Moses bin Amram and Adolph Hilter

[Willum]

SallyF is hinting at similarities between Hitler and Jesus - honestly I don't see it, but I am ready to be surprised.

But it did make me see a relation between Moses and Hitler.

Both led their people from slavery.
Both were xenophobes.
Both attempted genocide, only one succeeded.
Both were artists.

Let's look at other similarities and differences.

[Goose]

This isn't a courtroom; I'm not laying criminal charges against anyone

I know it’s not a court room. But you are trying to apply a criminal charge. And applying it incorrectly. Which smacks more of an attempt at using the term in a pejorative and emotive sense.

Genocide is a widely used and understood term in the English language.

Irrelevant. The question here is whether it is being applied correctly.

No, as Willum reminded us in post #12 the question is how well (or poorly) Moses compares with Hitler.

But the comparison has explicitly been made to hinge on the charge of genocide. That Moses compares with Hitler because Moses committed genocide. That charge implies the unlawful/unjustified mass killing of people motivated by racial hatred on the part of Moses. That argument doesn’t logically follow anymore than arguing Moses compares to Hitler because Moses was a fascist. If the charge of genocide doesn’t hold in the case of Moses for various reasons then it logically follows the comparison, at least on this point, does not hold.

Part of the answer - a part which I consider to be pretty much beyond rational dispute - is that both Hitler and Moses reportedly commissioned genocide on a comparable scale in excess of 6 million victims.

Your personal considerations are irrelevant. The fact is, I have rationally disputed this.

Your various responses have been along the lines of

• - If a criminal charge of genocide were laid against Moses it probably wouldn't hold up in a courtroom
  - (...or if it did then...) Churchill and Truman committed genocide too
  - Lots of other people in Moses' era were brutal savages too
  - Moses' people didn't succeed in killing 100% of the people the stories say he commanded them to
  - The victims of the Israelite aggression and slaughter had killed some of their own people
  - The Bosnian, Rwandan and Nazi genocides were significantly different from Moses' actions and commands

From a second and third read of your post I don't see anything that doesn't fall under those broad categories, but let me know if I've missed something.

Missed something? Uh, you missed like 95% of my post, bro. I suppose that’s excusable in itself, it was a long post. What’s not excusable, however, is erecting a six point mischaracterisation summary my arguments rather than addressing the actual arguments I have made. Then, to make matters worse, this was followed by an attempt to refute the six point summary, mostly by excusing them as irrelevant, as though in doing so my arguments have been properly addressed. Topped off with a declaration that we must conclude Moses committed genocide.

All the while ignoring the main argument I have made. Allow me to give you my main argument for the third time. My main argument is: given the definition of genocide you provided (here) Moses, Truman, and Churchill (and by extension the American and British people) are all guilty of genocide or none of them are.

I could reform the argument to something like this:

If, Moses was guilty of genocide (given your definition of genocide), then so was Truman and Churchill.

The first is obviously just a diversion away from the common use and understanding of the word genocide; if we instead used the clumsy phrase "indiscriminate mass slaughter of men, women and innocent little children by their millions" such a would-be recourse to 'criminal charge' technicalities (dubious though it is in any case) would never arise, with no change to the substance of discussion.

Clumsy phrase is an understatement. In attempting to massage the definition of genocide to capture Hitler and Moses, you exclude Rwanda and Bosnia.

Your comments above suggest some kind of emotionalism for you in considering the possibility that Moses committed and commissioned genocide - which could perhaps help explain why you're driving that diversion so hard - and yet the more detailed and precise phrase above could potentially be even more emotionally-laden.

You are projecting here. Once again, allow me to give you the argument I made.

Given the definition of genocide you provided Moses, Truman, and Churchill (and by extension the American and British people) are all guilty of genocide or none of them are.

So why you are going down this path of accusing me of “some kind of emotionalism for you in considering the possibility that Moses committed and commissioned genocide� is quite beyond me when that is explicitly given in my argument as one of the outcomes.

But since we're here, do you acknowledge that according to the bible Moses did indeed command indiscriminate mass slaughter of men, women and innocent little children by their millions?

