• RadicalCentrist

    With all due respect to His Holiness, such massacres are entirely human and have occurred throughout the history of our very murderous species.

    • ErikDC

      No.

      I have to push back. I’ll let Eugene Robinson’s words speak for me.

      “…to compare the depredations of the Islamic State with those of the Crusaders is patronizing in the extreme.

      Why? Because Muslims are not slow learners who can be held to only a medieval moral standard. Everyone in the world can be expected to know that it is wrong to burn a helpless human being alive, as Islamic State murderers did to a captive Jordanian pilot. The fact that Joan of Arc met a similar fate in 1431 does not make it improper to ‘get on our high horse’ about unspeakable acts being committed in our time, which makes them our responsibility.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patronizing-at-the-prayer-breakfast/2015/02/09/90215174-b09c-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html

      • RadicalCentrist

        I’m not sure what your point is. I wasn’t justifying these acts nor comparing them to the Crusades, simply noting that calling them “not human” is incorrect, since they were done by humans and similar acts have been done by humans throughout history. They were wrong then and are wrong today, but they are human and we can be an ugly, murderous species.

        • ErikDC

          But you were comparing the events to massacres throughout history and certainly seemed like you were minimizing their importance by arguing humans are an “ugly, murderous species.” When it’s the bloodiest day in Paris since World War II, it’s not just another day on the calendar. The overwhelming majority of people go their entire lives without murdering others. Murder IS inhuman. That’s why yesterday’s events so offended our collective consciousness.

          • RadicalCentrist

            To say that massacres have happened throughout history including our own times doesn’t minimize their importance nor the importance of yesterday’s horrors in Paris, it simply states facts. And it’s true that the overwhelming majority of humans never kill. But it’s also true that humans are the only species that kills in this manner. Lions hunting antelopes don’t slaughter the herd, they kill one to meet their need for food. So the Pope is wrong to say what happened in Paris is not human. Unfortunately it was all too human.

          • ErikDC

            Oh, just stop. After people are slaughtered, you don’t say massacres have happened throughout history. You don’t. It’s a total dick thing to say.

          • fgtayl01

            When a Russian plane was bombed over Egypt it was a news story, not a news event. It was just another day on the calendar. We’ve seen it before and know it can happen again.

            Yet more people died in that plane than in all the attacks in Paris. Why are we so much more appalled by the comparatively less bloody Paris attack? Our shock at what humans are capable is tempered by experiences, not our nature as a species.

          • Calbengoshi

            Far from being “inhuman,” murder is one of the most “human” acts of all because it is an act that separates humans from other species.

            Other species do not include individual members who randomly kill members of their own species for reasons not related to procreation, survival or eating.

  • Wags

    I noticed that world leaders and media observers have been choosing their words carefully but they clearly think this is World War III.

  • 66kicks

    Oh boy! Time for another Crusade!

    NOT!!

    We need to take on terrorists of every stripe, but for God’s sake leave religion out of it even if some of the opposition insists on trying to use it as an excuse to fight.

    • Red Phillips

      Well, leaving religion out of it altogether is going to be tough, seeing as we have a world full of unyielding adherents of centuries-old religious doctrine who hold in hand 21st-century technology.

  • yadayadaaa

    I believe it is the natural order of great powers, crushing small ones. That small ones go asymetrical. We get better at finding them and IEDs and they go for softer targets, expanding the geography.
    So now. As the soft target attacks hit in the west (Like American high schoolers pull off in theaters here) and in the ajoining countries, over there. It just brings us to the point where the expanded geography, makes it a bigger war. NOT a World War.
    But lower intensity one than the great wars.
    Thats why you see Iran and Russia and Jordan and Turkey and the Saudis and the Kurds all stepping in.
    Thats what it will take,
    I believe in the end. A regional effort aided or lead by the west. Ending in regional centers of power, to administed the whole region in the future, is the endpoint of this unraveling of fake states. Forget the colonialist boarder definitions.
    I’m also no peacnik. I’d like to see us amp it up troopwise. But not like the rightwingers all out war. Or Christians vs the worlds BS. That Huck etal, are pushing.
    Bush opened this can of worms.
    But we need to run it to it’s regional end. Strategically. And with as much of the burden on countries over there as possible. And then some.
    ISIS is helping with that. And that will kill them.

  • moderatesunite

    that is definately hyperbolic, as tragic as this is, it’s nothing compared to world war 1 and 2, but it could spiral into something worse if communication and understanding between all countries involved but especially between the west and Russia is not clear

  • gnatswatting

    World War I and World War II were more or less one war with a long intermission in the middle.

    The next such conflict will have little resemblance to either.

  • Calbengoshi

    There is a difference between a “war” that has no borders because one side decides to stage attacks at random locations throughout the world and a “world war” that involves two groups of nations, each with members situated in different parts of the world, engaged in a war with each other.