When a post starts with that untruth, something I did not say, and then degenerates into an ad hominem diatribe, I guess the only reasonable thing to do is counter the lie and let the diatribe sit there and smell up the place.
As far as the rest of his post, I already described the similarities between France and Iraq. He chose not to deal with those similarities, but to revert to that ad hominem attack, a favorite of folks who are in over their head.
The next thing would be for either of you to explain how my comparison is wrong - not just say it is wrong, something which is a favorite of some folks, but to explain HOW it is wrong. If you say it enough, over and over, you can convince yourself, but not deal with reality.
For convenience, I'll post my statement below.
"France was in the same position Iraq is in now. They were occupied by an army which had invaded illegally, was immune from French law, used French prisons to torture people, exacted retribution from families of resistors, paid informers, etc."
Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter, I am
Yr. ob't servant,
Current Events » in reply to "So resistance as in Iraq wasn't possible."
McFly - "To suggest that the French resistance was ineffective- - "
The whole thread (35 posts)
- Remembering the liberation of Paris
- re: Remembering the liberation of Paris
- How many Americans died to free them Donald?
- Questions about French participation in WW2