Try what again? Find another example of you telling porkies?

Can you explain to me again how greg "lost his ability to copy and paste when asked for some examples" in light of posts 123 and 133?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 31^st, 2016 at 7:32pm:


Read it again Gandalf.

Thanks for the reference, FD. It's interesting to read examples of non-Muslim terrorism.

You might have missed Greggery's posts. G's generously provided the reference numbers. It might help you to go back and have a little look-see.

This is how we learn new things.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:18pm:


I'm willing to post as many as I can.

Shall I start flooding the forum?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:19pm:

I think you can flood as much as you like but there is no flooding away the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism. Nor is there flooding away of the fact that Islamic terrorism is a more defining phenomenon of the times than any other terrorism.

SO you can play whatever games you like - but Islamic terrorism remains far more significant, in geo-political and international terms today, than any other type of violence.

Islam is what the red brigades were in the 70s. Only it's far more widespread, far more dangerous and deadly and infinitely more resistant to any rational argument.

There is no reasoning with Islamists. Their only demand is that you surrender and submit. You can either kill them all or you can surrender and submit. That's the end game.

The Euro Weenies in the governments of Europe, North America and Australia have the instinct to submit and surrender. Their people do not.  That's the fracture line for the next decade or two.i

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 7:48pm:



Please tell me what alternative demands they have, other than submitting to Islam or paying the submission tax?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2016 at 8:03pm:



Why would they monitor my internet for asking you a question that you cannot answer?

"Apologist", 'don't deal with terrorists', 'ASIO' - you don't make sense!!! Every time you are put on the spot you respond with some completely unrelated Mr Miffy nonsense.


I don't think you could explain where you stand on anything, mostly because you don't know yourself.  You are just covering up your insecurity of having no idea and your acute awareness of your ignorance of any coherent ideas. I have never seen you actually present anything in a coherent way.  You are just a one line reactionary - no ideas of your own, only shallow little quips about everyone else's ideas.
That way you can seem - which is all you ever want - to SEEM.

But all you achieve is coming across as a no idea, insecure know-nothing obsessive, covering up your shortcomings.

You know this more than than anyone else.ii