This strikes me as patently false-- it is perfectly possible to discuss the relative merits of those who conducted genocide versus their victims without justifying the act.<p>The problem with attributing these kind of motives to those with whom you disagree is that all discussion then shift away from the logical merits of various positions and into the decidedly illogical territory of whose voice you think this the most "authentic". In short, instead of asserting that your opponents have different positions then they actually do, perhaps its worth asking whether or not that is their position.