20 Years ago...

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think I see what Letum is saying. A massacre cannot and should not be compared to a different massacre to determine which was "more" atrocious. It sets a benchmark by which some killings are made less detestable, whereas we should focus on the fact that they are all equally despicable from a moral standpoint.
Is that close?

In the meantime, I tend to side with Sky in the view that 2 lives are worth more than one life, generally speaking. I think that is an appropriate method of guaging the severity of an atrocity, so long as we do not lose sight of the fact that such acts are violations of fundamental human rights.
There are other factors that must be considered as well. It is one thing to be unarmed and gunned down in the midst of a protest or demonstration. It is quite another to be imprisoned, lined up against a wall, and shot. It is yet another thing to be imprisoned for nothing, tortured into confession, and sent to a forced labor camp to die a slow death due to malnourishment and exposure. That was a favorite Soviet trick, amongst others.

In conclusion, I think the type of atrocity and the scale on which it occurred does matter. As long as we maintain awareness of fundamental human rights violations, rather than just numbers, the most horrible acts will become less and less prevalent, just as they have in the Western world. We're suffering such a dearth of atrocities at the moment that we have to look elsewhere to find some, or harp endlessly on pansy-torture like what went on at Guantanamo.