zlacker

When someone advocates for "taking no quarter", they're advocating for killing people. You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way, but a former Army captain like Cotton knows full well what it means.

The thing about the whole argument of, 'we only advocate cracking down on rioters and looters' is how is someone supposed to get that distinction right in the fog of a chaotic situation? Arrest people and have them face trial. Advocating violent and potentially lethal crackdowns on people in situations like this is what brutal autocracies do.

>>GVIris+(OP)
Those words don't appear in the article.

>>GVIris+(OP)
That's not from the op-ed, but since you brought it up, let's talk about it.

> You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way

Given that he used that phrase in a Tweet, and not in a military order, it's reasonable to assume he was speaking to "the average person" and using that phrase accordingly. And given that he has actually said that he was using the phrase colloquially, you're interpreting his words contrary to what he's clearly said.

And given that he enlisted in 2005, and not in 1905, is it even reasonable to assume that he knew about this ancient meaning of the phrase? Does the military still use this phrase?

>>leeree+k6
The phrase is not outdated. It's not "used by the military" because that would literally be a war crime. Cotton's tweet may be a war crime -- it needn't be an order, even making that threat is a war crime.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul...