Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Christian martyrdom in new book, Suicide Bombers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2005 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

R.S.Refugee wrote:
Kuros wrote:


The invasion of Iraq was not intended as a brutal assualt on the innocent civilians of Iraq. It was intended to remove Saddam Hussein.


Intended or not, the massive death toll was easily predictable. So, if you shoot a bullet through a woman because you want to kill the man standing behind her, you can say you didn't intend to kill her, but regretably she was in your line of sight. I'm sure that would make all the difference in the world to her if she could hear you.


You've already missed the point. Big Bird's statement suggests that America declared war on 'an innocent populace in a third world country.' I am saying that was not the case, America did not go to war because there was an innocent populace there, but rather they went to war in spite of there being an innocent populace there.

As for your analogy, let me assure you that I don't find it appropriate. For me there is a distinct difference between prosecuting a war while taking care against harming civilians knowing there is likely to be civilian casualties but not knowing exactly how many or who will die, and a situation where someone takes no care to protect the innocent at all in order to apprehend a criminal.

The reason why many readily condemn the suicide bombings in Iraq is more than simply because it is vile, but because it is done for a vile purpose. Big Bird, it seemed to me, painted a picture where these suicide bombers were merely responding to the invasion of their country. But there is much more at work here. The lackeys of the despot, the Ba'athists, and the fanatic fundamentalists, Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda annointed, are trying to do everything they can to prevent their loss of privilige that evaporated along with Saddam's ability to persecute and exclude the Shi'a.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2005 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:

...The reason why many readily condemn the suicide bombings in Iraq is more than simply because it is vile, but because it is done for a vile purpose. ...


But the US's killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians is not vile and is done for a noble purpose? Is that what you're saying, Kuros? Then please go to the grave yards of Iraq and preach your sermon of noble slaughter to the corpses. I'm sure that will put their spirits at ease.

[So, did you argue these positions at that meetup in Daegu last weekend?]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But the US's killing of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians is not vile and is done for a noble purpose? Is that what you're saying, Kuros?


Potentially, yes. In case you've forgotten, Saddam was a harsh dictator. His regime oppressed both the Shi'a and the Kurds to the delight of the Sunnis (especially the Ba'athists) who reaped the spoils of his tyranny. Much of the resistance is made up of disaffected Sunnis who know that with a Shi'a majority the weather is certainly not going to be as 'Sunny' as it was under Saddam. Yes, the resistance also includes quite a few people who lost relatives in action.

Outside of the Sunnis, there is really only one resistance group, Al Sadr's Militia. Al Sadr's group had a righteous name 'The Mehdi Army,' a Mehdi is someone who revolts against an unrighteous ruler. But most of his militiamen were young leftist, essentially communists, who wanted to make a class statement that the rest of the Shi'a weren't willing to do. Even Al Sadr's militia at its height only had 5,000.

Quote:
Then please go to the grave yards of Iraq and preach your sermon of noble slaughter to the corpses. I'm sure that will put their spirits at ease.


Wonderful rhetoric. Did you pick that kind of debate style up from your radical leftist sites? Save me the angst.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:


Quote:
Then please go to the grave yards of Iraq and preach your sermon of noble slaughter to the corpses. I'm sure that will put their spirits at ease.


Wonderful rhetoric. Did you pick that kind of debate style up from your radical leftist sites? Save me the angst.


You certainly do a great job of saving yourself any angst.

Yes, Kuros, it is pretty obvious from your dispassionate analysis that tens of thousands of innocent men, women, children, babies can be killed in your name without your ever having so much as a restless night's sleep over it. It must be wonderfully comforting to have such an untroubled conscience or even any discernable emotion as far as I can tell.


Last edited by R. S. Refugee on Mon May 16, 2005 3:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

R. S. Refugee wrote:
Kuros wrote:


Quote:
Then please go to the grave yards of Iraq and preach your sermon of noble slaughter to the corpses. I'm sure that will put their spirits at ease.


Wonderful rhetoric. Did you pick that kind of debate style up from your radical leftist sites? Save me the angst.


Yes, Kuros, it is pretty obvious from your dispassionate analysis that tens of thousands of innocent men, women, children, babies can be killed in your name without your ever having so much as a restless night's sleep over it. It must be wonderfully comforting to be so devoid of conscience or even emotion as far as I can tell.


Step back, R.S. Step back a second. You don't see how provocative your statement was? In my name? Whoa. Step back.

I blame the insurgency greatly for this carnage. It works to their advantage and they're willing to sacrifice the lives of their own, and especially the lives of the Shi'a. There are different kinds of resistance. Take the resistance of Sistani. The cleric knows that America has to set up a democracy, he trusts that they will, and he knows that means the Shi'a get a great say. He never justifies the invasion, but nor does he advocate violence against it. He's clever. The difference is, some of the Sunnis, a minority still, distrust not only the U.S. but the Shi'a.

On the other hand there are the thousands of Ba'athist thugs. It's important to remember that Saddam ruled Iraq by means of gangs. He kept them in check, but they could exist and run their territory as long as they didn't defy his regime. They were also rewarded for carrying out his dirty work. I'm not talking the Ba'athist mainstream here, I'm talking underworld types.

You say thousands have died, but we can disagree as to whose blood is on whose hands. I think the United States has made a lot of unnecessary blunders in Iraq. I think they're too liberal with air strikes and I think a lot of soldiers err on the side of shooting. That's the atmosphere there created by people detonating themselves. Personally, I find this ever so limited defense of suicide bombing appalling.

Anyway, I found Big Bird's screed about 'armchair generals who supported bombing some 'ragheads' in revenge for 911, jeering from the sidelines as many people they'd never met and who'd never done them wrong,' pretty ignorant. Is she asserting that all the generals in Afghanistan were motivated by hatred and butchering civilians in scores?

There's a lot of criticism about people who watch Fox and how brainwashed they are, but I find the stuff put out by the far Left often just as bad. There's a lot of hatred on the far Left against the establishment, and bales full of resentment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Teufelswacht



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw this today and thought it might be of interest to some of those participating in this thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html?sub=new
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Big_Bird wrote:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't find it all that difficult to understand why someone might be willing to blow himself up. The part I don't understand is the hatred. I just don't get that part. How can someone hate a group so much that you would blow up men, women and children who have little or no power to make political decisions?


In a way it's more honest than these armchair generals who supported bombing some 'ragheads' in revenge for 911, jeering from the sidelines as many people they'd never met and who'd never done them wrong, lost their lives. Thousands of poor b@stards copped it in Afghanistan, thousands more saw their loved ones blown to pieces or maimed for life. And many thousands died of starvation when relief organisations were unable to assist the millions of Afghanis affected by a famine (that had already been predicted before 911). Just to slake the desire to hit back at any poor buggar in revenge for 911. Of course the government wasn't motivated by revenge, but that's a different story. The point is, the government was enabled by the support of many, who felt no compassion for the thousands of innocent Afghanis they knew would have to die, or suffer horrific injury. And I spoke to some US citizens who were gleeful about it!

All the same, to stand among a group of civilians, some of them children, knowing you're going to blow them all to oblivion, takes a certain frame of mind. Few, if any, of them are psychopaths, so they must have found a way to justify it to themselves. But it doesn't seem that far down the road from justifying supporting your President in a brutal assault on an innocent populace in a poor 3rd world country.


I read your post, Big Bird, with utter amazement. It's not exactly surprising that someone on the far Left would find more in common with just about anyone than a picture of generals 'who supported bombing some 'ragheads' in revenge for 911, jeering from the sidelines as many people they'd never met and who'd never done them wrong, lost their lives.'



I read your post, Kurus, with utter bewilderment. I don't even know quite what the hell you are trying to say here. Let me read that again:

    "It's not exactly surprising that someone on the far Left would find more in common with just about anyone than a picture of generals 'who supported bombing some 'ragheads' in revenge for 911, jeering from the sidelines as many people they'd never met and who'd never done them wrong, lost their lives."


Hmmm. So I'm finding more in common with just about anyone than the armchair generals. And just who are these just about anyone?

Kuros wrote:
But it seems to me you should hear again why many of us across the political spectrum condemn the suicide bombings in Iraq.
.

