>It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests Is it? Because to me he very clearl

>It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests Is it? Because to me he very clearly and explicitly talks about people that are breaking the law - rioters and looters. The opinion piece by Cotton literally says this: >Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. >But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. How can you read these lines and say that it is very clear to anyone that he meant deploying troops against peaceful protesters?