Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Why Does Al Qaeda Fight?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: Why Does Al Qaeda Fight?

Why does Al Qaeda fight?

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm

Quote:

al-Qa'ida (The Base)
Qadat al-Jihad
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
Islamic Salvation Foundation
Usama bin Laden Network

Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.

Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.

Quote:

Al Qaeda Has a Plan and Here It Is
by James Dunnigan
September 24, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

Al Qaeda has a plan, and it뭩 been published in a book (Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation) by Jordanian journalist, Fouad Hussein. Several al Qaeda leaders were interviewed for the book, including al Qaeda뭩 man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The book is only available in Arabic, but it does lay out a very straightforward strategy for world conquest. Actually, it sounds a lot like what the nazis and communists had in mind last century. The only difference is that, while the nazis killed you for who you were, and the communists killed you for what you believed,al Qaeda kills you for religious differences. No matter which zealot gets you, you're still dead.

According to Fouad Hussein, al Qaeda has a seven phase plan for world conquest. It goes like this.

Phase 1, the 뱖akeup call.?Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West (like September 11, 2001) get the infidels (non-Moslems) to make war on Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al Qaedas banner. This phase is considered complete.

Phase 2, the 밻ye opening.?This is the phase we are in, where al Qaeda does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how it뭩 done. This phase is supposed to be completed by next year.

Phase 3, 뱓he rising.?Millions of aroused (in a terrorist sense) Moslems go to war against Islam뭩 enemies for the rest of the decade. Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that major damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.

Phase 4, 뱓he downfall.?By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.

Phase 5, 뱓he Caliphate.?By 2016, the Caliphate (one government for all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.

Phase 6, 뱖orld conquest.?By 2022, the rest of the world will be conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.

Phase 7, 밼inal victory.?All the world뭩 inhabitants will be forced to either convert to Islam, or submit (as second class citizens) to Islamic rule. This will be completed by 2025 or thereabouts.

Nothing really new in all this. Al Qaeda has been talking openly about this (the global Islamic state) for years. These Islamic terrorists are true believers. God is on their side, and they believe all obstacles will be swept aside by the power of the Lord. Will al Qaeda뭩 plan work? Ask the nazis and communists.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20059240226.asp

Osama bin Laden's Scary Vision of a Grand Muslim Super State
By Juan Cole

Quote:

For al-Qaeda to succeed, it must overthrow the individual nation-states in the Middle East, most of them colonial creations, and unite them into a single, pan-Islamic state. But Ayman al-Zawahiri's organization, al-Jihad al-Islami, had tried very hard to overthrow the Egyptian state, and was always checked. Al-Zawahiri thought it was because of U.S. backing for Egypt. They believed that the U.S. also keeps Israel dominant in the Levant, and backs Saudi Arabia's royal family.

Al-Zawahiri then hit upon the idea of attacking the "far enemy" first. That is, since the United States was propping up the governments of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc., all of which al-Qaeda wanted to overthrow so as to meld them into a single, Islamic super-state, then it would hit the United States first.

The attack on the World Trade Center was exactly analogous to Pearl Harbor. The Japanese generals had to neutralize the U.S. fleet so that they could sweep into Southeast Asia and appropriate Indonesian petroleum. The U.S. was going to cut off imperial Japan from petroleum, and without fuel the Japanese could not maintain their empire in China and Korea. So they pushed the U.S. out of the way and took an alternative source of petroleum away from the Dutch (which then ruled what later became Indonesia).

Likewise, al-Qaeda was attempting to push the United States out of the Middle East so that Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia would become more vulnerable to overthrow, lacking a superpower patron. Secondarily, the attack was conceived as revenge on the United States and American Jews for supporting Israel and the severe oppression of the Palestinians. Bin Laden wanted to move the timing of the operation up to spring of 2001 so as to "punish" the Israelis for their actions against the Palestinians in the second Intifadah. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad was mainly driven in planning the attack by his rage at Israel over the Palestinian issue. Another goal is to destroy the U.S. economy, so weakening it that it cannot prevent the emergence of the Islamic superpower.

Al-Qaeda wanted to build enthusiasm for the Islamic superstate among the Muslim populace, to convince ordinary Muslims that the U.S. could be defeated and they did not have to accept the small, largely secular, and powerless Middle Eastern states erected in the wake of colonialism. Jordan's population, e.g. is 5.6 million. Tunisia, a former French colony, is 10 million, less than Michigan. Most Muslims have been convinced of the naturalness of the nation-state model and are proud of their new nations, however small and weak. Bin Laden had to do a big demonstration project to convince them that another model is possible.

Bin Laden hoped the U.S. would timidly withdraw from the Middle East. But he appears to have been aware that an aggressive U.S. response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan B: al-Qaeda hoped to draw the U.S. into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the U.S. military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. Al-Zawahiri's recent message shows that he still has faith in that strategy

http://hnn.us/articles/7378.html#

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:13 am Post subject:

In other words, money.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:28 am Post subject:

Nope it for the new Caliphate

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:22 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Nope it for the new Caliphate

You have to be a little bit religious to understand why they fight.

problem is the west has forgotten what its like to believe in anything, and they assume the rest of the world is the same.

So joo how far do you think they'll actually get with their pipe dream?

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:23 am Post subject:

Al Quada (and those groups that will follow after) can pursue phases one and two forever, but phase three will never happen. The vast majority in the various Moslem communities of the world have no interest in pursuing a World War to creat a Caliphate. The problem for the West is how to end the perpetual terrorist problem: the use of "phase one and phase two" by radicalized individuals and groups. The West needs to learn to fight terrorism without surrendering its moral leadership. Unfortunately, the interventionists in various Western states keep helping the terrorists recruit new members. Interventionism as a policy creates new enemies and keeps the cycle going. The US created Bin Laden through decades of unprincipled interventionist relationships and wars. The war in Iraq will create thousands of new enemies for the US. Current US policy merely reacts to events in the world. There is no plan for the future based on understanding the way individuals, groups and nations think, act and relate in the real world. If the US would adopt a principled foreign policy, reject interventionism and become a beacon of liberty in the world once again, we could earn the respect of future generations and cut off the supply of future terrorists. Those who have already been radicalized will never stop fighting. They must be caught or killed, but without abandoning moral principles. This is a difficult task. The intellectual lightweights running and supporting the current US administration are morally bankrupt and clueless as to how to proceed.

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:17 am Post subject:

Anyone else feel that the similarities to Vietnam are now becoming quite striking? It's too much of a mess to leave and will look like total and humiliating failure, and yet it also seems they simply can't win either.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

The vast majority in the various Moslem communities of the world have no interest in pursuing a World War to creat a Caliphate.

While they may have no interest in pursuing a World War to establish a Caliphate, what percentage of people in those countries support the establishment of Islamic, Shariah states?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject:

OTW

Quote:

Al Quada (and those groups that will follow after) can pursue phases one and two forever, but phase three will never happen. The vast majority in the various Moslem communities of the world have no interest in pursuing a World War to creat a Caliphate.

I do agree The vast majority in the various Moslem communities of the world have no interest in pursuing a World War to creat a Caliphate.

However but the idea of the Caliphate is more popular than you say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301816.html

and Bin Laden has enough support to be dangerous.

whatever but they will continue to attack the US until they get what they want.

OTW

Quote:

The problem for the West is how to end the perpetual terrorist problem: the use of "phase one and phase two" by radicalized individuals and groups. The West needs to learn to fight terrorism without surrendering its moral leadership.

and what do you mean by that Cliche?

OTW

Quote:

Unfortunately, the interventionists in various Western states keep helping the terrorists recruit new members. Interventionism as a policy creates new enemies and keeps the cycle going.

No it is cause mideast regimes and elites teach hate and support terror.

OTW

Quote:

The US created Bin Laden through decades of unprincipled interventionist relationships and wars. The war in Iraq will create thousands of new enemies for the US. Current US policy merely reacts to events in the world. There is no plan for the future based on understanding the way individuals, groups and nations think, act and relate in the real world.

Cliche and not true.

Quote:

While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

Tell us why not many got made when Saddam gassed the Kurds. tell us why not many got made when Khomeni killed 30,000 of his own peole in 1988 alone.why no outcry when Assad destroyed the city of Hama. Or when Bin Laden killed muslims. What religion was the Northern alliance?

Here is left wing writer Robert Fisk who I don't agree with but see what he has to say:

Quote:

As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm

Quote:

If the US would adopt a principled foreign policy, reject interventionism and become a beacon of liberty in the world once again, we could earn the respect of future generations and cut off the supply of future terrorists. Those who have already been radicalized will never stop fighting. They must be caught or killed, but without abandoning moral principles. This is a difficult task. The intellectual lightweights running and supporting the current US administration are morally bankrupt and clueless as to how to proceed.

what do you mean by that?

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject:

rapier wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Nope it for the new Caliphate

not too likely to far with their pipe dream however they will keep blowing things up until they are destroyed or get what they want

that is the problem.

The US is not going to be able to appease Al Qaeda away

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive...the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam...There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other...the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill."

Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.

This is not a bad summary of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, but it fails to clarify that Musharraf, who wanted to wage the war, too, but who was also concerned about his own geopolitics (Moscow was itching to back India against Pakistan in a move to relieve pressure in Afghanistan at that time, and the Indians appeared all too willing to oblige, at least from Musharraf's perspective), insisted on managing CIA's funds and operations on the ground.

The British were also involved but suffering financial difficulties.

The Egyptians and Israelis, and a Swiss arms manufacturer, too.

And let's not leave out the Saudis who matched U.S. investments, dollar for dollar, for their own reasons, and who also sweetened the deal by funding the Contras for a time.

In any case, good cite, Joo. Just thought I'd exand on the message...

Also see Charlie Wilson's War, a highly readable journalistic account of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

deadman

Joined: 27 May 2006
Location: Suwon

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

OTW

Quote:

Unfortunately, the interventionists in various Western states keep helping the terrorists recruit new members. Interventionism as a policy creates new enemies and keeps the cycle going.

No it is cause mideast regimes and elites teach hate and support terror.

So you don't think that the war in Iraq has given hundreds of thousands of Iraqis a very real reason to hate the US, not to mention all the other Muslims in the world who feel outrage on their behalf? You really are divorced from reality. Open your eyes.

Quote:

OTW

Quote:

Cliche and not true.

Which parts of the above aren't true? All of them? Care to enlighten us why not? How about in your own words not some lazy cut and paste job.

Quote:

what do you mean by that?

Maybe he means the present course of action, which can be described AT BEST as grossly incompetent and ignorant (unless you're saying there's some sort of conspiracy) is furthering Al Quaeda agenda in ways that would be impossible without the US's help:

Quote:

Phase 3, ?he rising.?Millions of aroused (in a terrorist sense) Moslems go to war against Islam? enemies for the rest of the decade.

It would be impossible to arouse millions of Muslims to their extremist agenda. It's very easy to arouse millions of Muslims in self defence. Just systematically invade and destroy Muslim coutries on false or shaky pretexts.

Quote:

Phase 4, ?he downfall.?By 2013,... This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.

It's already done for them, and far quicker than they had hoped. The Bush administration has raped and looted the US (think of the missing trillions, tax cuts for the rich, obscenely overpriced no bid contracts to Halliburton et al,), pushing its economy to breaking point and the dollar down a slippery slope. It could very easily capsize, expecially when other contries lose confidence in the dollar.
The American military's morale is at a very low point, as evidenced by the massacres coming to light. Morale is a vital part of an armed forces effectiveness. It's easy to imagine money and logistics as being unlimited, but a ground war with Iran would very likely be too much, especially if the sea resupply routes through the straits of Hormuz were threateded (air resupply can't provide the volume necessary). Sure you can bomb them til the cows come home, but they see it coming, and so without nukes, it won't be a crippling blow. You can't take ground without troops on the ground either.
America won't be brought low by it's enemies, not in their wildest dreams. It's already pretty far down the path of being brought low by the enemies within, ie the self interested criminals who inhabit the white house.

tiger fancini

Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Testicles for Eyes

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject:

Satori wrote:

Anyone else feel that the similarities to Vietnam are now becoming quite striking? It's too much of a mess to leave and will look like total and humiliating failure, and yet it also seems they simply can't win either.

