Washington  / Morocco Board News--The Tuareg rebellion in northern Mali has exposed the limitations and the depth of the regional powers’ efforts to contain lawlessness, terrorism and political instability in the Sahel and the Algerian Sahara.

The capture by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (NMLA), a movement fighting for the independence of northern Mali, of the strategic city of Tinzawatene is a major coup for the rebels and a setback for the Algerian mediation efforts.

The NMLA’s drive to establish a homeland for the Tuareg, a group of Berber nomads that inhabit large sections of the Sahel and parts of the Algerian Sahara, is a major destabilization factor that would add to the volatility in the sub-Sahara and Algeria threatening American and Western interests in countries as far as Nigeria.

The NMLA demands are similar to the Algeria backed Polisario guerrilla’s call for an independent state  in the Moroccan ruled Western Sahara. Ironically, Mali and Algeria support  the Polisario’s quest for independence but deny the Azawad people the same rights. While the NMLA keep good relations with Algerian Military establishment , they deem Algiers stand as hypocrite. The Tuareg believe that such double standard will unduly prolong the fighting and insecurity in Algeria and Mali and add to the suffering of the civilian populations

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (25)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

bob said:

chef the money from oil and gas are not benefiting the people of Algeria....so there is no difference between the people of Algeria and the people of Somalia...both are poor and hungry.......but the hate they have for morocco seem to fix all their problems and keep the government and the people of Algeria happy....no need to build nothing or make any progress just keep morocco on fire and 123 viva l`algerie.

02/18/12

aes said:

... Some algerians are still stuck in 1975. They try to explain to us why they support the polisario. Maybe they feel guilty. Maybe not. No matter. We do not want be dragged into the stale conversations of 1975. We do not care. We are way past that. You have lost. So go cry somewhere else. Or try something new. The old soviet-era manipulations do not work. They actually never do. Our answer is autonomy or come and get it. You tried before. Try again. We now control the territory. We know every sand dune and every palm tree. We have even given them names. As for the logistics, we now have air, naval and army bases in place. No need for our brave pilots to take off from Marrakesh. We also have hospitals in place to treat our wounded. No need for Marrakesh and Agadir for that. We feel good. We feel great about our chances. This time around we won't need the French to spy on the enemy by night. We have what it takes and much more. The walls have been enhanced. Nobody in. Nobody out. We are ready. Say when. And by the way, that stunt you pulled in Tan Tan well we got that covered too. My last visit to our army base in Goulmima (not to be confused with Goulmim) assured me that Moroccans can sleep soundly. Come and get it.

02/13/12

Morcelli said:

The algerians killers are heading to hell one by one The butchers of north africa who killed their own people are dieing like flies. ohammed Lamari, who led Algeria’s military during the 1991-2002 civil war that killed 1000's of Algerians is dead: GOOD RIDDANCE AND MAY HE BURN IN HELL. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/...tory.html "

02/13/12

Meknessi said:

@Algerian Most Moroccans do not have problems dabating you- If we all agree it will be boring-Yet, Nobody is spreading lies about Algeria. As yu can see there are articles pro and against Moroccan Gov. on this site. I think, not speak for MB and its contributors, most articles here deals with the Moroccan Sahara hence Algeria is at the origins of the porblem and part of the solution. In short, as long as Algeria keeps is nose in Moroccan Sahara, ALgeria will stay the focus of Moroccans. I may agree with some of your comments bit then lose respect to your position because of the fact that you telling that you belive that Sahara is not Algeria's problem that is a pure DRS BS, and you know it- Salam

02/13/12

Cham said:

strait to the point @algerian Khouya y'en a marre from comment and history lessons. Well it's a forum called MOROCCAN NEWS BOARD. So plz if you don't like morocco and moroccan and you have issues plz get the **** out of here. Dear moroccan followers, that guy get us sick of his stories. So plz ignor him once and for all. It's moroccan fre***kn forum so go watch 2M and enjoy some of moroccan TV and entertainment. An plz keep history alone you're reading it backwards and you're full of missinformation.

02/13/12

Aadam said:

The sky is no less blue because the blind man doesn't see it To clarify: Regarding the second question put forward to the ICJ, "what were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian Entity?" The response of the ICJ should have been simply one stating either what the legal ties where (in whatever capacity) or one stating that there were no legal ties between the territory and the two respective states in question. A straightforward answer. Yet, the ICJ looked upon this in an indirect and inconsistent manner, stating: "The materials and information presented to the Court show the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They equally show the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the territory of Western Sahara." Thus, whilst reducing the higher political nature of the ties between Morocco and the Western Sahara to merely the Sultan and some of the tribes. The court did however, acknowledge the "existence of rights" between the Mauritanian entity and the territory of the Western Sahara. "On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory." This additional commentary however, raises some very serious concerns. The irrespective of whether or not the information presented was adjudged to be insufficient insofar as establishing any tie of territorial sovereignty is besides the point. Who asked for this particular opinion? Nobody posed the question: "Were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian Entity that of territorial sovereignty?" So why exactly did the ICJ feel obliged to clarify that for us? I further ask why did the ICJ feel obliged to define sovereignty by Western narratives? In the pre-colonial period, Islamic ties of allegiance to a "sovereign" held to principles of communal sovereignty; and thus, by default the sovereignty over the territory that those pledging allegiance controlled. The overall opinion taken by the ICJ actually acknowledges the existence of ties of allegiance between the Kingdom of Morocco and the territory and yet "without sufficiently convincing reasons, however, it minimizes the nature of those ties by maintaining that they consisted in an allegiance of the Saharan population to the Sultan of Morocco" (Vice-president Ammoun). If the ICJ was really out to serve justice, it had and has no right to define sovereignty simply by Western narratives. As vice-president Ammoun stated: "In itself, allegiance to the sovereign is of a political and constitutional character, as in certain countries that were subject to a military feudal system. Furthermore, at the time of colonization by Spain, that is to say towards the end of the nineteenth century, the Sultan combined in his person the legislative and executive powers, to which was added the spiritual power. He exercised those powers by means of dahirs, which were issued - a significant fact - under his sole signature. Does this not mean that the Sultan at that time personified the State, all of whose powers he exercised? Therefore allegiance to the Sultan, or sovereign, was equivalent to allegiance to the State. This entails acknowledging that the legal ties between Morocco and Western Sahara recognized by the Court took the form of political ties, indeed ties of sovereignty." He further states: "RECOGNITION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF THE LEGAL TIES BETWEEN MOROCCO AND WESTERN SAHARA" "It must first be pointed out that the Advisory Opinion has left out of account, or has misinterpreted, certain relevant treaties. An analysis of these instruments points to the existence of a Moroccan political or State authority extending as far as Cabo Bojador and embracing the Sakiet El Hamra." http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6205.pdf Again, I ask: Why did the ICJ compromise its standards, not only by minimising the nature of the ties between the Kingdom of Morocco and the territory known as the Western Sahara, but by randomly declaring that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory sovereignty. If the ICJ has in fact taken it upon itself to opinion (bearing in mind, it is only an opinion) where even an opinion wasn't required, how can we seriously consider that opinion to be valid? Furthermore, from an Islamic perspective, there's absolutely not question about the territorial sovereignty of our land and this was historically recognised even by Westerners. "It has always been recognized that the territorial sovereignty of the Sultan extends as far as his religious suzerainty" - Paul Cambon. _______________________________ Bouteflika: "It is absolutely excluded Morocco follows neither the ICJ nor the UNO. The Ivory Coast can't judge right. One of the judges on the ICJ said it was a question of monarchical solidarity. He told me. In The Hague." Kissinger: "One of the few international bodies which you don't dominate" _______________________________ Unlike the artificial conflict within our Southern Province, which was occupied by another colonial power and where the enemies of truth and justice use their petrodollars to exploit Western definitions of sovereignty, our Eastern Sahara was under the very same occupier: France. Definitions of sovereignty thus become entirely academic as France itself recognised the territory as Moroccan. Treaties ensuring the territorial integrity of our kingdom by France were broken and our land illegally annexed. France's "cadeaux" to their blood-brothers in Algiers, was unfortunately not theirs to give "Algeria today has stood by the claims made by France during the years 1956-1962; and, fully in accordance with the policy statement relating to colonial boundaries that was put forth by the Organization of African Unity, has stated simply that Algeria's rightful boundaries are those that were inherited from the French colonial regime. Insofar as the portion of the common frontier region that is being examined here is concerned -- the Guir-Zousfana river basin area -- the Algerian criterion for legitimacy is not well founded. It can be proven that during the period 1956-1962 the French presented a case for their claim that was distorted by their failure to make known some of the most relevant documentation bearing on the issue. ... Morocco today can legitimately claim the right to a territorial boundary at the 1901 line." (Morocco's Boundary in the Guir-Zousfana River Basin, African Historical Studies) As you would put it: This is why the Algerian regime keeps begging for us to ratify our boarders before they have them opened up As for the city of Figuig (far removed from the battle-ground), it was shamelessly bombarded with mortar shells from a safe distance (ie no open war, no standing armies - convenient for cowards) hours before the ceasefire negotiated in Bamako was due in effect. Heroes. Traditionally, men fought wars as standing armies and not in residential areas; but we understood your need for reprisal. However, in order to ensure the success of the ceasefire agreement, Hassan II ordered the inhabitants to be evacuated. So for around three nights we exchanged rounds over an empty city, until the Algerians finally blew off the steam of their face-to-face defeat, man to "man" humiliation. I recommend you read a book or two and that you keep off of wikipedia. A shame, even with all your resources, all Algerians have perfected is the art of thumping their chests. Moroccans however, have long perfected the art of whooping your behinds. A bientot.

02/12/12

aes said:

... Guys guys calm down. We have the Sahara and time is on our side. The fall of the Berlin wall and the Islamist spring are a testament to that. Remember the generals in Algiers thought Morocco would not resist. The monarchy was struggling and the economy no better. They were clearly wrong. Not only we defeated a well-armed and oiled gang of mercenaries, but we also managed to increase our economic output and modernize our army. All we need to do now is work hard, push for more democratic reforms, and combat corruption. That is all. I am convinced Mr. Benkirane is doing exactly that. The generals in Algiers know who they are dealing with now. They brought everything to bear. Qaddafi. Cuba ... But our brave forces fought against all odds and prevailed. My uncle who planted the Moroccan flag in Dakhla in 1979 and was shown on Moroccan TV still comes to my mind. I can see still see him but I have tried to find a video on the internet but with no success. No internet at the time. Too bad for me. Whenever he came from the front, he used to tell my dad war stories. One time he came back sick like a dog. All he ate was grapes. He stayed with us for a couple of months and I got to hear a great many stories. I was a kid but a very sneaky one. I used to pretend I was watching TV but my attention was on every single word my uncle uttered. As we know now, things were very tough on our troops. The enemy was better equiped. Our troops used to get lost. Our communications used to be intercepted by the Algerians and at times they would even issue orders to our troops pretending to be Moroccans. Many times things got so ugly that the fighting was concluded using knives and swords. Some times our air force had no choice but to bombard everyone in sight, Moroccans included. Tens of thousands of our braves soldiers died for the Sahara. In Bir Anzaran, the generals in Algiers made their first blunder. They were dealt a huge psychological blow. They never really recovered after that. That day they came in great numbers. Their plan was to take over Dakhla and use it as the new capital of their puppet. Unknowingly they have stumbled upon the best of the best of the Moroccan forces. The elite. La creme de la creme. And though greatly outnumbered, our brave forces surprised the enemy by going on the offensive. Their lines fell apart and the rest is for the history books. The scene as described by my uncle, who showed up after all was said and done, was beyond anything one can imagine. A scene of desolation ... It was a big day for us as we have sent a strong and clear signal to the butchers of Algiers. But it was also a sad day as we have lost a great many Moroccans. Now in every Moroccan city you would find a street or a center called Bir Anzaran. So dear Moroccans we are in our Sahara to stay. We paid a huge price. We meant business then and we mean it now. We are highly motivated. One can go to any Moroccan village and recruit thousands of volunteers. All that is needed is a copy of the Koran, few olives, and a piece of bread. These brave villagers are sent directly to the first lines of defense. They do not need much and they are the first ones to fall. Their war cry is "God is great and long live the king". The elite and the well-trained are always kept behind the first lines. That's just the way of it is. Apparently it is not good for the morale to lose too many of your best forces. You want to keep your elite nice and warm and only use them sparingly. God bless them all. So there it is. I doubt the generals in Algiers have it in them to come and dance with us once more. This may explain why they have not fired a single shot since 1991. Politically you all know what is happening. It is over. And if the same trend continues, the generals may even lose Cuba as an ally. Good day folks. And my hat to Ronald Reagan. God Bless Him. I had a chance to visit with my uncle in the base in Agadir. He opened the gates to a huge lot and turned to my father. "A gift from the Americans." Tanks as far as the eye can see. Impressive. My hat to the French air force which flew hundreds of sorties by night to give us the locations of enemy convoys. And boy did we use that to our advantage.

