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 
I know this is beneath refutation and also has already been addressed, but if you look at the actual UN definition of genocide, it doesn't specify a necessary "special intent" like he keeps harping on. Being aware of the consequences to a population and still doing it ("Oh, let's dump industrial waste into this river, who cares if there's a reservation downstream?") is genocide. It's not like homicide where it is distinguished from manslaughter in that regard, which I assume is where he/D got that language from.