It wasn't rape, it was a domestic conflict.See any potential problem with the logic there? Yes, so can I. It could have been both. A rape may have taken place in the context of a domestic conflict. In exactly the same way a genocide can occur in the context of war or civil war. For Jonathan Steele, however, who never ceases to plumb the depths, it would seem to suffice to draw a contrast between genocide and civil war, in order to establish that what is happening in Darfur isn't genocide.
Instead of invoking that contrast, which by itself doesn't work, he might try explaining his claim against the text of the UN Genocide convention. Article II states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:With hundreds of thousands already dead, Steele might like to say why II (a), (b) and (c) don't now apply in Darfur (on which see here or here).
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
There is, incidentally, a proud lineage for the form of apologetics Steele has recourse to. He's not the first to come up with the trope 'We were at war':
The Armenians call it genocide, Turks say large-scale wartime deaths.And I could probably rustle up another example if I tried especially hard.