Seriously the education system of France has become very pathetic, because people have loss the ability to argue properly in a debate.
LOL Lessons in education from someone whose every post includes demeaning phrases?
I don’t think so! 
But you may be right that I was not explicit enough in my rebuke which I will now attempt to correct as gently as I can.
You do not express yourself precisely military-wise, either because of lack of understanding, of willingness to do so or voluntarily and that’s not for me to judge. The fact remains that it makes a useful conversation impossible. Being open to discussion is one thing, losing one’s time for naught another, regardless of the cause.
For example, do you mean troops period or an invasion force specifically? The former is already true no matter what cute little flaming you’ll do attempting to throw discredit on my sourcing from your comfortable position of being nobody either by your own definition. Gander, goose, that sort of thing? By the way, it’s thousands and not hundreds of kilometers away.
And if you mean an invasion force, it seems strange that you’d suggest that when the rest of your tone is that of a takfiri advocate! Going down full invasion would then put France in line for more attacks later by the next generation of “victims”, would it not?
You also express yourself with gall, anger and disrespect. If I was to continue talking to you, I’d have to go down to your level which I honestly find incorrect for a gentleman and thus unacceptable. That attitude alone shows that you are neither a military man nor a politician as it would get you ousted. In fact, if you speak like that in real life, I pity your relations.
you sound undignified and
obviously you are spineless in nature since you cannot provide a counter-argument. The forum rules have stated quite clearly that members of this forum need to write in English
That points to another flaw, namely logic! You point the finger at French Pilot for having used French ( I don’t know what/which/why is what he said ). Fine but you should know there are regular posts with Urdu OFC and Punjabi and that management is quite ( correctly IMHoO ) relaxed about that rule if there is no ill-intent present. So your childish insults and pseudo-dominant tone is OK but a minor lapse worthy of reprimand? This makes me think that you might be dishonest to boot and correlates with the first part.
Then, you come up with untruths that you pose as blocks of verity while asking others to provide proof.
Seriously are you schizophrenic because the topic of this thread concerns Syria and has nothing to do with Mali.
Except maybe to answer this untruth that you repeated later :
Even the United States of America cannot mobilize troops detachment to a foreign conflict zone within 4 days of a terrorists attack and you expect us to believe that the incompetent French can do better.
French involvement in Mali did not occur within four days of the conflict.
You can't remember what you wrote and call others schizos???
France was in Mali in literally hours not 4 days.
Mali : Traoré demande une aide militaire de la France - Libération
France confirms Mali military intervention - BBC News
France suffers first loss in Mali air strikes - France - Mali - RFI
Demand, acceptation and first fire all on January 11 2013.
Your above remark is thus pure unadulterated BS ... twice.
That also links you to one of your supporters' explanation :
She failed in Mali. It was the Algerian peace treaty sidned by all the belligerants and the Malian central government that gave a different outcome of that area.
It is mostly the Tchadiens that bore the brunt of the fight, not your soldiers and certainly not the french legion.
Sure! That makes sense! Mali could not win alone; the illegitimate government was on the verge of being overthrown. France was called in ( Why not Chad directly since they’re so good and much closer? ) and came but it was really those same Malians and Chadians that won the war. Please explain why they did not do so earlier without external help! Bad timing? The ridicule of such constructions is testimony that they were not built to work and make sense but to impress and muddle.
Under the light of which, one is more than authorized to wonder if this is but your “normal” personality or if the similarity between the processes on various levels reveals intent, heretofore an “agenda”, not a will to exchange sincerely?
For those reasons, unwilling to misjudge you and yet wanting to avoid useless virtual conflagration, I’ll let you wander on hence.
Of course, I may have to drop a line here and there ( always with a link so you need not get huffy ) to correct your l... let’s call them imprecisions!
With that, good day for the last time hopefully and best of luck, Tay.