Wasn't it obvious from the start that this would happen though? If the U.S army goes charging into a country and culture it knows virtually nothing about, and grandly announces 'we are here to give you democracy and freedom', then surely this is inevitable?

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

.

Also see Charlie Wilson's War, a highly readable journalistic account of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I came across it a couple weeks ago, read the first two chapters. Already have a few too many unread books lying around my place, or else I would have bought it. I'll be sure to read it sometime in the near future.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Gopher wrote:

Charlie Wilson's War.

It would be worth your time.

Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 12:43 am; edited 1 time in total

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:22 am Post subject:

mideast regimes and elites teach hate and support terror.
[/quote]

Quote:

I don't know it saved a lot of MUSLIM Kurds and MUSLIM Shias from Saddam. It also saved Muslim Kuwaits from Saddam. 60% of Iraqs population is Shia and 20% is Kurdish. I wonder if they are upset with the fact that the US took out Saddam.

It makes one wonder that the mideast street never got angry when Saddam gassed the Kurds or when Bin Laden killed Muslims or when Khomeni killed Muslims or about the Algerian civil war which killed tens or hundreds of thousands or when Assad destroys a city. Can you tell us about that.

Come to think of it David Icke didn't say anything then either.

Also explain why 70,000 trained in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanstian the 1990s.

Quote:

Al-Qaeda camps 'trained 70,000'
Thousands are said to have joined al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan
Some 70,000 people received weapons training and religious instruction in al-Qaeda camps, German police say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4146969.stm

This was while the US was defending Muslim Kurds from Saddam and Muslims in Kosovo from Slobidan. It was also while the US was trying to bring the Israeli and the Palestinian sides together.

What was the problem then?

Can you explain that?

Quote:

Which parts of the above aren't true? All of them? Care to enlighten us why not? How about in your own words not some lazy cut and paste job.

Lets see what exactly has the US done that is wrong . Why don't you tells

I don't care if you like my posts or not they are good enough to refute you

Quote:

really? If mideast states just killed those who support Al Qaida then there would be no Al Qaeda.

Mideast states and elites don't have a right to teach hate , plan terror, support Al Qaida and incite violence with out being hit back for doing so.

Quote:

that is Al Qaidas plan, does it have a good chance probably not. But Al Qaeda will continue attacking until they get what they want or they are destroyed.

Quote:

Phase 4, ?he downfall.?By 2013,... This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.

Quote:

the US economy is doing bad? It is doing better than most economies in Europe or Japan.

I did not support Bush's tax cuts but many respected people think that Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

You might hope the US is going down but it isn't.

No bid contracts for Haliburton are in Part cause they were experienced at rebuilding sure is there corruption there probably but not at the scale you claim.

Quote:

The American military's morale is at a very low point, as evidenced by the massacres coming to light. Morale is a vital part of an armed forces effectiveness. It's easy to imagine money and logistics as being unlimited, but a ground war with Iran would very likely be too much, especially if the sea resupply routes through the straits of Hormuz were threateded (air resupply can't provide the volume necessary). Sure you can bomb them til the cows come home, but they see it coming, and so without nukes, it won't be a crippling blow. You can't take ground without troops on the ground either.
America won't be brought low by it's enemies, not in their wildest dreams. It's already pretty far down the path of being brought low by the enemies within, ie the self interested criminals who inhabit the white house.

Why would the US use ground forces against Iran? The US is concerned about disarming Iran not occupying them.

You call Bush a criminal well how so? The mideast in the way it was was a threat to the US. Removing Saddam prevented him from attacking anyone else or oppressing his own people.

Quote:

He says the US created Bin Laden - that is false.

Al Qaeda fights for the new Caliphate that is not cause of the US.

The US reacts to events in the world yes. and the US was attacked.

If the US had killed Bin Laden or Khomeni when they were vunerable then they US and probably the world would be better off. The US ought not just react they ought to go after the enemies in advance.

The Bathists , Khomeni followers and the Bin Laden lovers never gave up their war. If they had there would be no war. If they don't want to give up their war then the US is justified in doing anything and everything it can do will do or think of doing to force them to.

The US doesn't have to accept their war.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 1 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe