Today I learned that it's never genocide unless your victims are just like Loren Pechtel in every way. If they aren't, then it is always possible to re-frame their victimhood as a consequence of provocation or pre-existing conflict, and then it's magically not genocide to attempt to wile out an entire population.
Who would have thought that it could be so easy to bring an end to genocide! Next week, we will eliminate racism, sexism, and fascism.
Apparently it's very important not to fight back when someone invades your home, lest the slaughter of your entire city should become legally justified by your illegal use of a firearm.
I'm not saying that it's ok to go after them because they fight back, but that killing a population that is attacking you is not the same thing as killing a population that simply doesn't bow to you.
People defending their homes and children against an invading force are not "attackers".
But they were perceived as being attackers. Wrong, but it was a reaction to their violence.
What point do you even
think you're making? How does claiming that your victims were attacking you, however incredibly, make it not a genocide?
If I walk into your house and murder you, your wife, your child, and your elderly father, and use your finger bones to make a necklace for my girlfriend, I don't get to claim that it was self defense in all four cases because your wife brandished a steak knife while I was doing it. Of course she fucking did. Because I was murdering her family. That doesn't even justify under the killing her, let alone everyone else.