??? And what are you getting at here. You're suggesting perhaps that I don't condemn suicide bombings in Iraq?!? Ah ha. So the just about anyone that I apparently find so much in common with, are Iraqi suicide bombers?

Kuros wrote:
, it's because many of these bombers are employed by Al-Zarqawi,
Well I'm not yet convinced that that isn't just more disinformation spread by the Bush admin. It would certainly be convenient if genuine resistance fighters could be transformed into Al-Quaida operatives for more easily digestible public consumption.

Kuros wrote:
The invasion of Iraq was not intended as a brutal assualt on the innocent civilians of Iraq. It was intended to remove Saddam Hussein.


I hope you're not alluding to anything I wrote here, because in that case you've got me mixed up with someone else, as I didn't write about the invasion of Iraq. Of course it wasn't 'intended as a brutal assualt on the innocent civilians of Iraq.' But it didn't matter at all if thousands of innocents in Iraq fell by the wayside, in Cheney and Co's cynical mission to feather their and their rich buddies pockets. Oh dear, collateral damage? That's too bad. Crying or Very sad So sorry but, hey, that's the 'price of freedom.' A very high price that Cheney and his cohorts don't have to pay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even the "resistance" fighters are out to conquer Iraq for themselves.

You see most of the "resistance" fighters are sunnis - sunnis are only 20% of Iraq so they can't win an election.

But the problem is that the sunni areas have almost no oil. So if the Sunnis were to ask for independence then they were broke so the only for them is to either join a Shia led democracy or try to conquer the Shia and the Kurds.

The Sunnis fight to conquer Iraq cause they can't win an election
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
[ Big Bird, it seemed to me, painted a picture where these suicide bombers were merely responding to the invasion of their country. .
Erm...when did I paint this picture? Please point it out to me.


Kuros wrote:
But there is much more at work here. The lackeys of the despot, the Ba'athists, and the fanatic fundamentalists, Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda annointed, are trying to do everything they can to prevent their loss of privilige that evaporated along with Saddam's ability to persecute and exclude the Shi'a


The situation in Iraq is very complex. You are not the only one in the world to notice that.

You are the one who keeps harping on about Iraq. This thread was not started as a discussion on Iraq. The OP is an article that challenges the idea that "suicide bombing is new or alien."

You keep making reference to what seems to be my alleged position - but it is a position that you've entirely dreamed up!

What the hell is going on in your mind? Well, I guess one clue is your lumping me into that neat little catergory "of someone on the far Left." I'm guessing that "someone on the far Left" would hold the identical position of another "someone on the far Left" that you may have once come across, and so it can be safely assumed that being "someone on the far Left" (according to you that is), I also hold this identical position. Whatever that position is. Mmmmm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
Even the "resistance" fighters are out to conquer Iraq for themselves.

You see most of the "resistance" fighters are sunnis - sunnis are only 20% of Iraq so they can't win an election.

But the problem is that the sunni areas have almost no oil. So if the Sunnis were to ask for independence then they were broke so the only for them is to either join a Shia led democracy or try to conquer the Shia and the Kurds.

The Sunnis fight to conquer Iraq cause they can't win an election


It seems to me, that when the US first entered Iraq, only a minority of the population was pathologically opposed them. There was even a fair bit of goodwill. After blundering about the place like a bull in china shop, kicking down doors at midnight, acting like a bunch of hoodlums, being way too trigger happy, bringing about 'collateral damage' willy nilly - even once friendly populations were soon consumed with hate. It seems to me America sowed the seeds of resistance and nourished it with its arrogance and deadly 'blunders' (as Kuros refers to them) and the utter stupidity of its 'leadership.'

I spend a lot of time around Itaewon, and I know a lot of arabs here in Seoul. And many of them in 2003 were (to my surprise) supportive of the war in Iraq, cos they (in my opinion) very gullibly believed the hype about 'liberating' the people from Saddam Hussain. Since that time, I no longer know of one arab who has maintained that position. Their hearts are so full of anger at what they've seen Americans do to their 'arab brothers.' The Bush admin squandered so much goodwill. But the propaganda still w@nks on about terrorists and foreign fighters. Sure, there are some of these, but there are far more angry vengeful Iraqi resistance fighters than you Bush apologists care to admit (even to yourselves).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Anyway, I found Big Bird's screed about 'armchair generals who supported bombing some 'ragheads' in revenge for 911, jeering from the sidelines as many people they'd never met and who'd never done them wrong,' pretty ignorant. Is she asserting that all the generals in Afghanistan were motivated by hatred and butchering civilians in scores?


