>I've never seen anyone impugn motive so recklessly.
It's hard to see it any other way, because that's essentially what the US and its allies have been doing.
You could say another alternative would be that he sees the killing of Afghan Muslims as an unfortunate consequence of spreading secular democracy, but still necessary. But that doesn't make any sense, it's clear that the Afghans don't want secularism, so what should the US do? Wipe out every element that is anti-secular? Maybe by keep bombing children in Quran schools, like the US and its allies have done in the past? That's equally inconsiderate of Muslim Afghans lives, is it not?
Of course an Islamophobe like Sam Harris was happy with the invasion of Afghanistan and got VERY upset when the US left. Not only does he want the murdering of Afghan Muslims to persist, but he also has no issue with a group of rapists and murderers ruling the country and wrecking havoc while militant atheists like himself maintain their interests in the region.
Blood is not only on the mercenaries' hands who participated in the war, but also on people like Sam Harris who strongly propagate for it and try to shift public opinion and the political climate to return to war. How many innocent men, women and children must suffer to make people like Sam Harris happy? Likely no limit.
>To me it is unconscionable that dissent can be punished and deterred in this manner, especially in America. The optics of it are damning and moreover it is actually unethical.
It's ironic that someone who wants more Afghan Muslims to die is lecturing people about what's unethical.
The irony is that by supporting trans-rights they are actually doing people who identify as trans a disservice. There are a lot of documented problems with hormone blockers being miss-used, horror stories from gender re-assignment surgeries and (miss-)identification of little kids as trans. You support these people by helping them feel comfortable with their own biology, not with butchery! But I digress.
We shouldn't let people with these sorts of agendas dominate the discussion on such serious topics, we don't need another stripe on the LGBT flag to signify anti-surveillance. LGBT, trans-activism, feminism, etc. etc. are, and should remain disjoint from the fight against surveillance. If we start mixing in leftist-politics into the discussion we are weakening it by pushing away people who are not left-leaning or not in support of LGBT. By leaving anti-surveillance and pro-privacy activism pure and undiluted from left-right politics, we will have a greater ability to educate the masses.
It's hard to see it any other way, because that's essentially what the US and its allies have been doing.
You could say another alternative would be that he sees the killing of Afghan Muslims as an unfortunate consequence of spreading secular democracy, but still necessary. But that doesn't make any sense, it's clear that the Afghans don't want secularism, so what should the US do? Wipe out every element that is anti-secular? Maybe by keep bombing children in Quran schools, like the US and its allies have done in the past? That's equally inconsiderate of Muslim Afghans lives, is it not?