Any time someone 'attacks' you in public, the wisest move is either to say nothing, or address it, depending on what the probability is that action or inaction will incur a good (or the best) outcome.
In this case, they probably did not need to respond, since the 'attack' was merely an insinuation that disagreeing with management led to termination, which isn't the strangest idea in the world, nor defamatory. But if they did have to respond, this is one of the worst possible ways to do it: negatively, by senior management, in public, on a forum, discussing personal private details about an ex-employee. If there is a textbook somewhere on "How to deal with employee firing", this is the example of what not to do.
The proper response is to address the main point in contention without emotion or judgment and point out the business's policies and values. Short, sweet and impartial.
In this case, they probably did not need to respond, since the 'attack' was merely an insinuation that disagreeing with management led to termination, which isn't the strangest idea in the world, nor defamatory. But if they did have to respond, this is one of the worst possible ways to do it: negatively, by senior management, in public, on a forum, discussing personal private details about an ex-employee. If there is a textbook somewhere on "How to deal with employee firing", this is the example of what not to do.
The proper response is to address the main point in contention without emotion or judgment and point out the business's policies and values. Short, sweet and impartial.