use in international law is discussed in a post above(Iraq/Iran).

Now, back to the question of genocide. You wrote:

than you must admit that isreal is not guilty, they never attacked with intent to kill off cannanite population

That the intent was to "kill off" is irrelevant to the definition of genocide. Genocide often, but in no way has to, include murder. The relevant act in Canaan, as with any other forceful removals and ethnic cleansing, is C. This act includes things like assimilation and relocation, two things which happened with the Canaanites. Thus, genocide. The assimilation and relocation were intended to partly destroy a religious and ethnic group in the land of Israel. Again, genocide.

I am working off the following statement to determine the intent behind the actions of the Israelites:

The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them..

This intent makes it a clear case of genocide. I am not certain of the validity of that statement, however, given that you are notoriously unreliable and my own limited biblical knowledge. Thus, I have to stress that I make no claims on the events of the bible, my comments are solely directed at your version of the account.

[HoreTore]

damn and i thought i was being smart :S

Well.... What I meant was that you don't have to have knowledge of different conventions and so on to make such an argument.

[total relism]

Any claims of god-given land are disregarded completely, as it is complete nonsense. It carries no weight whatsoever. You cannot claim a land inhabited by others because God said it belonged to you originally. Other people live there now, and that makes it their land. That was why I completely ignored this point: it's complete nonsense, and irrelevant to the discussion.

To give a contemporary example of this: the US used to belong to the native americans. It was their land. However, if the native americans were to deport americans of european descent, it would be a case of genocide. This applies even though the native americans themselves have been subject to genocide from americans of european descent.

I know your definition was copy-paste, as I am well aware that your intellectual shortcomings keep you from constructing things on your own and instead relying on the good ol' "copy c, copy v". Since you make a point about not referencing properly I didn't know the source, but I suspected wiki(since that's where morons go to get confused).

Suffice to say, Wikipedia has listed a general description(not that I am using a different term than "definition" now) of the term as it is applied in various settings. This is irrelevant, because we are now talking about a specific use, namely its use in international relations. That definition and its use in international law is discussed in a post above(Iraq/Iran).

Now, back to the question of genocide. You wrote:



That the intent was to "kill off" is irrelevant to the definition of genocide. Genocide often, but in no way has to, include murder. The relevant act in Canaan, as with any other forceful removals and ethnic cleansing, is C. This act includes things like assimilation and relocation, two things which happened with the Canaanites. Thus, genocide. The assimilation and relocation were intended to partly destroy a religious and ethnic group in the land of Israel. Again, genocide.

I am working off the following statement to determine the intent behind the actions of the Israelites:



This intent makes it a clear case of genocide. I am not certain of the validity of that statement, however, given that you are notoriously unreliable and my own limited biblical knowledge. Thus, I have to stress that I make no claims on the events of the bible, my comments are solely directed at your version of the account.

it was Abraham and Israels land originally, this is like saying germany had rights to France, as they owned it during ww2 when america came and took it [genocide]from them. Besides were does it say in un, that the retaking of land [isreal was ordered not to take land rightfully and not taken from them by Canaanites] is genocide?. Isreal was never told to go and take land or spread its borders, had you read op you would know that.

here we go with yet another modern analogy that does not follow the biblical narrative.



kill off
i was simply responding to just one of your claims. The other that you make was dealt with on post 36 38 and more important my op. You keep tacking small sections such as "The goal of the conquest was to remove the Canaanites from the land not to kill them" than ignoring the narrative as a whole as i have tried many times to show you.



please first show were a retaking of land that you went to return to and were first attacked and tried for peace they would not accept. Is genocide in the un document. If you can do so i will consider removing the word genocide from op. But i dont see it in un article anywere nor webster

the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide


wiki provides many definitions from 1945 on, i cant see any that fit what your saying or the biblical narrative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions



not that i ever held your argument up as you deny biblical narrative, but me thinks your shit out of luck.I cant belive your still trying, right know your definition of genocide is not found in un document, nor anywhere i can find. It involves retaking land that was originally yours,and defending yourself from attacks in your land, this counts as genocide to you, it this not embarrassing buy know, to keep trying desperate to defend this?


than i will just copy paste off post 28 you ignored that deals with this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Canaanites initiated the attacks on isreal first
The Canaanites initiated the attacks on Israel when Israel was defenseless killing children and woman elderly, ex 17 8-13 num 21.1 21-26 33-35 dut 2 26-37 3 1-22


so already we have self defense.



