context: the 
-fan high school friend I’ve complained about before, I’m pressing him on his debate daddy’s claim that nuking the Gaza Strip and annihilating the entire population of it would not be an act of genocide
He tries to say it depends on the context, and I’m like, ‘elaborate’ 
Here is the hypothetical scenario in which an Israeli nuke is launched into the Gaza Strip, killing everybody in it, where purportedly no one is guilty of genocide. I am going to try my best to quote this conversation as close to how it played out as I can.
Let’s say, a rogue IDF soldier sees one Hamas guy in the Gaza Strip, and he launches a nuke to deal with him.
That would still be genocide, dude, the rogue IDF soldier would have committed an act of genocide.
It wouldn’t, because–
What do you mean it wouldn’t?
Because he’s using the nuke without the special intent to kill everyone in the Gaza Strip, he’s using it to get the Hamas guy-
No, wait, when you’re launching a– if you unleash a WMD the results of the action is a responsibility you take on and can be assigned to your– unless a fucking breeze literally takes your nuke and puts it somewhere else, it’s– you assume responsibility for the consequences of your actions, especially if you can comprehend them, which I’m not even going to consider people not knowing what nukes do to be valid.
But it wouldn’t be genocide! He doesn’t have the special intent.
How the fuck did this rogue soldier get the nuclear codes anyways 
“Intent” may signify an action taken with a purpose to achieve a given result, but the term includes as well an action taken with awareness that a given result will follow. The additional intent for genocide is a state of mind that accompanies the requisite acts. In that regard, it is unlike the intent required under a criminal statute prohibiting, for example, assault with intent to kill, where the actor assaults while anticipating a harm to the victim beyond the harm involved in the assault. The additional intent for genocide relates instead to what is anticipated to result from the underlying act. The act is part of the destruction of the group of which the victim is a member. The District Court of Jerusalem, in convicting Adolf Eichmann of genocide, explained that “the people, in whole or in part, is the victim of the extermination which befalls it in consequence of the extermination of its sons and daughters.” (A-G v. Eichmann, Judgment 1961 ¶190) The group, in other words, becomes a secondary victim upon performance of the act.
Link to full article, couldn't be assed paraphrasing myself.
this is what these debate morons don't understand. You can't just argue it's not a genocide based on you understanding of one-sentace definition that you've read on wikipedia. You have to actually study the case law regarding genocide