Originally posted by Bardock42
But, I mean Iraq didn't. I understand what you meant. But it was terrorists that attacked you. Islamist terrorists. Iraq had no dealings in that.Which is why the war in Afghanistan might have been justified reasonable. The one in Iraq is just an attack war, also against UN statutes.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Shortly. You might not even feel it.Being grilled crispy seems worse to me.
But then again, why would you need more than one man to do it? One man + one bullet to the head = death.
Then again, being the cause of 500+ deaths isn't exactly code for having the least painful death possible....
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I am just saying, if you kill him anyways. Hanging is not the worst method there is. Though also not a particularly nice one.
thats not entirely true. sure, in more recent history hanging was improved as a means of killing, using drop length and body weight as factors in assuring that there were no gruesome/torturing mishaps, like someone's neck not breaking and them kicking while being slowly strangled, or someone getting their head ripped off their neck.
what im saying is, you cant endorse hanging as the lesser evil since its potentially very cruel. also consider a deliberate slow hanging.
Originally posted by Kelly_LS
Yeah, me too.But then again, why would you need more than one man to do it? One man + one bullet to the head = death.
Then again, being the cause of 500+ deaths isn't exactly code for having the least painful death possible....
A few reasons, they want to make sure the person dies on the first attempt and as a custom, one rifleman is given a blank, so if any of the shooters suffer stress due to killing someone, they can rationalize that they might have been the one shooting blanks.
Originally posted by Kelly_LS
Yeah, me too.But then again, why would you need more than one man to do it? One man + one bullet to the head = death.
Then again, being the cause of 500+ deaths isn't exactly code for having the least painful death possible....
I believe they only gave one men sharp ammunition and the others blanks. So they won't know who shot the "victim".
Though that might be a myth I heard. Or only in special cases.
Also, one has a lesser chance of being fatal. And then it might be un-nice.
This famous picture, though cruel, might be one of the "better" execution methods.
[edit]What Robtard said makes more sense.
Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]I believe they only gave one men sharp ammunition and the others blanks. So they won't know who shot the "victim".Though that might be a myth I heard. Or only in special cases.
Also, one has a lesser chance of being fatal. And then it might be un-nice.
This famous picture, though cruel, might be one of the "better" execution methods.
I thought it was one "blank" shooter while the rest had live, I could be wrong though.
Well, a shot to the head is an almost guaranteed quick death.
Originally posted by PVS
thats not entirely true. sure, in more recent history hanging was improved as a means of killing, using drop length and body weight as factors in assuring that there were no gruesome/torturing mishaps, like someone's neck not breaking and them kicking while being slowly strangled, or someone getting their head ripped off their neck.what im saying is, you cant endorse hanging as the lesser evil since its potentially very cruel. also consider a deliberate slow hanging.
Oh, I was not referring to it being good or bad or this case.
Just generally, hanging the worst method I can think of.