What Can It Possibly Mean?

On another web log I have been contributing mild challenges to a question about biblical interpretation. I'm not a master rhetorician (maybe not even a good one) nor am I a logical virtuoso. I get caught up in my own cord more often than I like to admit.

In order to read some of the conversations going on you can click here. I had to take issue with a distinction one contributor (Roy Gane) made in a discussion about the biblical representation of G-d's influence on world events. If we can get past the distasteful claim that a god could be moral/ethical/kind/good/... and still condone/prescribe slaughter/murder/punishment/violence/... we find ourselves stuck on Mr Gane's distinction between his view of 'genocide' and the view of his dissenting peer (Mr Scriven). Although I claim to have negotiated the confusing line he draws I'm not sure it's possible to find his defense intact.

If person 'A' claims that genocide is the extinction of a specific population necessarily without regard to guilt creed behaviour or other rationale, does person 'B' make a valid counter claim by defining genocide is simply the extinction of a specific population -- and the issues of guilt creed behavior and/or other rationale are not relevant?

This is one of those distinctions that feels too much like a stack of negations. Or a denial that there is any negation. If we claim that a definition includes no regard for one limitation does logic allow that the lack of regard thus includes the possibility of another limitation? I'm getting dizzy trying to either agree or disagree with the one/two definition/s.

I've wondered enough/too much.