responding to common objections to bible part 4

[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.