Big_Bird stares at the screen in bewilderment and scratches her feathery little head. "Just what the bloody hell is this bloke on about now?" Does he understand what an armchair general is?

An "armchair general" is not a real general. An armchair general is a "Joe Blogg" who sits in his living room stuffing his face with pizza and lager, mouthing off to anyone who'll listen.

I met a bunch of yanks (and even some older educated American women) whose support for the invasion of Afghanistan boiled down to sheer spiteful revenge. Some openly admitted it. Some tried to dress it up with wishy washy justifications.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 6:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what was my original point? Certainly not any of the points that Kuros dreamed up in his spare time.

It went something along the lines of:

Suicide bombings are appalling and criminal. But throwing your support behind an adminstration that brought down war on the heads of innocent civillians and maimed and killed thousands upon thousands of defenceless people, many of whom were children, while sitting in your living room stuffing your face with pizza and lager, knowing you'll never have to face any of the horrific carnage you advocate being brought down on the heads other people (and their children), whose faces you'll never have to acknowledge, is not a morally superior position. And it is certainly more cowardly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big Bird wrote:
You are the one who keeps harping on about Iraq. This thread was not started as a discussion on Iraq. The OP is an article that challenges the idea that "suicide bombing is new or alien."


Where are all the suicide bombings today occurrring? Almost entirely in Iraq.

Big Bird wrote:
Suicide bombings are appalling and criminal. But throwing your support behind an adminstration that brought down war on the heads of innocent civillians and maimed and killed thousands upon thousands of defenceless people, many of whom were children, while sitting in your living room stuffing your face with pizza and lager, knowing you'll never have to face any of the horrific carnage you advocate being brought down on the heads other people (and their children), whose faces you'll never have to acknowledge, is not a morally superior position. And it is certainly more cowardly.


It's not a morally superior position? I see one difference. One person is sitting around doing nothing, while the other is blowing people up.

Big Bird wrote:
What the hell is going on in your mind? Well, I guess one clue is your lumping me into that neat little catergory "of someone on the far Left." I'm guessing that "someone on the far Left" would hold the identical position of another "someone on the far Left" that you may have once come across, and so it can be safely assumed that being "someone on the far Left" (according to you that is), I also hold this identical position


According to you I'm a Bush apologist. And that's fine (although you're wrong, do a search on threads titled Impeach Bush), but I'm not going to throw out the inane comment that by pointing out a general description of what you think is my position, you are putting me in a box. If I misunderstood your position, I'm sorry (I truly have trouble following a lot of what you say), but I'm pretty sure my long and detailed explanation about why I think suicide bombing in Iraq is about the most wretched thing out there was warranted given your continued assertions that sitting watching TV is not a morally superior position.

Big Bird wrote:
Kuros wrote:
, it's because many of these bombers are employed by Al-Zarqawi,

Well I'm not yet convinced that that isn't just more disinformation spread by the Bush admin. It would certainly be convenient if genuine resistance fighters could be transformed into Al-Quaida operatives for more easily digestible public consumption.


I see. I suppose the Bush administration made up the Osama tape where Osama backs Al-Zarqawi's mission and proclaims him as Al Qaeda's base in Iraq. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
flakfizer



Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Christian martyrdom in new book, Suicide Bombers Reply with quote

R. S. Refugee wrote:
flakfizer wrote:

When someone believes in a cause so much that he will kill himself and several other random people who happen to be in the area, it is vile, vile, vile.


I agree. It is vile, vile, vile.

So, flakfizer, I guess you must also believe that when "someone believes in a cause so much that he will kill several other random people who happen to be in the area so that he can get his intended target, it is vile, vile, vile.

Even if he calls them not people, but "colateral damage" that he knew he would inevitably kill in order to try to get his target. Is that not vile, vile, vile, also?

I do very seriously want to know your opinion about that, flak.


On the newly created "vile ranking system," it would perhaps get 1/2 "vile" rather than three. Motive is always key in addressing the ethics of an action. In one instance, random people are the intended target, in the other, they are not. In one instance, the hope is that random people will die. In the other, the hope is that random people will not die though it known to be likely. There is a reason why in the civilian world we have different degrees of murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter and so on.
If people never went to war, we would avoid the "colateral damage" you mentioned. Some people would use this as a reason to say that war is never justified-because there is always colateral damage. I'm not sure if your real issue is "colateral damage" or that this particular war is unjustifiable in your eyes. If war is ever justifiable, than colateral damage (which is always a part a war) must be justifiable as well sometimes. Perhaps you feel that the colateral damage in this war is unjustifiable because you feel that this war is unjustifiable. But that is a different argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Big Bird wrote:
You are the one who keeps harping on about Iraq. This thread was not started as a discussion on Iraq. The OP is an article that challenges the idea that "suicide bombing is new or alien."


Where are all the suicide bombings today occurrring? Almost entirely in Iraq.


There are suicide bombings going on in different parts of the world, including Russia. It quite relevant to discuss Iraq BUT YOUR WRITINGS INDICATED A RESPONSE TO A POSITION I HELD ON SUICIDE BOMBING IN IRAQ WHICH I HAD IN FACT NEVER STATED!

Kuros wrote:
Big Bird wrote:
Suicide bombings are appalling and criminal. But throwing your support behind an adminstration that brought down war on the heads of innocent civillians and maimed and killed thousands upon thousands of defenceless people, many of whom were children, while sitting in your living room stuffing your face with pizza and lager, knowing you'll never have to face any of the horrific carnage you advocate being brought down on the heads other people (and their children), whose faces you'll never have to acknowledge, is not a morally superior position. And it is certainly more cowardly.


It's not a morally superior position? I see one difference. One person is sitting around doing nothing, while the other is blowing people up.
One person is advocating war, and giving his/her support to a warmongering leadership, but doesn't themselves volunteer any personal sacrifice; they're happy to send unfortunate young servicemen/women to die in their place, and kill a whole bunch of unfortunate in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time innocents while they're at it, purely out of spiteful revenge and patriotic fervour. The other person is making the biggest personal sacrifice there is, but selfishly taking a bunch of unfortunate in-the-wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time people with him/her. Both are morally irreprehensible. But the former is more spineless it would seem to me.

Dazed and confused wrote:
Big Bird wrote:
What the hell is going on in your mind? Well, I guess one clue is your lumping me into that neat little catergory "of someone on the far Left." I'm guessing that "someone on the far Left" would hold the identical position of another "someone on the far Left" that you may have once come across, and so it can be safely assumed that being "someone on the far Left" (according to you that is), I also hold this identical position


According to you I'm a Bush apologist. And that's fine (although you're wrong, do a search on threads titled Impeach Bush), but I'm not going to throw out the inane comment that by pointing out a general description of what you think is my position, you are putting me in a box.

And when did I call you a Bush apologist? This is more dreaming on your part. Are you drunk? Here you are (yet again) refering to what you think I think. Scroll up the thread half a dozen posts, and you may see me calling Joo a Bush apologist, but so far I haven't levelled that insult at you.


Kuros wrote:
I'm sorry (I truly have trouble following a lot of what you say),


Confused If you read the way in which you write, it can't be any wonder!

Kuros wrote:
but I'm pretty sure my long and detailed explanation about why I think suicide bombing in Iraq is about the most wretched thing out there was warranted given your continued assertions that sitting watching TV is not a morally superior position.


There's nothing immoral about watching TV. You know I never suggested this. There is something immoral about enabling (with your tacit support) your democratically elected leader to wage a war on a 3rd world country like Afghanistan, in which thousands of innocent people were killed, in order to sate your mindless desire for revenge.

rolling eye emotican wrote:

I see. I suppose the Bush administration made up the Osama tape where Osama backs Al-Zarqawi's mission and proclaims him as Al Qaeda's base in Iraq. Rolling Eyes


How would this video you are refering to preclude Iraqi resistance movements? Please eleborate.

Kuros, you need to work on your logic honey. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International