Although irrelevant to the question, your numbers are debatable. But the answer is, yes, to mass slaughter of men, women and innocent little children just like Truman and Churchill.

So that brings the discussion down to the sixth point, which ironically (now that I get 'round to it) you yourself said was irrelevant:

It’s irrelevant to my argument. Given your definition of genocide, my argument isn’t an attempt to distance Moses from Hitler, et al. But rather it’s meant to show your argument is absurd since Truman and Churchill are likewise guilty of genocide using your understanding of genocide and reasoning.

Could you please clarify exactly which specific characteristics you believe were shared by the Holocaust, Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, but not by the Israelite annihilation of the Midianites and seven nations of Canaan?

If you insist but it's irrelevant to my argument.

• 1. The Holocaust, Rwandan and Bosnian genocides occurred in the 20th century under different accepted standards of justification.
  2. Those genocides were characterised by mainly targeting a specific ethnic group or race for no other reason than their ethnicity or race.
  3. Those genocides did not occur under the context of formal and/or total warfare.

1 - While you insist that "the issue isn’t whether we should admire Moses," I'd hazard a pretty confident guess that's exactly the reason for this thread: If each Jew and Christian and Muslim who chanced upon the thread were willing and honest enough to post a quick reply saying that Moses as portrayed in the bible was indeed a bloodthirsty bronze age brute warranting little if any respect - but not as blameworthy as modern genocidaires due to the difference in cultural milieux - I imagine Willum would consider it a job well done Instead I think the only Christian on this forum I've seen say anything along those lines (at least in the past three years and more) is Elijah John. How about you?

Your speculation on my motivations for posting in this thread is quite irrelevant. If there was supposed to be something cogent here in this rant that rebutted my first point I must have missed it.

In the era of Moses there were different standards for justifying death and waging war than there are in the 20th and 21st centuries. All one need do is read the Code of Hammurabi or of the legal codes of the Old Testament and that becomes self evident. To then accuse these people of unjustified killing because they weren’t justified by our standards seems unreasonable if not outright fallacious altogether.

2 - That's demonstrably and obviously false; there were long histories of political and/or cultural tension between the Hutus and Tutsis, the Serbs and Croats, the Jews and Christians, as well as similar kinds of baby-killing propaganda (certainly against Jews) as we see in the bible against the Israelites' victims.

But a history of political and/or cultural tension between them is implied by the fact they killed them because it’s, well, them. I don’t see how this overturns my point.

3 - There is no record of any kind of formal state of war between the Israelites and their victims, and in some cases (eg. sending 12,000 Israelite soldiers against an estimated Midianite total population well over 100,000) the stories clearly imply or explicitly state that surprise and stealth were a major part of their tactics.

It didn’t work like that. Nor was it a case of the Israelites sneaking around in the dark killing unsuspecting unarmed farmers in their sleep. The Israelites waged war on cities capable of defending themselves such as Jericho (Josh 6:1) and Ai (Josh 8:14). In fact, the Israelites were given specific provisions for how they were to go about this.

10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. 11 If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. 12 However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. “ – Deut 20:10

Regardless of whether terms of peace may have been offered at the outset, the city knew it was at war when an army showed up at its door step. It was implied. Why else would that army be there? The enemies of Israel knew the Israelites were there to wage war once they had heard the fate of Jericho and Ai. The enemies of Israel gathered to fight Israel (Josh 9:2). It was all in the context of war.

Meanwhile the Bosnian genocide did occur in the context of a wider war; Jews in Poland and elsewhere were accessed by the Nazis in a context of warfare; and even German Jews received as much if not more forewarning of coming danger as the people of Canaan did (certainly as of December 1938).

You’re misunderstanding the point here. It’s not that they occurred in the back drop of a wider war. It’s that no state of war existed between them thus it was unlawful killing. The Jews had not, for example, declared war on Germany or vice versa.

