Friday, March 29, 2024
05:54 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

News & Articles Here you can share News and Articles that you consider important for the exam

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Saturday, June 09, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default Globalisation

Muslim perceptions of globalisation



By Ishtiaq Ahmed
Satureday, JUNE 09, 2007

Akbar Ahmed's latest book Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization published by the Brookings Institute of Washington DC is an anthropological contribution to a field in which there is great scope for theorising about future relations between the west and the Muslim world.

The contemporary social, economic and political shape of the world has been formed by globalisation centred on the west, with the US as its leader. Especially after 9/11 the overall economic and social difficulties generated by globalisation have been compounded by cultural estrangement: suspicion, fear and hatred from both sides has been noted. Its full impact on the cultural lives of people remains largely unfathomed. The author portrays the predicament of globalisation in words which are most apt and should be quoted:

'Since the late twentieth century, the Muslim world has plunged into the age of globalisation, which to many people resembles a new form of imperialism. Its emphasis is on producing the most goods at the lowest cost, along the way accumulating wealth for some higher standards of living regardless of the cost to society. Neither faith, in its pure spiritual sense, nor reason, based in classical notions of justice and logic, appears to figure prominently in the philosophy of globalisation' (page 12).

This is a telling indictment of globalisation which in practice has meant that the developmental state which used to provide basic services such as health, education and employment has been forced to withdraw in favour of so-called civil society taking over such functions and commercialising it to a point that common people can in no way benefit from them. Instead charitable organisations have taken over the function of helping the poor and needy but given their limited resources most people are without any help. Such globalisation has helped multi-national companies maximise their profits through the imposition of unbridled capitalism.

The author's main interest in this study is not to analyse the economic consequences of globalisation, though he does take up that aspect too. He is interested in throwing light on how Muslims perceive globalisation in cultural terms. He continues to apply a framework of analysis which he has used in the past for categorising Muslim opinion. These are the orthodox (Deoband model), modernist (Aligarh model) and Sufi (Ajmer model) modes of thinking and reasoning. I think this spectrum is quite adequate to capture a wide range of Muslim opinion, but scope should also be provided to include secular and rationalist opinion.

Akbar Ahmed, his assistant, Hadia Mubarak, and two of his American students, Hailey Wodt and Frankie Martin, travelled to the Middle East where they spent time in Jordan, Syria and Qatar; South Asia where they were in Pakistan and India; and South East Asia where they went to Indonesia and Malaysia. The author had access to presidents and prime ministers and representatives of orthodox seminaries and Sufi brotherhoods and many other prominent people.

He regrets they could not visit Iran and Saudi Arabia because of the logistical problems. I think this was only good or his American students may have had an opportunity to see the effects of Islamism in practice and thus come back with a strong opinion about it than when speaking only to its supporters in societies where Islamism is not in power.

The team conducted in-depth interviews with 120 persons at various places such as universities, hotels, cafes, madressahs, mosques and private homes. The questionnaire was prepared to find out from the respondents what they read, what changes they had noticed in their societies, the nature of their daily interaction with technology and the news, and their personal views on contemporary and historical role models.

We learn that the research team decided not to have written responses to the questionnaire because it was felt that many of the respondents were reluctant to commit themselves in writing because of fear that such material may end up with the intelligence services of their countries. Instead personal interviews were conducted.

The book provides useful information on the sects of Islam and the historical personalities that Muslims hold in great reverence and admiration. The author has shown great skill in providing as neutral an account as possible.

The findings of study are that fundamentalist ideologues such as Syed Qutb, Abul Ala Maududi and Khomeini have followers among the orthodox in the Muslim. Among those with a Sufi type of inclination Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) and Amr Khaled and some other cultural figures were popular. Some found the former Malaysian president, Mahathir Muhammad, a worthy role model of the Aligarh variety.

Quite expectedly Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat were the two main heroes of young Muslims from the contemporary period. This cut across the orthodox, modernist and Sufi distinctions. Even the current Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khomeini fascinated Sunni Muslims. In the popular perception they are seen to have stood up to western domination and therefore enjoy broad support.

The problem with the expression 'contemporary role model' is that while Syed Qutb, Maududi and Khomeini: all deceased are included in such a description the Turkish reformer Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is not. This gives a false impression that he is absent from the choices being made about contemporary role models. After the recent mammoth demonstrations in Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir in favour of keeping the Turkish republic a secular state there should be no doubt at all that millions of Turks are convinced that it is in their interest that religion and state should remain separate.

Elsewhere too I find a revived interest in Turkey and the secular as Muslim societies sink deeper and deeper into the quagmire of obscurantism and nihilism. One of the worst types of racism in the west is to believe that Muslims as a civilisation are incapable of thinking in secular and rational terms.

The strength of the book is that it also takes up practical life situations of the Muslims into account. Not all want to throw bombs at the Americans or want to start a worldwide jihad. This is the obsession of a tiny minority but they tend to get the most attention and indeed serve as the basis of stereotyping Muslims in the west.

We learnt that young Muslims who want to partake in globalisation and seek jobs and admissions to higher seats of learning are discriminated against in many parts of the world. The west has undoubtedly played a dirty role in creating a corrupt and exploitative economic and social order in the world.



The writer is professor of political science at the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: Ishtiaq.Ahmed@stats-vet.su.se


http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=59793
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Thursday, July 05, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Globalisation – a menace in disguise



Laila Sohail
Thursday,July 05,2007

There were demonstrations against the menace of globalisation across Germany recently. Many of us do not even know what exactly this menace is. Globalisation is a phenomenon that links people all across the world to each other, dissolving geographical, cultural, social, industrial and economic differences. It enforces a uniformity that is devoid of difference. Just as the depression, the Cold War era, the Space Age and the roaring 20s, the period of today is called the era of globalisation.

Globalisation has numerous angles and every day, the definition seems to be broadening rather than narrowing, ranging from political to social concepts. In the economic sense, globalisation generally refers to the increasing international trade and foreign investment. The term is even used at times as another name for capitalism or the market economy. The advantage of a global economy based on free trade and capitalism is obvious. The benefit is based on the law of comparative advantage. Every country becomes more prosperous if it invests more on producing and exporting what it does the best. The absence of trade barriers allows such free trade to exist so that it puts each country to the advantage of only producing what it is good at and importing the rest from other countries around the world at a cheaper cost than it would have taken for its production locally.

Yet, despite its apparent statistical advantages, the debate on globalisation remains the hottest one of its times. The reason for this outspoken conflict or vast difference in opinion is the difference between what “best” is to various people. It is true that globalisation may provide the most economical solution, but what if it is at the cost of cultural or social disadvantages? The phenomenon of globalisation promises equality, but what if in fact the phenomenon is not applied in an equal way? The real debate is not on globalisation as a phenomenon, but on its non-economic aspects and uneven applications.

The foremost concern is how advantageous is globalisation to poorer countries such as Pakistan. How would they be able to survive in a world that is governed by a simple rule, “Be the best!” What if you are not? Well then, take from the best! This crude rule abolishes the fact that in reality more than half the countries in the world are developing ones with major problems such as development of education and health sectors still pending. How would these countries ever compete industrially with countries that are far superior? The answer is surprisingly provided by the supporters of globalisation. If the world does indeed accomplish a globalised state, then the developing countries would be able to develop at a faster rate and thus become developed countries with the aid of free resource movement.

The other issues are more social in nature. As far as humanity can be traced, various civilizations have existed, following their own separate customs and maintaining their own identities. This diversity has not always been advantageous, in fact, it has often been the cause of conflict and war, yet it seems that the world has come to [or had come to in this instance] an unspoken mutual acceptance of this coexistence. The fundamentals of globalisation question this very acceptance. It is not merely a process in which goods may be easily transferred from one to another part of the world. It is a process of transferring ideas. With these ideas, there is also a transfer of culture and thus the very identity that we have stood for so long is not only under threat, but unnecessary under this blanket of uniformity.

It is from these observations that the argument against Wwesternization arises. With the current importance of media and its continuous growth, it may be the sole determinant when it comes to the idea of a common culture worldwide. In other words, the strongest media wins the battle in which victory would mean global prevalence of one culture and defeat would mean the end of all others. In Pakistan, we can see the Western culture gradually taking over like a fungus that would keep growing till it engulfs our very existence. Loss of identity is met by an even bigger concern. If a single culture is to prevail in the world, what or more precisely “whose” culture would this be? The answer is obvious.

Many analysts claim that this cultural change is actually a process called “cultural evolution” and there is nothing unnatural about it as it is simply the culture changing with time. However, this explanation is hardly satisfactory. Since time moves at an equal pace, it is hard to explain why only the developing countries and not the developed ones are going through this “natural process”. Yes, culture in these countries may be changing, but whether it is through “evolution” or “invasion” is a matter of opinion.

