Claiming victims would commit identical crimes remains undemonstrated and implausible.

Evidence

Even when moral distinctions were made among different parties, there were suggestions, without evidence, that had Bosnian Muslims been in a position of power, they would have carried out the same atrocities. See Paul Mojzes, “The Reign of Ethnos': Who's to Blame in Yugoslavia," The Christian Century, 4 November 1992, 996: "If they [Croatians or Muslims] had been more powerful, they would have been the ones carrying out ethnic cleansing.”’ No evidence is offered that Bosnian Muslims had any notion of committing genocide or ethnic expulsions that would have left them living in a non-Christian ghetto in Europe. The accusation that a victimized people would have been committing the same crime committed against them is a deeply serious accusation; yet this charge against Bosnian Muslims, easily made, has never been demonstrated or even shown to be plausible. — Michael A. Sells, The Bridge Betrayed, 675

Categorization

• DEFINE: Identifies ‘moral equalizing’ by inverse — the accusation that the victimized would have committed the same crime as their persecutors — and shows its evidential emptiness.
• XREF: Connects to the moral equalizing critique Sells builds throughout the book, e.g. the ‘warring factions’ framing and Brian Boyd’s ‘reprehensible.‘

Related

• Militants engineered revenge attacks to fabricate proof of ethnic incompatibility (similarity 0.82)