You equate speech with action. it would be unreasonable for me to argue his words aren't support in some specific case. But what you endorse is vigilante death penalty for your interpretation of words. The logical conclusion is a person who lies to their captor to escape deserves to be shot by a human rights advocate who hears those words and chooses sides for that reason. And yet in this case he spoke out truthfully about authentic opinions that are only unpopular to people who do not remember the world as it was only 20 years ago, for the most part.