The real problem is not globalisation but its unfair application. Those supporting it stand for equality and uniformity, yet what they ask for is uniformity confined to a specific region, equality only for certain counties. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a major example. The countries within the WTO are apparently practicing globalisation. The question is what kind of globalization? Free trade is only restricted to a part of the globe while the rest of it has to undergo severe trade barriers in order to trade with a member country of the WTO. Thus, uniformity does not stay uniformity and equality transforms into a monopoly where exploitation is the rule.

The anti-globalisation protests in Pakistan show that being a developing country, Pakistan also faces all these relevant threats and may become prey to the predator of globalisation. Unfortunately, it does not have a choice in the matter as it only plays a silent role in this well directed play; a play where there is no audience, and the lead roles are played by the developed countries.

Thus “anti-globalisation” is actually “alter-globalisation” because it is not a declaration against the advantages of globalisation, but only an outcry against its unfair aspects. What we call globalisation is an illusion we like to believe in, an illusion promising equality and justice. It is a bubble we like to blow up around us to provide explanations of the unfairness of the world. We should be aware though that the bubble has to and will pop, and when it does, those in the developing countries would be the ones hardest hit. For it is not an explanation, and definitely not a solution. All that it is, is a menace and that too in disguise!

http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNew...05769&catid=11
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Wednesday, July 11, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Mediawatch



The migration age
By Ban Ki-moon
Wednesday,July 11,2007


Globalisation is taking place in stages. We are in the second: the age of mobility. In its first stage, as flows of capital and goods were liberated, the benefits flowed primarily to the developed world and its principal trading partners, among them Brazil, China and India. As we enter the age of mobility, people will cross borders in ever-greater numbers in pursuit of a better life. They have the potential to chip away at the vast inequalities that characterise our time, and accelerate progress throughout the developing world.

To take just one example: last year migrants sent home £131bn, three times all international aid. In some countries, a third of families rely on these remittances to keep them out of poverty. Across the developing world, remittances underwrite healthcare, education and grassroots entrepreneurship.

The freer movement of people oils the global economy. When a hospital in London needs nurses, it recruits from Ghana or Sierra Leone. When Google seeks programmers, developing nations are often the source. Until now, this flow has mostly benefited richer countries and generated worries about a brain drain in poorer ones. But our knowledge is growing about how to make the migration equation work for everyone.

Yet rather than looking at potential developmental gains from migration, governments have been slow to adapt. The result is accelerating illegal migration, social tension, discrimination, loss of faith in government and empowerment of criminal networks. Earlier eras witnessed migration on a similar scale. At the turn of the 20th century, approximately 3% of the world's population was on the move. A hundred years later, the United Nations estimates that there are 191 million international migrants, a roughly similar ratio. And this number is growing. A new OECD report says that developed countries saw permanent migration rise in 2005 at an annual rate of about 10%.

Today migrants move quickly and easily thanks to low-cost transportation. The internet, affordable telephony and satellite television keep them in constant touch with home. Banks instantly transmit hard-won earnings to their families. Globalisation, meanwhile, has radically transformed our labour markets, while growing economic inequality (together with natural and man-made crises) prompts more emigration. It is this fluid tableau that makes ours the age of mobility.

Almost all these changes can be harnessed to reduce poverty and inequality. Remittances are a case in point. Until just a few years ago, migrants were paying exorbitant fees to send money home, losing as much as 20% in transaction costs. But then governments, civil society and the private sector mobilised to drive down those costs. The British government, for instance, stoked competition by setting up a website (www.sendmoneyhome.org) that allowed users to compare transaction costs. Banks created prepaid and debit cards specifically for migrants and their families. Mobile phone companies are introducing technologies that allow money to be transferred by phone.

These innovations underscore migration's potential to contribute to development. Last September, for the first time in its history, the UN held a migration summit. Many predicted that developed and developing countries would come to blows - the latter would decry the brain drain and the violation of migrant rights, and the former would simply walk out of the room. Instead, more than a hundred countries engaged in a constructive exchange. The experience was so positive that they embraced a proposal championed by my predecessor to create a Global Forum on Migration and Development. The inaugural forum began on Monday in Brussels, with some 800 delegates from more than 140 countries.

We cannot hide from the fact that migration can have negative consequences. The global forum on migration provides an opportunity to address these problems in a comprehensive and proactive way, so that the benefits of migration are fully realised both in developing and industrialised countries. The keys to making this happen are fundamental to our shared global humanity: tolerance, social acceptance, education and mutual openness to cultural differences.



The Guardian

July 10

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=63915
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Wednesday, August 01, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

Evidence from Pakistan

Does globalisation benefit the poor?





Most trade liberalisation will hurt someone, and some reforms may increase overall
poverty even while they boost incomes in total. In the case of studies of India and Columbia, globalisation favours the poor segments of society if reforms in trade sectors are
implemented along with reduced restrictions to labour mobility


Part – I

"Gains from trade-openness divide naturally into two major parts, that pertaining to the opening of trade and relating to autonomous variations in the prices facing a small developing economy. In the first part, states of autarky are compared with the stares of free trade; secondly, comparisons are made of alternative states of free trade and in long run open economies perform better than closed economies" (Murray, 2001, pp.21 and Winters, 2005)

By Mohammad Shahbaz
Monday, July 30,2007

The process through which goods and services, capital, people, information & ideas flow across globe is called globalisation; which leads to greater integration of economies and societies. Therefore, the world has discovered new trade routes and improved the technology of transport to acquire the gains from the process of openness.

Openness to foreign direct investment, for instance, can contribute to economic growth by stimulating domestic capital formation and improving efficiency and productivity, as a result of greater access to new technologies. At the same time, openness to capital flows may also increase opportunities for portfolio risk diversification and consumption, smoothing through borrowing and lending. The producers who are able to diversify risks on world capital markets may invest in riskier (and higher-yield) projects, thereby raising the country’s rate of economic growth. Increased competition and access to the domestic financial system by foreign banks may improve the effectiveness of the intermediation process between savers and borrowers, thereby lowering mark-up rates in banking, as well as the cost of investment, and again raising growth rates. Finally, financial openness helps to lessen asymmetric information problems and to reduce the fixed costs associated with small-scale lending. It can enhance the opportunities for the poor to access the formal financial system.

The last two decades of the twentieth century observed a remarkable movement in the pace of openness or globalisation. Globalisation conveys access to goods that are either new varieties of products that already exist in the absence of trade (i.e. new brands of rice) or they may be entirely new products. The integration of economies through flows of goods and services, financial assets, technology and cultural interaction has reached unprecedented levels. Now it is widely accepted that openness has long been seen as important element of good economic policy and trade liberalisation as necessary step for achieving it. So world is becoming more integrated, goods and trade in services are crossing borders in the line with globalisation and regionalisation processes.

Trade liberalisation process often works as an instrument to combat poverty: it usually tends to increase not only income (poor segments of society) but also provide some additional resources. While it will generally effect income distribution, it does not do so in systematic adverse way. Most trade liberalisation will hurt some one, and that some reforms may increase overall poverty even while they boost incomes in total. In case of studies of India and Columbia; Globalisation favours the poor segments of society if reforms in trade sectors are implemented along with the reduced restrictions to labour mobility. But inverse situation is observed in Ethiopia and Mexico. Osmani (2005) concluded that the forces of globalisation have contributed positively to poverty reduction in Bangladesh. It has done so by increasing the scope of remunerative employment opportunities of the poor. The net direct impact on employment opportunities in the tradable sectors has been positive, as the new opportunities have outweighed the job losses that inevitably occurred through structural changes brought about by globalisation. Biswass and Sinszingre (2006) argued about the relationship between export promotion, import substitution and poverty management at the regional level, during the post-reform years. It is shown that an admixture of export-promotion and import-substitution policies can help to manage its poverty situation better, rather than a solely inward or outward looking policy. Since the states that have adopted either of these two (or both) policies, have done better in poverty management compared to the others. Another argument in favour of the beneficial effects of trade on poverty reduction is put forward by Bhagwati and Srinivasan (2002); who pointed out that if a country wants to maintain an export-led development strategy, that is, if a country wants to rely on free trade, it must maintain a framework of macroeconomic stability. Because stability implies low inflation, it is another channel through which trade affects the poor positively, since the poor tend to be hardest hit by high inflation.

Winters (2000) concluded that globalisation or trade liberalisation in general is being found to increase economic opportunities for consumers and producers and to raise earnings for workforce. On the other hand it is ridiculous to pretend that liberalisation never pushes anyone into poverty, nor even that liberalisation cannot increase the extent or the depth of poverty in some particular conditions. Literature also suggests that more economic integration (measured with a range of different indicators such as the presence of capital control, tariffs and membership of the WTO) does not have any systematic effect on domestic levels of inequality. They therefore conclude that growth is good for the poor.

