When you say beat the enemy to death, I assume you’re talking about the traitor and not the person originally described as the enemy?
I’d definitely prefer to be shot twice than beaten to death. So much so that I think the correct answer is actually to shoot the enemy twice and then beat the traitor to death
No, you shoot the traitor. Eliminate them as quickly and efficiently as possible, and make their fate widely and publicly known. Hell, they might be the reason you're in this room with only 2 bullets and a pistol and an enemy soldier. They get dead. If the enemy combatant defeats me and kills me, so be it.
The point is, there is no such thing as "too much" when it comes to the amount of force used to deal with traitors, and that they should be highly prioritized over the obvious enemy. Wars are almost always largely won by espionage and turncoats and compromised intelligence agencies (or the equivalent for their time, like a spymaster- the man that a King could trust to have eyes and ears everywhere, and report to him all relevant info). Sheer force is rarely the winner. Open battle rarely settles conflict.
There's always someone on the side that loses who started spreading dissent and demoralizing their own. "We can't stand against them, we should surrender and ask for mercy"- how many kingdoms ended on such notions throughout the ages? And that's a sort of "passive" treachery. Active treachery, where men that are sworn to you and your country are acting with the enemy to undermine your efforts to obtain victory, is a nation killer. Jews mastered this duplicitous bullshit, it's the only reason they survived the eons.
Hmm, I don’t know that I agree with this. Getting beaten to death is a MUCH worse penalty than getting shot. You’ve given the traitor the easy way out while giving your enemy an extremely painful end
I believe the point isn't to deliver a painful death but instead a sure one; you can fight an enemy you know but the ones you don't know about are the most dangerous; their threat must be removed once they are discovered.
I mean whether or not that’s the point, there’s no escaping that being shot to death is significantly better than being beaten to death
Yes, the point is that you need to prioritize dealing with traitors, and that there is practically no such thing as "too much" when using force against traitors when discovered. The enemy can be engaged in the field, and when you do so, you must be confident that you don't have any long knives waiting for your back, metaphorically or literally.
Funny observation- does @altident think being shot twice wouldn't hurt? Comment, Mr. altident?
Let me ask you, if I had you tied to a chair and gave you the option:
I can put two bullets in you, or I can hit you with my gun until you’re dead.
Which would you choose?
(post is archived)