I'm pointing out the words he literally wrote on the page because there's a bunch of people in this thread who are doing what you're doing, which is making a blanket proclamation that Cotton wanted the military to essentially attack protestors, which isn't true. That actual quote is all over this thread.
The rest of your argument is a careless strawmanning, or projection, since the words on the page have actual meaning, words which you can put in front of your nose at your own pleasure.
I question whether you are actually able to draw a distinction between "peaceful protestors" and "rioters and looters". Your entire argument hinges on tricking people into thinking "subdue rioters and looters with the military if police can't or won't do it" is equivalent to "shoot protestors".
> Your entire argument hinges on tricking people into thinking "subdue rioters and looters with the military if police can't or won't do it" is equivalent to "shoot protestors".
I'm not sure what you think my argument is, since you appear to be conducting a separate but closely related debate entirely in your own mind.
To circle back to the original point of contention, using the military to suppress political dissent, the course Cotton discussed in his op ed (and which you accused evgen of making up), is using the military to suppress political dissent whether or not the protesters are peaceful, whether or not you think the protesters' message is legitimate, and whether or not the troops do anything more than stand in the street looking threatening.
(perhaps we're in violent agreement on these points, in which case I don't understand your objection to evgen's comment, except as a reflexive action)
The rest of your argument is a careless strawmanning, or projection, since the words on the page have actual meaning, words which you can put in front of your nose at your own pleasure.