Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Dilip Hiro, Pakistan's Other Partner

Has the Obama Administration Miscalculated in Pakistan?
By Dilip Hiro

Washington often acts as if Pakistan were its client state, with no other possible patron but the United States. It assumes that Pakistani leaders, having made all the usual declarations about upholding the “sacred sovereignty” of their country, will end up yielding to periodic American demands, including those for a free hand in staging drone attacks in its tribal lands bordering Afghanistan. This is a flawed assessment of Washington’s long, tortuous relationship with Islamabad.

A recurring feature of the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been its failure to properly measure the strengths (as well as weaknesses) of its challengers, major or minor, as well as its friends, steadfast or fickle. To earlier examples of this phenomenon, one may now add Pakistan.

That country has an active partnership with another major power, potentially a viable substitute for the U.S. should relations with the Obama administration continue to deteriorate. The Islamabad-Washington relationship has swung from close alliance in the Afghan anti-Soviet jihad years of the 1980s to unmistaken alienation in the early 1990s, when Pakistan was on the U.S. watch list as a state supporting international terrorism. Relations between Islamabad and Beijing, on the other hand, have been consistently cordial for almost three decades. Pakistan’s Chinese alliance, noted fitfully by the U.S., is one of its most potent weapons in any future showdown with the Obama administration.

Playing the China Card

Another factor, also poorly assessed, affects an ongoing war. While, in the 1980s, Pakistan acted as the crucial conduit for U.S. aid and weapons to jihadists in Afghanistan, today it could be an obstacle to the delivery of supplies to America’s military in Afghanistan. It potentially wields a powerful instrument when it comes to the efficiency with which the U.S. and its NATO allies fight the Taliban. It controls the supply lines to the combat forces in that landlocked country.

Taken together, these two factors make Pakistan a far more formidable and independent force than U.S. policymakers concede publicly or even privately.

The Supply Line as Jugular

Angered at the potential duplicity of Pakistan in having provided a haven to Osama bin Laden for years, the Obama administration seems to be losing sight of the strength of the cards Islamabad holds in its hand.

To supply the 100,000 American troops now in Afghanistan, as well as 50,000 troops from other NATO nations and more than 100,000 employees of private contractors, the Pentagon must have unfettered access to that country through its neighbors. Among the six countries adjoining Afghanistan, only three have seaports, with those of China far too distant to be of practical use. Of the remaining two, Iran -- Washington’s number one enemy in the region -- is out. That places Pakistan in a unique position.

Currently about three-quarters of the supplies for the 400-plus U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan -- from gigantic Bagram Air Base to tiny patrol outposts -- go overland via Pakistan or through its air space. These shipments include almost all the lethal cargo and most of the fuel needed by U.S.-led NATO forces. On their arrival at Karachi, the only major Pakistani seaport, these supplies are transferred to trucks, which travel a long route to crossing points on the Afghan border. Of these, two are key: Torkham and Chaman.

Torkham, approached through the famed Khyber Pass, leads directly to Kabul, the Afghan capital, and Bagram Air Base, the largest U.S. military facility in the country. Approached through the Bolan Pass in the southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan, Chaman provides a direct route to Kandahar Air Base, the largest U.S. military camp in southern Afghanistan.

Operated by some 4,000 Pakistani drivers and their helpers, nearly 300 trucks and oil tankers pass through Torkham and another 200 through Chaman daily. Increasing attacks on these convoys by Taliban-allied militants in Pakistan starting in 2007 led the Pentagon into a desperate search for alternative supply routes.

After Empire by Dilip HiroWith the help of NATO member Latvia, as well as Russia, and Uzbekistan, Pentagon planners succeeded in setting up the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). It is a 3,220-mile railroad link between the Latvian port of Riga and the Uzbek border city of Termez. It is, in turn, connected by a bridge over the Oxus River to the Afghan town of Hairatan. The Uzbek government, however, allows only non-lethal goods to cross its territory. In addition, the Termez-Hairatan route can handle no more than 130 tons of cargo a day. The expense of shipping goods over such a long distance puts a crimp in the Pentagon’s $120 billion annual budget for the Afghan War, and couldn’t possibly replace the Pakistani supply routes.

There is also the Manas Transit Center leased by the U.S. from the government of Kyrgyzstan in December 2001. Due to its proximity to Bagram Air Base, its main functions are transiting coalition forces in and out of Afghanistan, and storing jet fuel for mid-air refueling of U.S. and NATO planes in Afghanistan.

The indispensability of Pakistan’s land routes to the Pentagon has given its government significant leverage in countering excessive diplomatic pressure from or continued violations of its sovereignty by Washington. Last September, for instance, after a NATO helicopter gunship crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan in hot pursuit of insurgents and killed three paramilitaries of the Pakistani Frontier Corps in the tribal agency of Kurram, Islamabad responded quickly.

It closed the Khyber Pass route to NATO trucks and oil tankers, which stranded many vehicles en route, giving Pakistani militants an opportunity to torch them. And they did. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a written apology to his Pakistani counterpart General Ashhaq Parvez Kayani, conveying his “most sincere condolences for the regrettable loss of your soldiers killed and wounded on 30 September.” Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, issued an apology for the “terrible accident,” explaining that the helicopter crew had mistaken the Pakistani paratroopers for insurgents. Yet Pakistan waited eight days before reopening the Torkham border post.

Pakistan’s Other Cards: Oil, Terrorism, and China

In this region of rugged terrain, mountain passes play a crucial geopolitical role. When China and Pakistan began negotiating the demarcation of their frontier after the 1962 Sino-Indian War (itself rooted in a border dispute), Beijing insisted on having the Khunjerab Pass in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Islamabad obliged. As a result, the 2,000-square-mile territory it ceded to China as part of the Sino-Pakistan Border and Trade Agreement in March 1963 included that mountain pass.

That agreement, in turn, led to the building of the 800-mile-long Karkoram Highway linking Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang Region and the Pakistani town of Abbottabad, now a household name in America. That road sealed a strategic partnership between Beijing and Islamabad that has strong geopolitical, military, and economic components.

Both countries share the common aim of frustrating India’s aspiration to become the regional superpower of South Asia. In addition, the Chinese government views Pakistan as a crucial ally in its efforts to acquire energy security in the coming decades.

Given Pakistan’s hostility toward India since its establishment in 1947, Beijing made an effort to strengthen that country militarily and economically following its 1962 war with India. After Delhi exploded a “nuclear device” in 1974, China actively aided Islamabad’s nuclear-weapons program. In March 1984, its nuclear testing site at Lop Nor became the venue for a successful explosion of a nuclear bomb assembled by Pakistan. Later, it passed on crucial missile technology to Islamabad.

During this period, China emerged as the main supplier of military hardware to Pakistan. Today, nearly four-fifths of Pakistan’s main battle tanks, three-fifths of its warplanes, and three-quarters of its patrol boats and missile crafts are Chinese-made. Given its limited resources, Islamabad cannot afford to buy expensive American or Western arms and has therefore opted for cheaper, less advanced Chinese weapons in greater numbers. Moreover, Pakistan and China have an ongoing co-production project involving the manufacture of JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft, similar to America’s versatile F-16.

As a consequence, over the past decades a pro-China lobby has emerged in the Pakistani officer corps. It was therefore not surprising when, in the wake of the American raid in Abbottabad, Pakistani military officials let it be known that they might allow the Chinese to examine the rotor of the stealth version of the damaged Black Hawk helicopter left behind by the U.S. Navy SEALS. That threat, though reportedly not carried out, was a clear signal to the U.S.: if it persisted in violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and applying too much pressure, the Pakistanis might choose to align even more closely with Washington’s rival in Asia, the People’s Republic of China. To underline the point, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani traveled to Beijing two weeks after the Abbottabad air raid.

Gilani’s three-day visit involved the signing of several Sino-Pakistani agreements on trade, finance, science, and technology. The highpoint was his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Following that summit, an official spokesperson announced Beijing’s decision to urge Chinese enterprises to strengthen their economic ties with Pakistan by expanding investments there.

Among numerous Sino-Pakistani projects in the pipeline is the building of a railroad between Havelian in Pakistan and Kashgar in China, a plan approved by the two governments in July 2010. This is expected to be the first phase of a far more ambitious undertaking to connect Kashgar with the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

A small fishing village on the Arabian Sea coastline of Baluchistan, Gwadar was transformed into a modern seaport in 2008 by the China Harbor Engineering Company Group, a subsidiary of the China Communications Construction Company Group, a giant state-owned corporation. The port is only 330 miles from the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which flows much of China’s supplies of Middle Eastern oil. In the wake of the Gilani visit, China has reportedly agreed to take over future operation of the port.

More than a decade ago, China’s leaders decided to reduce the proportion of its oil imports transported by tanker because of the vulnerability of the shipping lanes from the Persian Gulf and East Africa to its ports. These pass through the narrow Malacca Strait, which is guarded by the U.S. Navy. In addition, the 3,500-mile-long journey -- to be undertaken by 60% of China’s petroleum imports -- is expensive. By having a significant part of its imported oil shipped to Gwadar and then via rail to Kashgar, China would reduce its shipping costs while securing most of its petroleum imports.

At home, the Chinese government remains wary of the Islamist terrorism practiced by Muslim Uighurs agitating for an independent East Turkestan in Xinjiang. Some of them have links to al-Qaeda. Islamabad has long been aware of this. In October 2003, the Pakistani military killed Hasan Mahsum, leader of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and in August 2004, the Pakistani and Chinese armies conducted a joint anti-terrorism exercise in Xinjiang.

Almost seven years later, Beijing coupled its satisfaction over the death of Osama bin Laden with praise for Islamabad for pursuing what it termed a “vigorous” policy in combatting terrorism. In stark contrast to the recent blast of criticism from Washington about Pakistan’s role in the war on terrorism, coupled with congressional threats to drastically reduce American aid, China laid out a red carpet for Gilani on his visit.

Referring to the “economic losses” Pakistan had suffered in its ongoing counter-terrorism campaigns, the Chinese government called upon the international community to support the Pakistani regime in its attempts to “restore national stability and development in its economy.”

The Chinese response to bin Laden’s killing and its immediate aftermath in Pakistan should be a reminder to the Obama administration: in its dealings with Pakistan in pursuit of its Afghan goals, it has a weaker hand than it imagines. Someday, Pakistan may block those supply lines and play the China card to Washington's dismay.

Dilip Hiro is the author of 32 books, the latest being After Empire: The Birth of A Multipolar World (Nation Books). His upcoming book on jihadists in South Asia will be published by Yale University Press later in the year.

Copyright 2011 Dilip Hiro


Copied from: Tomgram: Dilip Hiro, Pakistan's Other Partner | TomDispatch

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Successes and Failures of #CIA People of #America should know

(America needs to raise debt ceiling, on emergency basis, to avoid default)

Sometimes it makes me laugh when ppl blame pakistani agency for playing a double game, name a single agency in this world which does not play a double game? anyone plz?

It is actually the job of an agency to play games and safeguard interests of its country, for example CIA supported, against Russia, the Afghan Mujahideen and later started fighting Afghan Taliban. This was just because (CIA run) US had different interests on these two different occasions. When US points fingers on ISI tht it is playin a double game, it makes me believe tht CIA is very incompetent as an agency, which eventually forces them to use some other means (like diplomatic front and media) to counter ISI's professional strategy...
CIA, to me, seems so incompetent sometimes tht i feel sorry for the ppl of america who are funding their unprofessional agency. Incompetence of CIA? following are a few examples:

  1. US destroyed the stealth helicopter (used in May 02 operation) to avoid transfer of technology but failed to destroy the most sensitive part (i.e. the tail. This, btw, is criminal.)
  2. US killed 'the highest value target' and failed to produce any evidence tht they did it... a large number of americans consider it a lie
  3. US secret operative Raymond Davis killed, in public, two men simply coz he thought they had guns?
  4. US entered afghanistan without a good exit strategy...
  5. US attacked afghanistan to gain a strong influence in the region, ten years into the war n they still have very weak influence in the region, in addition they've lost their dominance in the rest of the region...
  6. US attacked iraq on false intelligence information given by CIA (one of the unnecessary wars which brought US to the brink of default)
  7. US failed to provide any evidence tht OBL was behind 9/11 - a huge intelligence failure...

The only success for CIA has been a defamed ISI, only if someone considers it a success.

CIA has a history of failures (and afghanistan will b just another 'feather in its cap') despite being one of the highest budget agencies, but it still enjoys the status of a professional agency in america. I wish ppl of america wake up soon n realize wht has CIA done with them? coz of CIA, USA has more enemies in this world than it has friends... USA has soaring economy coz of this notorious agency...
good luck ppl of america

Monday, March 21, 2011

Liberated Libya rejects US intervention



Libyans overwhelmingly reject foreign intervention! A US subsidiary the UNO came to help the people of Libya who did not at all want the kind of help US provided.

Supporting Libyan Revolution, Opposing Foreign Intervention

Leave it to the people of Libya to decide. If not now, they'll bring the revolution a few years later. Let THEM do it!!! Why make their army weaker? It is loss of Libyans too!!


More at The Real News

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Balancing parking tickets against murders

By Murtaza Haider

For the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, a parking ticket violation is more atrocious than a murder. As a junior senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton wanted to revoke the diplomatic immunity for scofflaw diplomats who were stationed at the United Nations in New York and had racked up $21.3 million in parking violations. As the Secretary of State, however, she is invoking diplomatic immunity for Mr. Raymond Davis, who is accused of murdering two young men in Lahore.

Read full article
Balancing parking tickets against murders

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Unfriendly and Irresponsible US Behavior

I was just reading about the blunt US warnings to Pakistan if it does not act aggressively against US defined terrorists. Actually US has an impression that Pakistan is avoiding direct conflict with the 'terrorist' because of strategic and political reasons.

I was wondering if US should issue such warning without showing its own progress and success after 100s of drone attacks on Pakistani soil? I think USA and its non-Pakistani allies should also present a report about their progress in Afghanistan in the last few years. They should also compare their performances with Pakistani army during the same period, to decide who fought better with the militants in almost similar terrain. I was also wondering where did US army go when Pakistan army was carrying out operation Raah-e-Nijaat? I have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that USA removed its check posts from Pak-Afghan border when Pakistani army was fighting TTP in South Waziristan. This was the best chance to sandwich TTP but the International armies missed it। Shouldn't we doubt their intent? They not only missed it, they wasted the efforts made by Pakistani army. Missing its own opportunity, US is now pressing Pakistan army for no reason. It makes me wonder, why does such events don't affect US image all over the world and US impression on Pakistan :s

US should be aware of the facts that Pakistani army does not have to see the western border only. It is already very stretched out:
1) On going war against militants all over Pakistan
2) Recent uprise in Indian occupied Kashmir requires Pakistani army to be ready for any situation
3) Recent floods in Pakistan

I'd question USA and the rest of the world if they would prefer saving and rehabilitating their citizens after a natural disaster or they would open a new war front against someone who is considered a 'bad guy' by some suspicious friend?

Monday, November 16, 2009

The war in Afghanistan

by Javed Hussain


AFTER the air bombing campaign had routed the Taliban in 2001, euphoric shouts of victory resonated across the United States, the loudest coming from the White House and the Pentagon.

But these were short-lived as the characteristic Afghan resistance began. Eight years on the American servicemen and women in Afghanistan are gasping for breath because their former president, who was also their commander-in-chief, and his staff had underestimated the enemy.

Not only that, they had also committed two strategic blunders, the consequences of which are being suffered not only by their servicemen and women, but also to a much greater degree, by the Pakistani people and their servicemen. Their strategic thought was distinguished by their stunning mediocrity.

The first blunder was to allow the Taliban to escape to Pakistan. Had they secured the Durand Line crossing sites prior to initiating their air-bombing campaign, this could have been pre-empted. The second blunder was to place their main military effort in the wrong direction — Iraq, which left the main theatre, Afghanistan, undermanned. They had several years after the resurgence of the Taliban in 2002 to correct their strategy, but their obsession with Iraq blinded them to the operational requirements in Afghanistan.

Instead, they found it politically and militarily expedient to blame Pakistan for their failures, and thus started their ‘do more’ refrain that continues unabated, even though Pakistan has done far more than them, and in the process, suffered more than all the countries put together in the coalition.

...

The Americans went to Afghanistan to fight a war. They should plan to win it — unless they want to be known as a superpower defeated twice by guerillas. Blaming Pakistan and prodding it to ‘do more’ would not win the war for them.

Full Article: DAWN.COM | Pakistan | The war in Afghanistan
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Rah-e-Nijaat... What Next?

Pakistani army is advancing at a fast pace in south waziristan. Resistance by the opponent group is far less than expected. Question arises that why is the resistance that low when it was considered a safe heaven for the armed militants residing there for so many years? Answer to this question becomes evident if we note that american checkposts in afghanistan along the south wazriristan border were removed within a few days after the start of the operation (Reported Here). So we can easily conclude that the militants have moved to afghanistan (obviously they'd have, they were provided the chance by the troops on eastern border of afghanistan).

Once the pakistani army successfully completes the operation and takes full control of south waziristan we might see any or both of the following:
1. America will force pakistan to start an operation in north waziristan
2. Pakistan will ask america to take the responsibility and fight the militants pushed by the pakistani army in afghanistan. And pakistan should obviously pressurize, america used to continuously asking pakistan to do more and do more. Now the militants attacking pakistan have fled in the territory controlled by america. America should now act :)

Keeping the pakistani diplomacy in mind, 1 is more probable :) and 2 is very very less probable. But still pakistan can (and might) ask america at agency level.

Btw the removal of posts from afghan side and the following excerpt (Full Story) make me believe that america did not want pakistan to attack the (pakistan's enemy) militants in south waziristan (text in blue is not part of the excerpt):

"The United States has long pressed for a military offensive in Waziristan, claiming that it has become an Al Qaeda safe haven. And as the Pakistani army launched the offensive, two top US officials, Centcom chief Gen David Petraeus and Senator John Kerry, visited Islamabad to consult military and civilian leaders.

The US media claim that the two leaders encouraged Pakistan to continue the offensive. But the reports also claim that key differences between the US and Pakistan on how to tackle the insurgency remain unresolved.

It seems that pakistan wanted to go all out (as it is going now) and america wanted somethings else.

The media note that during his meeting with the two US officials, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani emphasised the need to speed up delayed payments of more than $1 billion to support its military and called on the US and Nato to stop infiltration from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

Seems that america wanted to pressurize pakistan by delaying the payments

US critics, meanwhile, continue to accuse Pakistan of only targeting those insurgents that threaten its own security while ignoring those who threaten Afghanistan.

another indication that america did not want pakistan to fight the south waziristan militants with full force... it seems tht some american plan is being affected... may b they wanted the pakistani army to stretch out instead of succeeding in the battle ( i.e. going step by step). And obviously it is the duty of pakistani army to fight the insurgents tht threaten its security in its territory. If someone threatens americans in their controlled territory, americans should learn how to handle them within the america controlled territory... there is no use of cryin and blaming pakistan... 

American officials also disagree with Pakistan’s claim that the Haqqani network — termed by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, as the second-greatest threat to US forces there – is not in Fata. It mainly operates from Afghanistan.

