Not surprisingly, you didn't think too deeply about the issues I raised. Maybe the Indians considered the women and children carriers of disease (i.e, "evil spirits"). Maybe they asked the women to leave and they refused, which would make them accessories to the "crime." Maybe the Indians knew the women and children would die without the men to provide for them, so they killed them out of "mercy."
Excuses for mass murderers?
Whether they killed too many people in their all-out military action would require a detailed look at the facts and evidence. In particular, an examination of how realistic the Indians' fear of annihilation was. It would be something for a court to determine then--not for armchair speculators to decide four centuries later.
In fact, I bet a court would allow the Indians some sort of "diminished capacity" defense as a result of the Englishmen's ongoing threats and attacks. If so, I suspect the Indians would be acquitted by a jury of their (Indian) peers. If they were found guilty, it would be to a lesser crime or with mitigating circumstances.
Colonists didn't intend conquest?
One point you've conveniently ignored is whether the women and children had ample warning of the Indians' intent. I'm guessing the Indians sent a pretty clear message: leave our country or else. If the noncombatants stayed in a potential war zone when they were advised to go, I wouldn't say they were totally blameless. Their deaths may have been tragic and unnecessary, but I wouldn't say they were "heinous."
You've criticized my position, but you haven't stated your position. That's not too surprising for someone who's afraid to sign his name. So let's nail it down:
You'd be okay with the massacre if the Indians killed only the English men? If the Indians left the women and children to fend for themselves (i.e., starve and die)? Then go ahead and say so. Quit talking like someone willing to let the English take the Indians' homeland by hook, crook, or force.
Permanent settlers = temporary intruders?
But you're the one who's comparing apples to oranges. In this case, the "unarmed" intruders weren't just coming to steal something and leave. They were coming to stay permanently. It was that moral crime--invasion and conquest--that justified the Indian's last-resort thinking.
Again, it didn't justify the actual massacre--I said I don't know if that was necessary. But it justified the thinking that led to the massacre. If you're not too much of an whitebread American, try to understand the difference between explaining what they thought and excusing what they did.
Unless you're certain you can divine the Indians' thinking, don't bother braying about the women and children again. Yeah, we got your position. You're an Anglo apologist who doesn't understand what the Indians were facing. Unlike you, they realized the Europeans would never stop coming unless they did something drastic.
The definition of genocide
So you think massacring one small colony of Europeans--about one-millionth of their total population--constitutes "genocide"? Sorry, wrong. Genocide means trying to wipe out an entire race, not a tiny portion of it.
Clearly you don't know the definition of genocide, bright boy, since it's not the same as murder or mass murder. I've quoted the definition on my genocide page just for people like you. Read it and report back to us on whether you understood what you read.
In fact, you're the only one who's saying someone (the English) had a right to commit genocide. Since you're excusing the English invasion of Virginia, where exactly would you draw the line? Were the Indians ever justified in killing "settlers" who forced them from their land into poverty, sickness, and starvation? If so, when did killing settlers go from being unjustified to justified? Pick a point and defend your position.
If you want to discuss some situation where you think Europeans or Americans killed people only after their other options failed, let's do it. But don't waste our time fantasizing that my position would vary depending on who's doing the killing. Put up or shut up with actual case studies, not your ridiculous guesses about what I believe.
What did the massacre achieve?
I've written about the various ways the Indians could've avoided defeat. They generally involved killing and warfare. The Euro-Americans were never going to give up unless they were forced to.
But if you can come up with an alternative, by all means do so. Tell us the nonviolent means by which the Indians could've kept their land. We await your "expert" knowledge of history with bated breath.
And while you're at it, be sure to tell us what the Indians should've done at Jamestown. Assume they correctly foresaw what would happen in the next couple of centuries, when the English overran their homes and reduced them to beggars. According to you, they should've laid back and enjoyed it, eh?
Below: "I have a woman and child with me. That means you can't fight back, you savage animal."