[Mithrae]

Your various responses have been along the lines of

• - If a criminal charge of genocide were laid against Moses it probably wouldn't hold up in a courtroom
  - (...or if it did then...) Churchill and Truman committed genocide too
  - Lots of other people in Moses' era were brutal savages too
  - Moses' people didn't succeed in killing 100% of the people the stories say he commanded them to
  - The victims of the Israelite aggression and slaughter had killed some of their own people
  - The Bosnian, Rwandan and Nazi genocides were significantly different from Moses' actions and commands

From a second and third read of your post I don't see anything that doesn't fall under those broad categories, but let me know if I've missed something.

Missed something? Uh, you missed like 95% of my post, bro. I suppose that’s excusable in itself, it was a long post. What’s not excusable, however, is erecting a six point mischaracterisation summary my arguments rather than addressing the actual arguments I have made. Then, to make matters worse, this was followed by an attempt to refute the six point summary, mostly by excusing them as irrelevant, as though in doing so my arguments have been properly addressed. Topped off with a declaration that we must conclude Moses committed genocide.

All the while ignoring the main argument I have made. Allow me to give you my main argument for the third time. My main argument is: given the definition of genocide you provided (here) Moses, Truman, and Churchill (and by extension the American and British people) are all guilty of genocide or none of them are.

Yes, that's the second point I mentioned above, and showed to be irrelevant. So Moses committed genocide; you're not disputing that, at least as far as your main argument goes, it is explicitly an outcome consistent with your argument.

Your main argument then is that Churchill and Truman also committed genocide. That's debateable and depends a lot on the particulars (especially but not only whether their actions resulted in greater or lesser overall loss of lives). But rather than getting sidetracked further by those particulars we can readily accept that as a viable position.

So this concludes discussion your 'main argument' then? Churchill and Truman committed genocide, while Moses and Hitler committed/commanded genocide on a much larger scale.

[Willum]

[Replying to Goose]

Thank you Goose, for continuing to sidetrack the conversation, I think you have everyone fooled.

I think we may conclude that; men are evil, but men who believe they are acting under God’s orders, Adolph and Moses, are far more evil, or maybe just far more successful, because of the divine blessings.

So we have a sort of scale: Trueman and Churchill, did questionable evils, not sanctioned by God.
Hitler, unsuccessful in his hideous evils, sanctioned by God.
And the king of malevolence on Earth, Moses, who actually talked to God.

Fair enough, or are we not conflating your non-sequiturs to your satisfaction?

[Goose]

Yes, that's the second point I mentioned above, and showed to be irrelevant.

No, you asserted it to be irrelevant. It’s not at all irrelevant that your definition of genocide implies Truman and Churchill committed genocide. It demonstrates your argument for attempting to compare Moses to Hitler on the grounds Moses committed genocide implies absurdities. That’s hardly irrelevant.

So Moses committed genocide; you're not disputing that, at least as far as your main argument goes, it is explicitly an outcome consistent with your argument.

Why would I dispute my own premise?

Your main argument then is that [given the definition of genocide I provided either Moses,] Churchill and Truman [strike]also[/strike] committed genocide [or none of them did].

Fixed that for you.

And an alternate premise could be:

If Moses was guilty of genocide (given your definition of genocide), then so was Truman and Churchill.

That's debateable and depends a lot on the particulars (especially but not only whether their actions resulted in greater or lesser overall loss of lives).

And we were debating those particulars. You provided four points A-D where you attempted to make a Special Plea excusing Truman/Churchill from the charge of genocide. I showed that each of those four points was either a) not the case or b) could be equally applied to Moses to excuse him as well.

But rather than getting sidetracked further by those particulars we can readily accept that as a viable position.

So you agree the argument is valid?

So this concludes discussion your 'main argument' then? Churchill and Truman committed genocide, while Moses and Hitler committed/commanded genocide on a much larger scale

My argument says nothing about Hitler. Are you now agreeing your definition of genocide implies Churchill and Truman committed genocide if Moses did? Because earlier you seemed quite keen to argue that was not the case.

[Mithrae]

Yes, that's the second point I mentioned above, and showed to be irrelevant.

No, you asserted it to be irrelevant. It’s not at all irrelevant that your definition of genocide implies Truman and Churchill committed genocide. It demonstrates your argument for attempting to compare Moses to Hitler on the grounds Moses committed genocide implies absurdities. That’s hardly irrelevant.

