leoj,

Nobody was/is attempting to hijack your discussion.
People are entitled to respond however to other
posters on the thread. Also for someone like yourself -
who consistently
introduces and rants on about irrelevant issues on
discussions all the time you are in no position to tell
others what to do. Lead by example. And until you do'
you have no credibility in this area.

BTW - did you even read the link I gave to SteeleRedux?
It explained the reasons why Australian retirees went
to these places.

Foxy,

It was a hijack. As usual. Kindly start your own. As you are always demanding of others.

Back to the thread.

leoj,

No - responding to someone else's post is NOT
a hijack. It was not me who raised that issue
and blaming me for it is simply wrong.

I suspect
there is an ulterior motive involved with why
you persistently continue to single me out to attack in
discussions

I think that you should be guided by the situation. Where posters attempt to hijack, of course the thread originator might object.

It was necessary dispel the basis of SR's post, lest 'whoppers' prevail, the illusory truth effect, and become the truth. That has been done. If anyone wants to pursue sex tourism he/she can start another thread.

Back to this thread.

leoj,

I was guided by the situation and only made one
comment. This is not a hijack. As any reasonable
person will agree.

SteeleRedux If you read my comment properly it was a sarcastic comment as to why the statement made by Mohamed El-Mouelhy would not achieve the desired effect because of there preference to under age girls.

That is not an attempt to change the thread.

Here is my original comment.
Quote
"His theory is flawed because as in the UK and other places where the Muslims are fervently seeding the female population it is with underage girls some as young as 10 years old."