No were in ot does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.

upon entering the land Israel simply asked for safe passage and were than attacked first by Canaanites numbers 21.1 21 21-24 21.33 20 14-17

isreal was than after attacked, asked for peace.


when Canaanites rejected [those that did some did make peace and kept land and no war] and continued attacks, isreal gave the 4 options

The nations in cannan were given 4 options
1] leave- some left
2] war
3] join isreal
4]make peace treaty



isreal was than ordered to drive them out of the land not kill them, for reasons given on op.
Drive out not kill
Isreal was to drive out Canaanites not annihilate num 21.32 33.52 dt 9.1 11.23 18.14 19.1 ex 23.28 lev 10.24 num 33.52 etc just as adam and eve were “driven out” of the garden of Eden gen 4.14



land originally Israel's and gods the promise land
they were not to just go fight anyone to take land,The land belongs to god and Israel,so they were taking there land back


5#Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.
Deuteronomy 2.5 also 2.9 and 2.19 also Deuteronomy 2:2-23

Deuteronomy 20.16 limits “holy war” to the promise land. Only people who did not have right or title to land would be dispossessed,Unlike edom dut 2.4 23.7 and moab/ammon dut 2.9,19 gen 12-12 promises isreal the land gen 13 14-17.


Canaanite lived with and among isreal and next to isreal with peace treaties from beginning and for thousands of years after.


none of the OT wars were fought with the purpose of forcibly converting the pagans to the religion of Israel. God commanded these wars for the specific purpose of punishment and judgment

Canaanites destruction was not genocide or racism but because of moral behavior.



a group that practiced today what Canaanites did, even in liberal west would not be tolerated in society.


thir is much more in op you are ignoring.

[The Stranger]

Well.... What I meant was that you don't have to have knowledge of different conventions and so on to make such an argument.

dont worry about it :P im kidding a bit here. I'm actually surprised u guys are still trying.

[HoreTore]

Who attacked who first is utterly irrelevant. I cannot stress this enough, but you can't seem to grasp it. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the question of whether it was genocide or not.

You do not seem to see the difference between evicting a population and toppling its leadership either. I do not know how to explain this simple enough for you, sorry. When the US attacked German-occupied France(which wasn't annexed(owned) so even less relevant), there was no removal of civilian populations. A change in statehood is a change in statehood, and has little to do with genocide. Now, a piece of Germany(Alsace-Lorraine) was annexed by France after the war. If Germany today was to claim it as its own and annex it, this would be a breach of international law. If they forced the french living there away, it would be a genocide.

I have no problems in accepting arguments that the removal of German civilians from Prussia by the Soviet Union after the war constituted a genocide.

Israel was Abrahams land? Irrelevant. The Canaanites lived there now, it was their land. The Canaanite population cannot be forced to leave without it being a genocide. You could subjugate them, and it would merely be unlawful under other conventions, but not remove them. That will always be termed genocide.

There are absolutely no provisions under international law to retake previously owned land. Doing so is under all circumstances an illegal act.

[Brenus]

“Now, a piece of Germany(Alsace-Lorraine) was annexed by France after the war.” Err, this piece of land, as you say, was French and annexed by Germany. So, no, Germany won’t have any valid claim as Alsace-Lorraine was French even before the State of Germany existed. But don't mind me, I was just fixing a minor historical mistake. Carry on.

[The Stranger]

Franks were germanic, so Germany's caim was valid!

[HoreTore]

“Now, a piece of Germany(Alsace-Lorraine) was annexed by France after the war.” Err, this piece of land, as you say, was French and annexed by Germany. So, no, Germany won’t have any valid claim as Alsace-Lorraine was French even before the State of Germany existed. But don't mind me, I was just fixing a minor historical mistake. Carry on.

I do know that the French limited themselves to annexing only what Germany annexed during the course of WW2 Actually the french went further, as they did not annex the Saar, which had been under French control before the war. The French set up a protectorate, which they eventually returned completely to West-Germany following a referendum(not God's will). The history of that entire region has changed back and forth so many times it's dizzying to an outsider(like me), dating all the way back to the "Age of Extreme Number of Tiny States Noone Can Possibly Keep Track Of".

The Dutch also made a request to annex a large part of Germany, which was denied. They eventually annexed a much smaller part, which was later handed back to West-Germany.

[The Stranger]

Them uppity Dutch. Where is Frag, we need him to say something smart about it!

[Brenus]

"Franks were germanic, so Germany's caim was valid!" So, the French could claim Berlin, as we are both Germanic Tribes... Or At least Aix La Chapelle...

[HoreTore]

"Franks were germanic, so Germany's caim was valid!" So, the French could claim Berlin, as we are both Germanic Tribes... Or At least Aix La Chapelle...

I'd say yes.

Feel free to create a little lebensraum for yourself further east while you're at it. After all, God seems to think that sort of thing is cool.