[Sethomas]

My point was a precursor to Burbank's. Being barbaric doesn't equate to being of low technology. Barbaric, in common usage (it originally meant "foreigner", especially referring to Persians because their language sounded like "bar bar bar bar" to the Athenians) means that one resorts to unsavory methods to achieve some end, with abject disregard for established ethical standards.

If someone is going to commit an execution, which is wrong in the Middle East and is wrong in Texas, the relative use of a needle versus a sword is a moot point. They're both symbolic. Elaborate rituals of injecting three different serums into the body to accomplish what a bullet would do more efficiently and quickly is just a way we can pat ourselves on the back for how sterile and clean we are. Using a sword is the same thing. "If it was good enough to kill a member of Mohammed's family, it's good enough to kill modern infidel." Calling one way of life (err, death) "barbaric" because it's different is illogical and essentially just plays on natural xenophobia. Sure, there's the psychological aspect, but many states impose the ritual of having the condemned spend his last day in a special cell with a window facing the death chamber. "Cruel and unusual" knows no better psychological method.

So, it's all about hypocrisy. More to the point, though, is the hypocrisy incurred by calling dozens of innocent deaths "barbaric" because blades are used, versus killing potentially hundreds of thousands of innocents with bullets and such, is asinine. It's essentially on par with calling them smelly for the whole left-hand thing. You can spew out as much rhetoric you want about breaking eggs to make an omellete (which you're stuffing down someone's throat at gunpoint), but when the Geneva Convention is called "quaint" and torture is approved, you lose any credibility you might have had.

So, this article makes no point besides how prevalent hypocrisy remains.