It's not 'my' definition, it's taken from the appropriate UN convention. You've been arguing for post after post that Churchill and Truman committed genocide on that basis: But now you're asserting that your own conclusion is absurd? Either that or you're just saying that you don't like the definition of the word genocide because you don't like the conclusions which follow from it; but you hardly needed to mention Truman and Churchill to tell me that

But rather than getting sidetracked further by those particulars we can readily accept that as a viable position.

So you agree the argument is valid?

So this concludes discussion your 'main argument' then? Churchill and Truman committed genocide, while Moses and Hitler committed/commanded genocide on a much larger scale

My argument says nothing about Hitler. Are you now agreeing your definition of genocide implies Churchill and Truman committed genocide if Moses did? Because earlier you seemed quite keen to argue that was not the case.

We have a word/definition whose particulars do apply to case A: You're trying to argue that we must not accept the fact that this word applies to case A, unless we also assert that it applies to case B. Obviously I don't agree that it's a valid argument, but for the sake of putting to rest a tangent whose relevence is not apparent to the untrained eye I'm happy to concede that, valid argument or not, the particulars of that definition may well apply to case B (particularly the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

So Churchill and Truman committed genocide, while Moses and Hitler committed/commanded genocide on a much larger scale. Glad we've got that sorted out.

[Willum]

[Replying to Goose]

I UNDERSTAND YOUR PROBLEM!
You think because someone is not convinced of a crime, they didn’t commit it!

It is a good thing the winners write history, or that Hilter, unlike Moses, Stalin, Churchill, and so on, didn’t win.
Otherwise you might not have such criticisms!

[Goose]

It's not 'my' definition, it's taken from the appropriate UN convention.

I realize it’s the UN's definition. But you used it in your argument so I assigned it to you. Your other contrived definition of genocide implies an absurd outcome as well.

"indiscriminate mass slaughter of men, women and innocent little children by their millions"

You've been arguing for post after post that Churchill and Truman committed genocide on that basis:

I’ve been arguing post after post your argument implies Churchill and Truman committed Genocide. That leads to a contradiction.

• 1. Truman and Churchill did not commit genocide
  

  I don't accept your accusations of genocide against Truman and Churchill.

  2. Truman and Churchill did commit genocide
  

  Churchill and Truman committed genocide

But now you're asserting that your own conclusion is absurd?

No. I’ve shown your argument implies a contradiction and that’s absurd.

Either that or you're just saying that you don't like the definition of the word genocide because you don't like the conclusions which follow from it; but you hardly needed to mention Truman and Churchill to tell me that

It’s not about what I like. It’s about what I can establish logically. The fact is, your argument implies an absurdity. If you don’t care about that then by all means carry on, full steam ahead.

We have a word/definition whose particulars do apply to case A: You're trying to argue that we must not accept the fact that this word applies to case A, unless we also assert that it applies to case B. Obviously I don't agree that it's a valid argument...

Your highlighted formulation here is a valid argument, bro.

• 1. Case A (premise)
  2. Not case A unless case B (premise)
  3. Not case B -> not case A (from 2)
  4. Case A -> case B (contraposition of 3)
  5. Case A (from 1)
  6. Therefore, case B (via Modus Ponens)

So Churchill and Truman committed genocide, while Moses and Hitler committed/commanded genocide on a much larger scale. Glad we've got that sorted out.

Notice the absurd position you are in now in order to hold Moses committed genocide. You have to contradict not only your own belief about Truman and Churchill but the fact that Truman and Churchill were never convicted of genocide let alone formally accused of it.

[Mithrae]

It's not 'my' definition, it's taken from the appropriate UN convention.

I realize it’s the UN's definition. But you used it in your argument so I assigned it to you. Your other contrived definition of genocide implies an absurd outcome as well.

