If you mean this: “(Prime minister, deputy head of parliament/head of dominant party, defense minister, ‘heritage minister’ whatever that is)” then yeah I saw that, but didn’t really think out of them there were the sort of outright genocidal comments from top decision makers other than maybe deputy speaker. For “heritage minister”, I don’t know how influential role that is and it was a smaller part so maybe?
So unless I’m mistaken I did respond to them all. I didn’t respond to the lower level comments (soldiers, a journalist, so on) because I didn’t think that’s what you meant anyway. This sort of confusion is why I was hoping you’d quote what was said and then write who said it. It’s a bit of effort but would make it a lot clearer and make sure we’re talking about the same thing.
By defending and denying their genocide, in the face of overwhelming evidence, after moving hoal posts, you are a part of it.
I just don’t think it fits the mentioned definition, that’s all. That’s not defending the action at all. I don’t know about overwhelming evidence, I might’ve missed something crucial but what I did interact with didn’t seem convincing in the way I was hoping. As for goalposts, they’ve stayed the same. You helped set up some of those goalposts, so it’s strange you’d think they’ve moved.