Strange: Pope Leo Silent on These Deaths

christiefan915 said:
You have proof that he didn't? Why haven't you addressed my comment about trump and the Uyghurs?
Click to expand...
Why didn't you address my question to you about how would you stop Iran from getting nuclear tipped ICBMs.

  • Signing the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act (2020): In June 2020, President Trump signed legislation authorizing U.S. sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for the repression of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.
  • Genocide Designation (2021): On his last full day in office (January 19, 2021), the Trump administration, via Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, officially determined that China was committing "genocide and crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs.
Meeting with Survivors: In July 2019, Trump met in the Oval Office with a group of people that included the daughter of a jailed Uyghur professor as part of a meeting with survivors of religious persecution.
 
FastLane said:
Why didn't you address my question to you about how would you stop Iran from getting nuclear tipped ICBMs.

  • Signing the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act (2020): In June 2020, President Trump signed legislation authorizing U.S. sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for the repression of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.
  • Genocide Designation (2021): On his last full day in office (January 19, 2021), the Trump administration, via Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, officially determined that China was committing "genocide and crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs.
Meeting with Survivors: In July 2019, Trump met in the Oval Office with a group of people that included the daughter of a jailed Uyghur professor as part of a meeting with survivors of religious persecution.
Click to expand...
All ignored by partisan leftists. They would not acknowledge 1 iota of good that Trump has done.
 
FastLane said:
I'll never understand why we put any political value in a man elected by 105 un-elected cardinals.
Click to expand...
Because he is the Pope, head of the Catholic Church, which is the largest Christian denomination in the US and world. He has no power, but strong authority, not one a smart politician would make an enemy of, especially simply because the Pope offended him
 
archives said:
Because he is the Pope, head of the Catholic Church, which is the largest Christian denomination in the US and world. He has no power, but strong authority, not one a smart politician would make an enemy of, especially simply because the Pope offended him
Click to expand...
When he's wrong, he is. :dunno:
 
Knuckles said:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, ordered security forces to execute thousands of protesters during the 2026 uprising, with official figures ranging from 3,117 to over 36,500 deaths depending on the source.

  • Official Iranian Government figures (reported by the Martyrs Foundation) state that 3,117 people were killed, a number that includes security forces killed by protesters.
  • Independent and international estimates place the death toll significantly higher, with reports citing over 30,000 protesters killed between late December 2025 and February 2026.
  • HRANA, a human rights group, confirmed 6,488 protester deaths (including 236 minors) as of late January 2026, with thousands more under investigation.
  • President Donald Trump cited an estimate of over 32,000 protesters killed in a February 2026 press briefing.
  • Khamenei acknowledged in January 2026 that "thousands" had been killed but blamed the United States and President Trump for the unrest.
The discrepancy in numbers is attributed to internet blackouts, restricted access for journalists, and the Iranian government's control over information regarding the crackdown.
Brave AI
search.brave.com

Ayatollahs killed how many protestors

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei acknowledged that thousands of protesters were killed during the unrest in Iran beginning on 28 December 2025, blaming the U.S. and Israel for the violence. Death toll estimates vary widely across sources: - The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) reported over...
search.brave.com search.brave.com
Click to expand...
I guess he expects better from the United States, I do.
 
zymurgy said:
"Who said it was? The point is that cowardly Trump supporters rather than "accepting" the Pope's criticism are attempting to turn the the criticism back on him as if his inconsistency, so claimed, lets them off the moral hook."

I replied to this word salad, and you are saying my comments are a jumble

lmfao

good day sir
Click to expand...
Yeah, a jumble they are. Mine wasn't that good either. Try it this way: as a leader of the Christian faith the Pope made a moral criticism of the leader of a Christian nation. Trump supporters apparently have no answer to the Pope's criticism since their only response has been to complain that the Pope didn't at the same criticize the leader of a non-Christian nation, as if that is what a pope normally would have done. It's probably not what a Pope normally would have done but whether it is or isn't is a different matter.
 
martin said:
Yeah, a jumble they are. Mine wasn't that good either. Try it this way: as a leader of the Christian faith the Pope made a moral criticism of the leader of a Christian nation. Trump supporters apparently have no answer to the Pope's criticism since their only response has been to complain that the Pope didn't at the same criticize the leader of a non-Christian nation, as if that is what a pope normally would have done. It's probably not what a Pope normally would have done but whether it is or isn't is a different matter.
Click to expand...
“Normally” is doing a lot of dishonest work there. Plenty of bad habits are normal. The issue is not whether popes usually soft-pedal non-Christian tyrants. The issue is whether this pope chose to speak loudly where it was easy and stay quiet where it was harder.

Also, “Trump supporters have no answer” assumes the only acceptable answer is agreement with the Pope’s criticism on the narrow terms he set. “Your criticism is selective and morally lopsided” is a direct answer, not a dodge.
 
zymurgy said:
“Normally” is doing a lot of dishonest work there. Plenty of bad habits are normal. The issue is not whether popes usually soft-pedal non-Christian tyrants. The issue is whether this pope chose to speak loudly where it was easy and stay quiet where it was harder.

Also, “Trump supporters have no answer” assumes the only acceptable answer is agreement with the Pope’s criticism on the narrow terms he set. “Your criticism is selective and morally lopsided” is a direct answer, not a dodge.
Click to expand...

What crap. "Trump supporters apparently have no answer" is an observation that no answer has been made, that's all . No terms were set. Whether an answer is good, bad or indifferent waits upon the un-forthcoming answer. Instead the reaction has been deflection.
 
martin said:
What crap. "Trump supporters apparently have no answer" is an observation that no answer has been made, that's all . No terms were set. Whether an answer is good, bad or indifferent waits upon the un-forthcoming answer. Instead the reaction has been deflection.
Click to expand...
No. An answer was given: the Pope’s criticism is being judged as selective, because he spoke against U.S.-Israeli strikes while remaining silent about the regime’s massacre of protesters. That is not evasion; it is a challenge to the coherence and credibility of his moral intervention. You are pretending the only valid answer is one that accepts his framing and ignores his omissions.
 
zymurgy said:
No. An answer was given: the Pope’s criticism is being judged as selective, because he spoke against U.S.-Israeli strikes while remaining silent about the regime’s massacre of protesters. That is not evasion; it is a challenge to the coherence and credibility of his moral intervention. You are pretending the only valid answer is one that accepts his framing and ignores his omissions.
Click to expand...
The answers ignored his framing. Take up the omissions as you see them but don't use them as an excuse to skirt the criticism.
 
martin said:
The answers ignored his framing. Take up the omissions as you see them but don't use them as an excuse to skirt the criticism.
Click to expand...
No. If his framing leaves out a morally central fact — the regime’s own slaughter of protesters — then criticizing that omission is not an excuse to avoid the criticism. It is a direct challenge to whether the criticism was morally serious, proportionate, and consistently applied.

outside of the half-wit comment (and my overly snarky reply), I have genuinely enjoyed this thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top