"indiscriminate mass slaughter of men, women and innocent little children by their millions"

I didn't offer the latter as a definition of genocide, simply as a description of Moses' actions/commands. You then explicitly accepted it as an accurate description*, so trying to dismiss it as an absurdity now seems a little disingenuous. (*With a caveat about the number, though you offered no explanation as to how you'd get fewer than millions out of "seven nations greater and more numerous" than the Israelite horde of 600k men plus women and children.)

You've been arguing for post after post that Churchill and Truman committed genocide on that basis:

I’ve been arguing post after post your argument implies Churchill and Truman committed Genocide.

Please be honest enough to take responsibility for your own posts. You are the one who has asserted an equivalency between Moses and Churchill/Truman, while I argued the opposite; you are the one who has repeatedly claimed that Churchill/Truman's actions can fall under the UN definition of genocide, while I pointed out some important problems with that view.

• Goose wrote: It’s not at all irrelevant that [the UN] definition of genocide implies Truman and Churchill committed genocide.

Trying to pass this off as an 'implication' of my argument is extremely dishonest, and I really expected better of you.

That leads to a contradiction.

• 1. Truman and Churchill did not commit genocide
  

  I don't accept your accusations of genocide against Truman and Churchill.

  2. Truman and Churchill did commit genocide
  

  Churchill and Truman committed genocide

Again, this is an apparently wilfully inaccurate depiction of my posts: I explicitly said at least two times that for the sake of argument I would grant your key premise of an equivalency between the genocide status of Moses and Churchill/Truman.

The fact that you're still not satisfied even when your key premise is given a free pass simply highlights the fact which I've pointed out several times now, that this is all irrelevant obfuscation. If you don't think (or don't want to admit) that Moses committed/commanded genocide then that's what you should argue; coming up with some nonsense about an equivalency between Moses and Churchill/Truman - and then trying to attribute that absurdity to me - suggests only that you've got nothing rational to offer.

We have a word/definition whose particulars do apply to case A: You're trying to argue that we must not accept the fact that this word applies to case A, unless we also assert that it applies to case B. Obviously I don't agree that it's a valid argument...

Your highlighted formulation here is a valid argument, bro.

• 1. Case A (premise)
  2. Not case A unless case B (premise)
  3. Not case B -> not case A (from 2)
  4. Case A -> case B (contraposition of 3)
  5. Case A (from 1)
  6. Therefore, case B (via Modus Ponens)

Haha, okay logically 'valid,' but obviously not sound. Whether Moses' actions and commands fit the definition of genocide - which they clearly do - has absolutely nothing to do with whether the actions of Churchill or Bob down the street fit the definition of genocide. Churchill and Bob down the street might, at most, provide grounds for critiquing a given definition; but you claim that's not what you're doing. Presumably if Moses' actions and commands did not fit the definition of genocide, your 'main argument' would be emphasizing that point! Instead it seems you're stuck trying to claim that whether the term genocide matches Moses' actions depends not on the term and on Moses' actions, but on the actions of folk three thousand years later and whether they were genocide. A most unfortunate place to find yourself, I suppose.

[Mithrae]

• In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group...

As an intellectual exercise last night I tried to create a coherent argument along the lines of what I thought Goose might be trying to get at:


"I disagree with the UN's definition of genocide." Let's just be upfront about that. No need to beat around the bush with the pretense that Moses' commission of genocide is an acceptable conclusion if (and only if) Truman and Churchill did too - that's pointless, disingenuous and irrational.

"The reason is that Churchill and Truman did not commit genocide, but that definition suggests they did." Why on earth spend pages and pages of effort arguing that they did commit genocide? Identify the supposed problem with the definition: They didn't target a religion as such, or an ethnicity as such... but a nationality, well, wasn't that precisely the reason for indiscriminate killing of men, women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they were people of the Japanese nation?

"The alleged genocide of Moses was based on the same flawed aspect of that definition, targetting people as members of a nation rather than religion or ethnicity." There's no provision in Moses' commands for the Canaanites' lives to be spared if they relinquish their religion or that worshipers of the same gods be attacked outside Canaan; nor is there any command that the Israelites go hunting down everyone of Hittite ethnicity throughout Anatolia and all Amorites throughout Mesopotamia. In fact David even had a Hittite as one of his military captains. By implication the condition on which every man, woman and child were to be viewed as Israel's enemies and killed was their membership in an Amorite, Jebusite etc. polity within the lands of Canaan; their nationality, not ethnicity or religion.

