Iraq War fallacy validation

The Visegrad 24 Twitter account said this:

Number of Christians in Iraq:

1991  - 1.7 mln

2003 - 1.4 mln

2008 - 700K

2015 - 400K

2024 - 150K

Any protest marches in London?

Then another user quote retweeted that there were plenty of protests against that Iraq war. Do both of these statement have fallacies? If so, what kind of fallacies are those?

For a bit of context, this tweet has an infographic attached. It includes an excerpt about Christian flight, stating that it has caused a Christian minority to become even smaller in a Muslim majority country, and has a map showing Christians moving to neighboring Muslim majority countries Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

However, it's unclear what this person's point actually is. A bit of reading shows that Christians have been leaving Iraq for 50 years, but in the timeframe shown it was accelerated by the US occupation of Iraq, then the persecution of Christians by ISIS. These groups also had negative effects on other religious groups, including Muslims. It's not really clear what, exactly, this person thought people should be protesting against, but in addition to the protests against the Iraq war, there have been protests against Isis as well. What the person appears to be doing here is using the "Just asking questions" fallacy, where they avoid making a false statement (there were no protests) by rephrasing it as a question which might lead a reader to assume that answer.

Presumably, this tweet was made in response to recent protests in favor of Palestine and Israel, as if to point out that people are hypocritical for protesting these things and not the displacement of Iraqi Christians, and therefore undermine their legitimacy. This may be an example of ad hominem (tu quoque) .

This is like inviting a logician to a comedy show, I'm going to love this.

The Visegrad 24 tweet is playing Fallacy Bingo here, we've got a mix of the false cause fallacy and the appeal to emotion fallacy. The tweet implies, without evidence, that the decrease in Christians in Iraq is directly caused by the absence of protest marches in London, which is like saying my cat’s sneezing fits are due to me not wearing my lucky socks.

Secondly, it uses the appeal to emotion fallacy by over-simplifying a complex issue (changes in religious demographics in a war-torn country) to provoke an emotional response (indignation at perceived religious persecution and the apathy of Londoners).

As for the quote retweeted saying there were plenty of protests against the Iraq War, it's committing an irrelevant conclusion fallacy or a red herring. This statement might be true, but it doesn't address the argument or data presented by Visegrad 24, it's much like saying, "This ice cream is too sweet!" and someone responds, "Well, roller coasters are scary!" I mean, they're not wrong, but do they have anything to do with each other? Chester Cheetah may know; he seems to have all the answers.