The media, however, acknowledge that US generals understand why Pakistan is trying to befriend Waziristan militant leaders like Hafiz Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir.

‘Gen Petraeus and Gen McChrystal understand that opening up on other fronts wouldn’t benefit the Pakistan Army,’ says one such report.

‘The American generals believe that Pakistan can afford to ignore the smaller guns — like Hafiz Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir — for the time being.’"

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

US urges Pakistan to cooperate with India 'or else to face the use of force :)'

US intelligence officials, while talking to the US media, confirmed India’s claim that Lashkar-i-Tayyaba was involved in the Mumbai attacks.

They said that British intelligence agents had recorded conversations between the attackers and their backers in Pakistan.

In an editorial on Tuesday, The Washington Post also backed India’s claim that the LeT was behind the attack.

“The best way to salvage Pakistani democracy, and to prevent a slide toward war between two nuclear powers, is for Islamabad to shut down LeT and similar organisations swiftly, permanently and verifiably,” the Post wrote.

Also, a Post columnist, Robert Kagan, who is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, Washington, suggested placing the tribal belt and the areas where terrorist groups allegedly had their bases under international control.

He suggested forming an international force to invade those areas and destroy the bases. Mr Kagan urged the US to convince China and Russia not to oppose the creation of such a force if and when the proposal goes to the United States.

He acknowledged that forming such a force to invade Pakistani territories would violate the country’s sovereignty but argued that “Pakistan and other states that harbour terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned.”

At the State Department, deputy spokesman Robert Wood said: “We’re going to continue to work with India and Pakistan … and to see what we can do to prevent these types of attacks from taking place and, of course, to get to the bottom of who carried out these attacks and bring those culprits to justice.”
US urges Pakistan to cooperate with India -DAWN - Top Stories; December 03, 2008

presure building on pakistan... for no reason!!! i still think pakistan needs to be more aggressive in order to earn its sovereign rights
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Clear orders about not supporting those who betray trust... will our govt. listen to it by any chance?????

An-Nisa

105 We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah. so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust;

106 But seek the forgiveness of Allah. for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

107 Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls; for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and crime:

108 They may hide (Their crimes) from men, but they cannot hide (Them) from Allah, seeing that He is in their midst when they plot by night, in words that He cannot approve: And Allah Doth compass round all that they do.

109 Ah! These are the sort of men on whose behalf ye may contend in this world; but who will contend with Allah on their behalf on the Day of Judgment, or who will carry their affairs through?

110 If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks Allah's forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

111 And if any one earns sin. he earns it against His own soul: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.

112 But if any one earns a fault or a sin and throws it on to one that is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood and a flagrant sin.

The Holy Qur'an/An-Nisa - Wikisource

by when will v keep supporting USA on its war on terror????
read 109 and be afraid of the day the ayat is talkin abt...
there is still time, lets return to Allah... read 110... plz return...
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Clear orders about not supporting those who betray trust... will our govt. listen to it by any chance?????

An-Nisa

105 We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah. so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust;

106 But seek the forgiveness of Allah. for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

107 Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls; for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and crime:

108 They may hide (Their crimes) from men, but they cannot hide (Them) from Allah, seeing that He is in their midst when they plot by night, in words that He cannot approve: And Allah Doth compass round all that they do.

109 Ah! These are the sort of men on whose behalf ye may contend in this world; but who will contend with Allah on their behalf on the Day of Judgment, or who will carry their affairs through?

110 If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks Allah's forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

111 And if any one earns sin. he earns it against His own soul: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.

112 But if any one earns a fault or a sin and throws it on to one that is innocent, He carries (on himself) (Both) a falsehood and a flagrant sin.

The Holy Qur'an/An-Nisa - Wikisource

by when will v keep supporting USA on its war on terror????
read 109 and be afraid of the day the ayat is talkin abt...
there is still time, lets return to Allah... read 110... plz return...
Blogged with the Flock Browser