"The inclusion of 'nationality' in the definition of genocide is problematic in that it implies the absurdity of Churchill and Truman committing genocide, yet a corrected definition would absolve Moses also."



The problem with this argument is that it fails on all three points:
Nationality is a reasonable criterion of genocide - If the USA attacked and started slaughtering Canadian men, women and children by their millions, without regard for ethnicity or religion, it obviously would be genocide.

Nationality as such was not the focal point of Allied bombing of Japan - The targetting was explicitly based on criteria such as industrial and military significance, and leaflet campaigns beforehand urged Japanese civilians to flee from their major cities.

Religion and ethnicity were explicitly identified under Moses' commands as important criteria in the Israelite's genocides - Alongside nationality, perhaps, and one might even try to argue that affiliation with an 'enemy' polity was the primary concern of the invaders (cf. the turncoat Rahab), but in various passages ethnic and especially religious affiliations are explicitly used as reasons for or characteristics to identify those who were to be massacred. Not only that but as a general rule (to which Rahab was an unaccountable exception or simple disobedience) Moses explicitly forbade the Israelites, on religious grounds, from allowing the people of Canaan to live (Deut. 20:16-18) even as their slaves!

[Goose]

It's not 'my' definition, it's taken from the appropriate UN convention.

I realize it’s the UN's definition. But you used it in your argument so I assigned it to you. Your other contrived definition of genocide implies an absurd outcome as well.

"indiscriminate mass slaughter of men, women and innocent little children by their millions"

I didn't offer the latter as a definition of genocide, simply as a description of Moses' actions/commands. You then explicitly accepted it as an accurate description*, so trying to dismiss it as an absurdity now seems a little disingenuous. (*With a caveat about the number, though you offered no explanation as to how you'd get fewer than millions out of "seven nations greater and more numerous" than the Israelite horde of 600k men plus women and children.)

Doesn’t matter why you offered the second definition/description. It still implies the same absurdity. As for the numbers I didn’t digress on that point because they are irrelevant. It’s either genocide or it is not. Whether 8,000 were killed or 8,000,000 is irrelevant to that fact.

You've been arguing for post after post that Churchill and Truman committed genocide on that basis:

I’ve been arguing post after post your argument implies Churchill and Truman committed Genocide.

Please be honest enough to take responsibility for your own posts. You are the one who has asserted an equivalency between Moses and Churchill/Truman, while I argued the opposite; you are the one who has repeatedly claimed that Churchill/Truman's actions can fall under the UN definition of genocide, while I pointed out some important problems with that view.

• Goose wrote: It’s not at all irrelevant that [the UN] definition of genocide implies Truman and Churchill committed genocide.

Trying to pass this off as an 'implication' of my argument is extremely dishonest, and I really expected better of you.

But it is an implication of your argument. Nothing dishonest about my making that argument. Your attempted Special Plea to excuse Truman and Churchill has been met on every point you’ve made.

That leads to a contradiction.

• 1. Truman and Churchill did not commit genocide
  

  I don't accept your accusations of genocide against Truman and Churchill.

  2. Truman and Churchill did commit genocide
  

  Churchill and Truman committed genocide

Again, this is an apparently wilfully inaccurate depiction of my posts: I explicitly said at least two times that for the sake of argument I would grant your key premise of an equivalency between the genocide status of Moses and Churchill/Truman.

What makes you think saying “for the sake of argument� changes anything?

In post 22 you wrote, �But rather than getting sidetracked further by those particulars we can readily accept that as a viable position.�

You grant for the sake of argument. Truman and Churchill committed genocide, in order to still capture Moses even though in doing so intellectual suicide must be committed. And I’m the one who gets accused of being disingenuous?

Even if you grant, for the sake of argument, the premise it still implies a contradiction. If you affirm (1) Truman and Churchill did not commit genocide that implies Moses did not. Moses did not contradicts your argument that he did. If you hold, even for the sake of argument, (2) Truman and Churchill did commit genocide that contradicts your Special Plea argument that (1) Truman and Churchill did not commit genocide. Where exactly do you imagine you have escaped a contradiction?

The fact that you're still not satisfied even when your key premise is given a free pass simply highlights the fact which I've pointed out several times now, that this is all irrelevant obfuscation.

Even when you give my premise “a free pass� you’ve still got a contradiction. That’s not irrelevant.

If you don't think (or don't want to admit) that Moses committed/commanded genocide then that's what you should argue; coming up with some nonsense about an equivalency between Moses and Churchill/Truman - and then trying to attribute that absurdity to me - suggests only that you've got nothing rational to offer.

I’m attributing the absurdity to your reasoning. Your argument implies the absurdity. Complain as you might, it’s there.

We have a word/definition whose particulars do apply to case A: You're trying to argue that we must not accept the fact that this word applies to case A, unless we also assert that it applies to case B. Obviously I don't agree that it's a valid argument...

Your highlighted formulation here is a valid argument, bro.

• 1. Case A (premise)
  2. Not case A unless case B (premise)
  3. Not case B -> not case A (from 2)
  4. Case A -> case B (contraposition of 3)
  5. Case A (from 1)
  6. Therefore, case B (via Modus Ponens)

Haha, okay logically 'valid,'...

Why are you laughing and why are you putting valid in scare quotes? That argument is inescapably valid. If you think not, explain why not.

...but obviously not sound

Obviously not sound? You’ve conceded the argument is valid (or is that another “for the sake of argument� thing?). And you’ve explicitly affirmed the antecedent Case A.

Whether Moses' actions and commands fit the definition of genocide - which they clearly do - has absolutely nothing to do with whether the actions of Churchill or Bob down the street fit the definition of genocide.

It does if the actions of Truman and Churchill fit a definition which implies they are X. And they are not X.

Churchill and Bob down the street might, at most, provide grounds for critiquing a given definition; but you claim that's not what you're doing.

Well if your definition(s) and reasoning imply a contradiction then there’s something wrong with your definition(s) and reasoning.

Presumably if Moses' actions and commands did not fit the definition of genocide, your 'main argument' would be emphasizing that point!

My main argument emphasises that either Moses’, Truman’s and Churchill’s committed genocide or none of them did.

Instead it seems you're stuck trying to claim that whether the term genocide matches Moses' actions depends not on the term and on Moses' actions, but on the actions of folk three thousand years later and whether they were genocide. A most unfortunate place to find yourself, I suppose.

I think the more unfortunate place to find oneself is making an argument that implies a contradiction.

--

• In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group...

…

"The inclusion of 'nationality' in the definition of genocide is problematic in that it implies the absurdity of Churchill and Truman committing genocide, yet a corrected definition would absolve Moses also."

The problem with this argument is that it fails on all three points:
Nationality as such was not the focal point of Allied bombing of Japan...

What a bizarre thing to say. America was at war with Japan. Of course Japanese were the focal point.

Just a few days before Hiroshima the Potsdam Declaration stated...

�We-the President of the United States,... and the Prime Minister of Great Britain... The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland... The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.� - Potsdam Declaration, July 26, 1945

...The targetting was explicitly based on criteria such as industrial and military significance,

Well that’s the apologetic narrative anyway.



Notice the top 10 military targets of Hiroshima are either near the edge of the blast radius or completely outside of it. The top four military (“Army�) targets, including the actual army base (1), are all far outside the blast radius. The atomic bomb was dropped smack dab over the city centre. The evidence suggests either 1) the Americans had horrible aim or 2) they intentionally missed the major military targets of Hiroshima instead hitting the city centre thereby inflicting maximal civilian death.

...and leaflet campaigns beforehand urged Japanese civilians to flee from their major cities.

• â€�In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Oppenheimer-led Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee decided against a demonstration bomb and against a special leaflet warning. Those decisions were implemented because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation and also because of the wish to maximize shock in the leadership.[92] No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped.â€� – Wikipedia