Why do you need to convert "goes against their principles" to "doesn't like" to make your argument? Is it because it is a weak argument without twisting words?
They're allowed to decide what they'll host, and it looks like they're just being clear about a boundary. Unless they're playing favorites and allowing some crypto, what is the problem?
What does that have to do with getting DDoSed? Because "you don't like them" they deserve to be DDoSed? Or is this just, "BTW, I am salty." Nobody owes you a centralized location for your distributed source code repositories.
Goes against their principles is an explanation for why they don't like it, so I don't see anything wrong with saying "if they don't like it". OP is correct and under no obligation for explaining their motives.
They and you are both incorrect. You both wish to pretend that because all dolphins are mammals, all mammals are dolphins.
They aren't removing code simply because they don't like it. They have defined a term of service. You can pretend it's more capricious than that, but it isn't the truth unless you have some additional evidence beyond that one thing.
They're allowed to decide what they'll host, and it looks like they're just being clear about a boundary. Unless they're playing favorites and allowing some crypto, what is the problem?