An economy may obtain both static and dynamic gains from openness to trade. Conventional theory of trade emphasised that under greater openness to trade, resources tend to be reallocated towards productive activities and away from less efficient activities. Relevant literature on endogenous growth has paid attention on the existence of various channels through which trade may produce dynamic gains and obviously economic growth of an economy particularly in long run. By allowing easier imports of capital goods, greater allocative efficiency, technological and knowledge spill-over as well as increased competition, trade can enhance growth and also lead to availability of greater variety of goods to consumers at cheaper prices. The rewards from exploiting globalisation can be substantial, openness to international trade and investment facilities the acquisition of inputs and technologies which strength growth and increased efficiency. Access to wider markets and more diverse exports reduce the risks of trade volatility and exclusion by particular country markets. Franket and Romer (1999) and Irwin and Tervio (2002) showed that more open economies have higher economic growth rates and incomes per capita as compared to closed ones.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is well attracted by openness to the free flow of capital, which then stimulates domestic investment and contributes to employment generation activities and economic growth. Financial openness also helps to increase the depth and breadth of domestic financial markets, leading to increase efficiency in financial markets through lower costs and improved resource allocation. Countries benefit from opening markets in many ways, one is technological: foreign direct investment brings with innovations in product, processes, and organisational technologies, while importation of goods embedded technologies and access-lower cost production inputs and consumer goods. Another benefit is greater efficiency; competition from abroad spurs domestic industry to make productivity improvement, promoting growth and employment in medium term. In developing economies financial systems is not well-developed and economic policies lack credibility.

Therefore, process of openness particularly in capital markets may generate greater volatility in domestic financial markets. So, severe financial crisis can emerge due to larger reversals in capital and sharp deterioration in situations of unemployment and poverty in short span of time.

Understanding the impact of trade liberalisation on poverty is important because of the vulnerability of the poor as a group in developing countries. It is widely argued by many commentators that in short run; globalisation harms poor actors in the economy through reducing demand for un-skilled labour and even in long run successful
open regimes may have some people behind poverty line.

To investigate the relationships between trade openness, growth and poverty is to consider first’s effects on total factor productivity. For the sustained economic growth and development, improved productivity is necessary by universal agreement. It may not be sufficient and because of its distributional implications, its beneficial effects on poverty could be less than those of growth emanating from other sources. For example, if higher productivity reflected declining inputs rather than increasing outputs, its short-run effects could be to reduce employment and exacerbate poverty. More over, despite the strong presumption in modern growth theory, its inferences to increased competition, access to new technologies, better immediate goods and so on, the response of productivity to openness is ultimately ambiguous.

A sceptical view of the early literature on this link is Pack (1988). An influential study by Coe, Helpman and Hoffmaister (1997), constructed an index of the total knowledge capital (measured by accumulated investment in R&D) in each industrial country. Using import-weighted sum of industrial countries ‘knowledge stocks to reflect developing countries access to foreign knowledge, they find that, interacted with importing countries openness, latter has a significant positive effects on total factor productivity. Lumenga-Neso Ollarreaga and Shiff (2001), advance that indirect knowledge flows offer a better explanation of TFP. Historically, there has been significant debate about whether agricultural improvements are good for the poor, but recently the tendency has on the optimistic side-see, for example, Datt and Ravallion (1998). Coe, Helpman and Hoffmaister (1997) accomplished that trade flows provide a mouthpiece through which modern techniques and technological knowledge are transferred across counties. Wacziarg (1998) argued that investment is the most important channel through which trade-openness improves economic growth. Empirical evidence also suggests that learning by doing and growth affects of these spillovers are largest with higher level of education.

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2007-w...07-2007/p2.htm
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mtgondal For This Useful Post:
nageen (Wednesday, December 16, 2009)
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dr. Shireen Mazari (The News: Every Wednesday) Abdullah The News 161 Thursday, October 27, 2016 09:25 AM
Impact of Globalisation on Developing Countries and India sayed khan International Relations 0 Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:15 AM
Globalisation after 9/11 I M Possible News & Articles 0 Tuesday, October 03, 2006 09:02 PM
globalisation and its discontents mahmood References and Recommendations 0 Saturday, September 30, 2006 08:19 PM
Concept of globalisation javed nabi Current Affairs Notes 1 Tuesday, July 11, 2006 06:34 AM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.