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