02/12/12

Algerian said:

... @adam, You said"Note that I did state that nobody asked the court to give its opinion about "sovereignty". In fact the second question merely posed to settle the differences between Mauritania and the Kingdom of Morocco, essentially ending Mauritania's claim upon the region; remember, Morocco didn't recognise Mauritania until 1969. In this case, our primary concern was simply to get the Spanish Occupiers off our land. " Wrong again, remember the part you intentionally omitted from the response of the IJC to the 2nd question ", the Court defined the nature of these legal ties in the penultimate paragraph of its opinion, and declared that neither legal tie implied sovereignty or rightful ownership over the territory. Did get the part that said that these ties did not imply sovereignty? you saidThe treacherous motives of the FLN were evident from day one. Ferhat Abbas was ousted from power simply because the Algerian puppets (Ben Bella and co, who accept "gifts" and serve the interests of their colonial masters: www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1xGzcPNgHE) didn't want to honour the agreement that he, Abbas, made to negotiate the return of our land. So what excuse do you have for such betrayal? Today, you even deny the support Morocco lent you, but you can't deny the wall of mines that the French encircled French-Algeria with in order to keep us out Moreover, Well dear friend, you guys can cry me a river, you should have tried to liberate your so called land, while it was under French occupation and not wait until "Rajal" get it back for you to come and cry about it and claim it was your yOu said"egarding the lies surrounding Algeria's independence effort from France, for the most part of their century long occupation, Algeria was a relatively peaceful place. Now, thats what we call ignorance, have you heard of EMIR aBDELKADER?? Boumama...etc. France did not fully occupy Algeria untill 1911 dear friend. The difference between the two of us is that we did not stop till we got all our land plus sum, compare that to a country that got humiliated in front of the whole world for daring to put few Gendarmes on a island few yards away from its coast. As for the 1963, i did post a link where your king was admitting that figig was under siege, and at the risk of repeating my self? what did Morocco accomplish by attacking us on 63? did it get an inch of your so called land, the answer is no. You said "Thus, as for our claims upon the Moroccan cities occupied by Algeria (Bechar, Touat, Tindouf), and in light of your love for and adherence to (a false presentation of) "international law" and "justice", when should we expect you to return what doesn't belong to you? O and about "Septa, Melila, Canary islands or even the Perjil Island", clearly, Moroccans are men enough to take on the world, for both the West and the East conspire against us. Not without reason. Read our history. Nevertheless, with the help of God, we will prevail. " Again, Bechar, Tlemcen and Tinduf will never Moroccan but if you think other ways, you are welcome to try to get it back As for Septa and Melila......... we all know what happened last time around you guys tried to man up

02/12/12

riffi said:

... Algerian I don't think you understand the meaning of this sentence: Another thing, change a way of thinking and living for the best it takes a whole new generation it means 25 years and the spirit of the soviet era still in Algeria you don't change it in a blink of an eye And also I think your are translating in your mind in french.Somebody help here please?? And little bit more,please read and think: where all the military in power and again let emphasize the ones who have a key position all of them with no exception their curriculum vitae stipulate they all were in KGB Soviet military schools as your dear boss Medien Tewfik. Furthermore The FLN executives like Boutef and company who were all die hard soviet's puppets and hated the USA. Now let me explain who is in power now??? Tintin and Asterix,no of course Tewfik and Boutef.

02/12/12

Aadam said:

Dictionary Is this really the best "fact check" DRS propagandists can formulate? No wonder then that after squandering over $300 billion on this artificial conflict they've been left eating only sand. Note that I did state that nobody asked the court to give its opinion about "sovereignty". In fact the second question merely posed to settle the differences between Mauritania and the Kingdom of Morocco, essentially ending Mauritania's claim upon the region; remember, Morocco didn't recognise Mauritania until 1969. In this case, our primary concern was simply to get the Spanish Occupiers off our land. Now, if we're dealing with facts why are you bothering to even ask questions; moreover, what do facts have to do with sense? In fact, your own inability to comprehend the situation is only a testament to your ignorance. The treacherous motives of the FLN were evident from day one. Ferhat Abbas was ousted from power simply because the Algerian puppets (Ben Bella and co, who accept "gifts" and serve the interests of their colonial masters: www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1xGzcPNgHE) didn't want to honour the agreement that he, Abbas, made to negotiate the return of our land. So what excuse do you have for such betrayal? Today, you even deny the support Morocco lent you, but you can't deny the wall of mines that the French encircled French-Algeria with in order to keep us out Moreover, regarding the lies surrounding Algeria's independence effort from France, for the most part of their century long occupation, Algeria was a relatively peaceful place. http://news.google.com/newspap...46,2305064 For the "socialist revolutionaries", who left the fold of Islam and who further fell into the arms of Nasserism and Pan-Arabism (with Gamal Abdel Nasser as emperor), it was both essential and a recognised agenda to topple our rule. How did the Egyptian Arabists manage to end up fighting along side you at such short notice? Every fabric of yours is given to deceit, cunning and conspiracy. http://news.google.com/newspap...625,755591 http://news.google.com/newspap...86,4686051 Conversely, Morocco was only intent on building bridges, not burning them down. We knew well who our real enemies were (or at least we presumed to): Those who divide and conquer. As our late king forewarned: "Ben Bella should take great care. He is in the process of introducing into North Africa a virus from which God has so far protected us: lies, psychological warfare, and insults." Of course, those born out of hate and comforted only by the blanket of an inferiority complex will always be incapable of making sense of benevolence; but try to make sense of this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGxWnmJyTA4&t=458 Explain to us dear Algerian, why did our dear "brothers" boot out tens of thousands of Moroccans living in Algeria (dividing families and stripping them of the wealth, even jewellery that they wore as they were savagely and unremorsefully dumped onto Moroccan controlled territory) in response to the Green March? (The Great Green March, supported at the time by justice-seeking NGOs from around the world, including from Spain, who further participated in the historical coup that Gandhi himself would have envied and which saw the return of our Sahara from the Spanish without a further bullet fired.) Where has this blind hatred of yours come from? It is funny though that you would even care to mention, let alone boast (in your ignorance) about Figuig. For the record, the barefaced shelling of the city (and that's all it was) by the Algerian army came after a ceasefire was negotiated in Bamako on 30 October. Not only do you hide behind puppet organisations and Western definitions of sovereignty (are you Muslim?), you're not even men enough to keep your word. Perhaps now you know what I mean by "tales between your legs", for fanciful stories of the events are all you have to cover your shame. So once again, "lets do a fact check". 379 Algerians captured compared to 57 Moroccans. 39 Moroccan shahid declared dead, compared to 300 Algerian socialists. "If Morocco won the war as you stated how come you did not gain an inch of Algerian land?" "Those who believe in the Book - as we do - know that peace is preferable to war, fraternity to hatred, harmony to discord, construction to ruin, and smiles to tears." - King Hassan II There were and remain countless numbers of Moroccans and military-men who were displeased with the level of compassion we displayed. For those with greater vision however, much more was perceived to be at stake then just short-sighted victories. What does war create if not a legacy of hate? We are neighbours, and moreover our peoples are Muslim, we always hoped to build a North African Union. God is great and to Him we hold ourselves accountable, you will soon realise the price for treachery... whilst some already ask why you haven't yet realised it already. "هَلْ تَرَبَّصُونَ بِنَا إِلَّا إِحْدَى الْحُسْنَيَيْنِ ۖ وَنَحْنُ نَتَرَبَّصُ بِكُمْ أَن يُصِيبَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِعَذَابٍ مِّنْ عِندِهِ أَوْ بِأَيْدِينَا فَتَرَبَّصُوا إِنَّا مَعَكُم مُّتَرَبِّصُونَ" As for the treaty of Tangier (already an acknowledgement that the chief resistance France faced came from Morocco), my friend: You seem to be confusing the French (and formerly Ottoman) province of Algiers, with modern-day Algeria. http://thecivilisingmission.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/algerie_fr.jpg "Morocco today can legitimately claim the right to a territorial boundary at the 1901 line." Thus, as for our claims upon the Moroccan cities occupied by Algeria (Bechar, Touat, Tindouf), and in light of your love for and adherence to (a false presentation of) "international law" and "justice", when should we expect you to return what doesn't belong to you? O and about "Septa, Melila, Canary islands or even the Perjil Island", clearly, Moroccans are men enough to take on the world, for both the West and the East conspire against us. Not without reason. Read our history. Nevertheless, with the help of God, we will prevail. "سَلَامٌ عَلَيْكُم بِمَا صَبَرْتُمْ ۚ فَنِعْمَ عُقْبَى الدَّارِ" PS: As someone who is very familiar with the Hasany culture, you should know perfectly well that many of the initial founders of the Polisario Front are now back in Morocco. Stop creating mischief in the land. Certainly: "Stop spreading lies". You really are a piece of work. All that your rhetoric translates to: "Accuse others of what you do". Sure enough, what are the FLN, DRS and the Polisario Front if not mere products of greed and Marxist/Leninist thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eS4gBigoV8 Now I'd love to continue spelling things out for you, but my own school of thought would have my participation end here. "Il ne faut pas perdre son temps a avancer des arguments de bonne foi face a des gens de mauvaise foi." - the Monarch you abhor.

02/12/12

riffi said:

... algerian.Agree about now but what you said has to do with countries who have new generation in command not like you where all the military in power and again let emphasize the ones who have a key position all of them with no exception their curriculum vitae stipulate they all were in KGB Soviet military schools as your dear boss Medien Tewfik. Furthermore The FLN executives like Boutef and company who were all die hard soviet's puppets and hated the USA and call it the imperialist who need to disappear, there a still some video of Boutef showing him insulting the US and the West, so Mr. Algeria come and talk to me about Algeria’s changes after May 10th if again Tewfik will let you or allowed you to change. Another thing, change a way of thinking and living for the best it takes a whole new generation it means 25 years and the spirit of the soviet era still in Algeria you don't change it in a blink of an eye and as far as I am concerned you still in a civil war and the risk and a stake is high, who are you kidding in saying Algeria is peaceful and in did the westerners read this blog and yours as well to analyze the way you think and the way you act. WE are a part of a case study and welcome to the new world,

02/12/12

Moroccan Patriot said:

Algerians & Moroccans should just renounce their Neocolonialist past The only people that benefit from the existence of Mauritania, Algeria and Morocco are the terrorists of the European Union and the Zionist controlled Americans. Nationality is a fake designition with one goal - to divide. Love the people - hate the government. Free Trade brings unity, get rid of the governments and you will have peace.

02/12/12

Algerian said:

... Riffi, As if the Western Bloggers would care about Algeria or Morocco One thing the American blogger will admire is your McCarthyism by the way, there is no such thing as Soviets anymore or cold war for that matter its all about interests and what can you bring to the table.

02/12/12

riffi said:

... whatsthepoint this is a debate place not the headquarters of the DRS or any Algerian news paper when you try to debate for morocco they won't post it. You need to land look at your brother in a crime Algerian he is free to post anything he feels like it including you. Did you just come out from the camp of tindouf it seems like you are missing a lot in this world? By the way welcome for joining in your brothers Algerian, mhamed and sarhane.Hell of team of spinners. It is good for this blog because it shows to the western world and specially the American bloggers what damage the soviet teaching did to the Algerians way of thinking and way of living

02/12/12

riffi said:

... finally algerian you learn something from the moroccans they call it polite and good manners in using the word marhba bikoum and don't gotget the tea for us and the coffee for you

02/11/12

Aadam said:

Lions don't hunt flies @Ignorant Algerian, It appears that you have some trouble understanding English, but I hope with this last message of mine, I might clear things up for you. Foremost, it's important to remember that the ICJ was not acting as a Court of Law but that it served one of its other main functions: An Advisory Opinion (non-binding) - requested by Morocco who, along with Mauritania, put forward only two questions: I) Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)? II) "What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian Entity? The ICJ adjudged that: I) the region was not terra nullius, II) that there were ties of allegiance between the Kingdom of Morocco and some of the tribes. No party had asked the court to lend its opinion over the sovereignty of the land, the fact that they did raises some very serious concerns about the agenda and integrity of the court; in fact, this is a violation of the courts standards (which one judge at the ICJ has since come out and said). Nevertheless, if you read the individual opinions of the judges you'll find that between them there were still those who recognised - in its entirety - the sovereignty of Morocco over its Sahara (and who further questioned the motives of the ICJ; these individuals fully understood the Moroccan/Islamic concept of sovereignty; in a court of law, Morocco would have certainly argued and presented that case clearly enough for every rational and impartial mind to understand); however, this was never in doubt for Morocco nor the Moroccan people (both in the occupied Spanish Sahara and the region which had recently achieved independence from France) who were fighting to reunify their nation and people. The reality on the ground and the motive behind requesting the opinion of the ICJ, as I stated below, spawned solely from the fact that Spain (who had been receiving international criticism for holding onto its colonies) was working to officially incorporate the Sahara into its official territory. By taking the matter to the ICJ and having them testify that the area did not belong to no one prior to the occupation (as Spain had argued) Morocco shrewdly ended Spain's futile attempts of keeping hold of our Sahara - thus avoiding the prospect of more war and bloodshed (we had already liberated chunks of our land from the Spanish Occupiers prior to taking the matter to the courts). Which leads us to the Madrid Accords, a legally binding agreement, approved by the UN and in accordance with the UN Charter. End of conflict. Unfortunately today, the DRSs propagandists continue to manipulate historical reality (from our identity to our cause) as well as the opinion of the ICJ (taking a highly political matter out of context, as well as portraying the opinion as 'divine', legal and binding); furthermore, they've completely dismissed the Madrid Accords as an 'illegal' contract (and yet it was approved by the UN). Now with regards to the farcical decision of the ICJ to overstretch its authority, let us consider the very colourful discourse between Kissinger and Bouteflika: _______________________________ Bouteflika: "It is absolutely excluded Morocco follows neither the ICJ nor the UNO. The Ivory Coast can't judge right. One of the judges on the ICJ said it was a question of monarchical solidarity. He told me. In The Hague." Kissinger: "One of the few international bodies which you don't dominate" _______________________________ As an insider, Kissinger himself testifies to Algeria's illicit dominance over most 'international bodies' (we could write a long list of NGOs here - especially in mind of their contrasting reactions to people like Aminatou Haider and Mustapha Salma) - and thus, regarding the ICJ itself, although it was said to be "one of the few international bodies which you don't dominate", the question remains: who exactly influenced the Court (after providing two favourable answers to the two questions posed) to speak out of turn? Moreover, why was our brotherly Algerian representative, Bedjaoui, pushing for the ICJ to recognise the Sahara territory as terra nullius? $300 billion mean anything to you? With regards to your latter statement, allow me to reiterate: we've become all too familiar with the false history that the DRS propagates with its oil money. There's an authentic record of it found in libraries however, if you wish to get off of wikipedia and learn the truth about the humiliation your army suffered in all wars with us to date; even with the aid of Gamel Abdel Nasser's "finest" Egyptian troops, including Mubarak - who too, on numerous occasions, has testified to the beating that you treacherous heirs of colonialism suffered. Beyond doubt, your defeat in the Sand War is well documented, your excuses too: "We just gained independence". An odd one considering that even Algerian military defectors have admitted what impartial observers also claim: Algeria started the war. Nevertheless, here are some figures for you: 379 Algerians captured, 57 Moroccans. 39 Moroccans declared dead, Algeria couldn't even bring themselves to say, but it was estimated by all at 300. Moving on to the wars at Amgala: What were your excuses for your defeats there? Morocco at the time was in a state of turmoil and our army severely weakened by the coup d'etat attempts, and yet they still gave you a bloody nose and worse... we generously opened a window for you to crawl back to Algeria with your tales between your legs. Indeed, lions don't hunt flies. You can also read about the superiority of the highly acclaimed Moroccan Goums and their accolades during WWII in comparison to the lesser Algerian troops. "These Goums are the best fighters I've seen anywhere. They just don't know when to quit." - Lt. Bistos Hubert. Considering that you "brave men" (who were only occupied for 500 years) learnt the hard way that it's better to fight your battles behind puppet organisations and "international law". We're thinking we'll take the matter to the courts and have them return our land from the traitors. Indeed, "Morocco today can legitimately claim the right to a territorial boundary at the 1901 line." The saddest part to all this however, Moroccans spurred you on to fight and fought with you tooth and nail to liberate your land. Moroccans armed, trained, financed and sheltered you. Moroccans negotiated the release of the FLN leadership when they were captured and exiled. Moroccans refused to negotiate with France for the return of our Eastern Sahara (as France would have it, in exchange for cutting our support to you), because we considered you brothers! Moroccans showered you with gifts to mark your independence, including armament - the very same weapons you backstabbers didn't hesitate to use on us! And yet, even after all that, Morocco was willing to compromise on everything for the sake of building a North African Union. Woe to you! "Those who believe in the Book - as we do - know that peace is preferable to war, fraternity to hatred, harmony to discord, construction to ruin, and smiles to tears." - King Hassan II For your treachery, God will give us victory, in this life or the next. Indeed, there is no victory but from God.

02/11/12

Algerian said:

... @Adam, It's about facts and what you can prove in a court of law and not about what you have to say in the matter In September 17, 1974, King Hassan II announced his intention to bring the issue to the ICJ, and UN General Assembly Resolution 3292[2] requested that the International Court give an advisory opinion on the following questions: :I. Was Western Sahara (Río de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)? And, should the majority opinion be "no", the following would be addressed: :II. What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity? For the former question, the Court decided by a vote of 13 to three that the court could make a decision on the matter, and unanimously voted that at the time of colonization (defined as November 28, 1884), the territory was not terra nullius (that is, the territory, did belong to someone). For the latter question The court decided that there were legal ties of allegiance between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco, and declared that neither legal tie implied sovereignty or rightful ownership over the territory. As for you claiming that Bechar, Tlmcen and Tindouf being part of your kingdom, let me remind you that a year after our independence, back, when Algeria did not have an army, you tried to grab some land and we all know what was the end result of that adventure. At the end of the day if you still feel so strongly about gaining back the Eastern Sahara, you should send your army to liberated, the only word i have for you as an Algerian is "Merhba bikoum".

02/11/12

Aadam said:

Bismillah Regarding the misuse of the term "Saharawi" which tends to dominate this issue: The Reguibat (who trace their origins to Sidi Ahmed al-Rgibi, descendant of Moulay Abdeslam Ben M'chiche, descendant of Moulay Idris) are the largest tribe in the western Sahara and originate from northern Morocco, where Moulay Abdeslam Ben M'chiche remains buried (between Ouazzane and Chefchaouen). Actually, the origins of many other tribes within our Southern Province are also traced further north and vice versa. Throughout the centuries the nomadic and semi-nomadic populations have continually moved up and down from the tip of Africa through the Atlas into the Sahara, across this entire area known for centuries to the West as "Morocco" and to the East as Maghreb. The religious zawiyas (originating from upper Morocco) that sought to spread the message of Islam penetrated far beyond the Sahara into West Africa (for example, the Arma people in West Africa are descendants of the 16th century Moroccan mujahid). The grand imperial cities of Marrakech, Meknes, Fez and Rabat drew peoples from all across our Kingdom in search of knowledge and prosperity. Unfortunately today the Algerians conspire to manipulate even the semantics of words to give themselves a sense of identity (thus, now many consider themselves Maghrebi without associating that as being Moroccan), all the while they seem to conveniently forget that for 500 years they were detached from our Kingdom and that their lands became home to the Ottomans first and later the French. My question then is: are they really Maghrebi (Moroccan) or the sons of Turks, Slavs ("Balkanians") and Pied-noirs? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zzkJ...entury.jpg http://thecivilisingmission.fi...ie_fr.jpg Keep in mind, French-Algeria (in its original state - see map above) was not merely a protectorate, nor even a colony, it was a legal and integral part of France. Let me also remind our "Maghrebi" brothers that 80% of Algeria's Islamic history is found in one, very western, city, Tlemcen - no coincidence then that Tlemcen has historically always been regarded as Moroccan. Indeed, when the French captured the Ottoman regency of Algiers, Moroccans marched in on Tlemcen and declared that their boarders end here (just as they marched in on the Ottomans 300 years before in the same vain). Speaking of "Sahrawis" (who are every bit Moroccan) as if they are foreign to our geography, history and identity only exemplifies the major Algerian distortions and the sheer and absolute ignorance regarding this issue. To emphasize the point: Guelmim is located outside of the disputed area (straight-lines drawn in the sand by France and Spain) in Northern Morocco (geographically, Guelmim is also part of the western Sahara) and its population are no less "Sahrawi" than those of Laayoune. To further emphasis the point: Due to the the efforts of the Moroccan Army of Liberation (la guerra olvidada for example), Spain were forced to return Tan-tan, Tarfaya and later again Sidi-Ifni. It was only when Spain were seen to be making efforts to legalize their occupation of our Sahara (by falsely claiming that the land was terra nullius prior to their occupation) that Morocco took the matter from the battle-field to the court. Without doing so, Spain might otherwise have secured the land by making it an integral part of Spain (just as the French had earlier made the province of Algiers an integral part of their nation), thus any Moroccan war-effort to liberate the Sahara would have become doubly challenging. "We have always been Moroccans. My ancestors are buried in several Moroccan cities and one of my ancestors is Moulay Abdeslem Ben Mchich. We fought the French across the entire territory, even as far as northern Mauritania. My father fought in several battles, including the battles of Ahmeim. Our goal was to drive the colonizer out and free the country. We obtained supplies in Essaouira. The currency used in those times was the Hassani. With that, what doubt can there be about our origins? The south had nothing but its livestock to live on. The rest came from the north of Morocco. There have always been commercial and political ties to Morocco. When the Army of Liberation was formed, many in the Reguibat tribe joined it, fighting as far south as Tagal in Mauritania to defend the Moroccan identity of the Sahara. We followed orders from the high command of the Army of Liberation, which was made up of people from the north. Weapons also came from the north. I can tell you that in one way or another, all the Saharawis took part in the fight against the occupier of the Moroccan Sahara." (A testimony from a native of Semara presented to JPRS Reports) The "western" Sahara is a name corresponding to the geographic reality of the territory in regard to the entire Sahara (which for the record, spreads from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea). 90% of Algerian territory is engulfed by the Sahara. Moreover, "Mauritania" is also part of the western Sahara and it's no coincidence that the colonialists established independence for this "Sahrawi" state with a name formerly associated with northern Morocco (Ancient Mauretania). My question: why not Numidia or the Sahrawi Islamic Republic? The term Sahrawi was very much a literal expression used to describe all those who lived in the Sahara. Today, for various reasons, it holds a more specific connation, however, so too does the word "Jebli" (one of the Mountain), which is used to describe a specific group of Moroccan people who live in our northern-most mountains. You simply cannot speak of (Moroccan) "Sahrawis" and Moroccans as two discrete entities: one is a national classification, the other a relatively recent internal classification. If some brainwashed or opportunist separatists falsely claim they have no ties to Morocco and that they are of Yemeni descent then let me remind you and them that Yemen still exists on the world map and that they are more than welcome to leave the refuge of our Kingdom, home to the INDIGENOUS MOROCCAN people and return to the desert of Arabia from whence they came! Of course, we know their motives well: Algerian oil money, power, ideology (indoctrination)... in fact many of these dissidents were first loyal to their Spanish occupiers - "Harkis" as Algerians would call them; although I'm all too aware that today, some dissidents are now sadly a natural product of a 35-year old war environment. Nonetheless, a war created and sustained by traitors and the DRS. "I want to liberate Sahrawis from separatists' servitude" - Mustapha Salma "The identity label ‘Sahrawi’ is a matter of great legal and political contention. Literally, the term sahrawi in Arabic refers to any inhabitant of the desert (sahra’). However, the term is most frequently used in the West as an umbrella term to refer to those individuals who belong to specific tribes which have traditionally lived and moved throughout the territory currently defined as the Western Sahara. This usage is relatively recent, emerging towards the end of the Spanish colonial presence in the territory. In the 1970s, the term Sahrawi was increasingly mobilised (and arguably monopolised) by the Polisario Front as a political unifier and identifier for the multiple tribes which moved in and around the territory. It is, as a result, intimately related to this group’s political struggles. Given that tribal identification is the primary basis for the referendum for self-determination designed to resolve the conflict over the Western Sahara, precisely which tribes and individuals are defined as ‘Sahrawi’ rather than ‘Moroccan’ or ‘Mauritanian’ is politically and legally highly significant." The primary question thus becomes, was the land in question part of our Kingdom? Most definitely! All the evidence is there, although we don't expect those who divided us in the first place and further created artificial entities around us to acknowledge Islamic definitions of sovereignty. The truth is, this artificial conflict in our Southern Province was put together in the 1970s (in a cold-war context) by the Algerian junta (the heirs of colonialism and the benefactors of French endeavours; and long after the humiliation they suffered during the Sand War ) in order to keep Morocco from reclaiming the lands illegally annexed from our Kingdom. With the support of those who manufactured them into existence and with the support of those who played a leading role in turning Algeria over to the Communists and with the support of those who kept the DRS and FLN in power during their civil war, Algeria to this day continues to illegally occupy our land. "In order to secure Touat and tie it directly to Algeria the French army proceeded to occupy several points ... The three oases in the Guir-Zousfana triangle, Bechar, Kenadsa, and Ouakda, were given the unconditional right to choose either nationality ... The three qsar-s named in the Protocol all opted for Moroccan nationality" (Resistance in the Desert: Moroccan Responses to French Imperialism) "Algeria today has stood by the claims made by France during the years 1956-1962; and, fully in accordance with the policy statement relating to colonial boundaries that was put forth by the Organization of African Unity, has stated simply that Algeria's rightful boundaries are those that were inherited from the French colonial regime. Insofar as the portion of the common frontier region that is being examined here is concerned -- the Guir-Zousfana river basin area -- the Algerian criterion for legitimacy is not well founded. It can be proven that during the period 1956-1962 the French presented a case for their claim that was distorted by their failure to make known some of the most relevant documentation bearing on the issue. ... Morocco today can legitimately claim the right to a territorial boundary at the 1901 line." (Morocco's Boundary in the Guir-Zousfana River Basin, African Historical Studies) www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1xGzcPNgHE www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjsnqZaf4Dw My final word: If the treacherous socialist revolutionaries of Algiers wish for North Africa to remain divided, then so be it; but be very sure, we will never give up on our legitimate fight for decolonization: Tindouf, Bechar, Touat, Ceuta, Melilia were all part of the our Kingdom and were unlawfully stolen by the colonial powers. General Assembly resolution No 1514 (XV), paragraph 6 states: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations." "In itself, allegiance to the sovereign is of a political and constitutional character, as in certain countries that were subject to a military feudal system. Furthermore, at the time of colonization by Spain, that is to say towards the end of the nineteenth century, the Sultan combined in his person the legislative and executive powers, to which was added the spiritual power. He exercised those powers by means of dahirs, which were issued - a significant fact - under his sole signature. Does this not mean that the Sultan at that time personified the State, all of whose powers he exercised? Therefore allegiance to the Sultan, or sovereign, was equivalent to allegiance to the State. This entails acknowledging that the legal ties between Morocco and Western Sahara recognized by the Court took the form of political ties, indeed ties of sovereignty. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6205.pdf

02/11/12

Aadam said:

Bismillah Regarding the misuse of the term "Saharawi" which tends to dominate this issue: The Reguibat (who trace their origins to Sidi Ahmed al-Rgibi, descendant of Moulay Abdeslam Ben M'chiche, descendant of Moulay Idris) are the largest tribe in the western Sahara and originate from northern Morocco, where Moulay Abdeslam Ben M'chiche remains buried (between Ouazzane and Chefchaouen). Actually, the origins of many other tribes within our Southern Province are also traced further north and vice versa. Throughout the centuries the nomadic and semi-nomadic populations have continually moved up and down from the tip of Africa through the Atlas into the Sahara, across this entire area known for centuries to the West as "Morocco" and to the East as Maghreb. The religious zawiyas (originating from upper Morocco) that sought to spread the message of Islam penetrated far beyond the Sahara into West Africa (for example, the Arma people in West Africa are descendants of the 16th century Moroccan mujahid). The grand imperial cities of Marrakech, Meknes, Fez and Rabat drew peoples from all across our Kingdom in search of knowledge and prosperity. Unfortunately today the Algerians conspire to manipulate even the semantics of words to give themselves a sense of identity (thus, now many consider themselves Maghrebi without associating that as being Moroccan), all the while they seem to conveniently forget that for 500 years they were detached from our Kingdom and that their lands became home to the Ottomans first and later the French. My question then is: are they really Maghrebi (Moroccan) or the sons of Turks, Slavs ("Balkanians") and Pied-noirs? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zzkJ...entury.jpg http://thecivilisingmission.fi...ie_fr.jpg Keep in mind, French-Algeria (in its original state - see map above) was not merely a protectorate, nor even a colony, it was a legal and integral part of France. Let me also remind our "Maghrebi" brothers that 80% of Algeria's Islamic history is found in one, very western, city, Tlemcen - no coincidence then that Tlemcen has historically always been regarded as Moroccan. Indeed, when the French captured the Ottoman regency of Algiers, Moroccans marched in on Tlemcen and declared that their boarders end here (just as they marched in on the Ottomans 300 years before in the same vain). Speaking of "Sahrawis" (who are every bit Moroccan) as if they are foreign to our geography, history and identity only exemplifies the major Algerian distortions and the sheer and absolute ignorance regarding this issue. To emphasize the point: Guelmim is located outside of the disputed area (straight-lines drawn in the sand by France and Spain) in Northern Morocco (geographically, Guelmim is also part of the western Sahara) and its population are no less "Sahrawi" than those of Laayoune. To further emphasis the point: Due to the the efforts of the Moroccan Army of Liberation (la guerra olvidada for example), Spain were forced to return Tan-tan, Tarfaya and later again Sidi-Ifni. It was only when Spain were seen to be making efforts to legalize their occupation of our Sahara (by falsely claiming that the land was terra nullius prior to their occupation) that Morocco took the matter from the battle-field to the court. Without doing so, Spain might otherwise have secured the land by making it an integral part of Spain (just as the French had earlier made the province of Algiers an integral part of their nation), thus any Moroccan war-effort to liberate the Sahara would have become doubly challenging. "We have always been Moroccans. My ancestors are buried in several Moroccan cities and one of my ancestors is Moulay Abdeslem Ben Mchich. We fought the French across the entire territory, even as far as northern Mauritania. My father fought in several battles, including the battles of Ahmeim. Our goal was to drive the colonizer out and free the country. We obtained supplies in Essaouira. The currency used in those times was the Hassani. With that, what doubt can there be about our origins? The south had nothing but its livestock to live on. The rest came from the north of Morocco. There have always been commercial and political ties to Morocco. When the Army of Liberation was formed, many in the Reguibat tribe joined it, fighting as far south as Tagal in Mauritania to defend the Moroccan identity of the Sahara. We followed orders from the high command of the Army of Liberation, which was made up of people from the north. Weapons also came from the north. I can tell you that in one way or another, all the Saharawis took part in the fight against the occupier of the Moroccan Sahara." (A testimony from a native of Semara presented to JPRS Reports) The "western" Sahara is a name corresponding to the geographic reality of the territory in regard to the entire Sahara (which for the record, spreads from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea). 90% of Algerian territory is engulfed by the Sahara. Moreover, "Mauritania" is also part of the western Sahara and it's no coincidence that the colonialists established independence for this "Sahrawi" state with a name formerly associated with northern Morocco (Ancient Mauretania). My question: why not Numidia or the Sahrawi Islamic Republic? The term Sahrawi was very much a literal expression used to describe all those who lived in the Sahara. Today, for various reasons, it holds a more specific connation, however, so too does the word "Jebli" (one of the Mountain), which is used to describe a specific group of Moroccan people who live in our northern-most mountains. You simply cannot speak of (Moroccan) "Sahrawis" and Moroccans as two discrete entities: one is a national classification, the other a relatively recent internal classification. If some brainwashed or opportunist separatists falsely claim they have no ties to Morocco and that they are of Yemeni descent then let me remind you and them that Yemen still exists on the world map and that they are more than welcome to leave the refuge of our Kingdom, home to the INDIGENOUS MOROCCAN people and return to the desert of Arabia from whence they came! Of course, we know their motives well: Algerian oil money, power, ideology (indoctrination)... in fact many of these dissidents were first loyal to their Spanish occupiers - "Harkis" as Algerians would call them; although I'm all too aware that today, some dissidents are now sadly a natural product of a 35-year old war environment. Nonetheless, a war created and sustained by traitors and the DRS. "I want to liberate Sahrawis from separatists' servitude" - Mustapha Salma "The identity label ‘Sahrawi’ is a matter of great legal and political contention. Literally, the term sahrawi in Arabic refers to any inhabitant of the desert (sahra’). However, the term is most frequently used in the West as an umbrella term to refer to those individuals who belong to specific tribes which have traditionally lived and moved throughout the territory currently defined as the Western Sahara. This usage is relatively recent, emerging towards the end of the Spanish colonial presence in the territory. In the 1970s, the term Sahrawi was increasingly mobilised (and arguably monopolised) by the Polisario Front as a political unifier and identifier for the multiple tribes which moved in and around the territory. It is, as a result, intimately related to this group’s political struggles. Given that tribal identification is the primary basis for the referendum for self-determination designed to resolve the conflict over the Western Sahara, precisely which tribes and individuals are defined as ‘Sahrawi’ rather than ‘Moroccan’ or ‘Mauritanian’ is politically and legally highly significant." The primary question thus becomes, was the land in question part of our Kingdom? Most definitely! All the evidence is there, although we don't expect those who divided us in the first place and further created artificial entities around us to acknowledge Islamic definitions of sovereignty. The truth is, this artificial conflict in our Southern Province was put together in the 1970s (in a cold-war context) by the Algerian junta (the heirs of colonialism and the benefactors of French endeavours; and long after the humiliation they suffered during the Sand War ) in order to keep Morocco from reclaiming the lands illegally annexed from our Kingdom. With the support of those who manufactured them into existence and with the support of those who played a leading role in turning Algeria over to the Communists and with the support of those who kept the DRS and FLN in power during their civil war, Algeria to this day continues to illegally occupy our land. "In order to secure Touat and tie it directly to Algeria the French army proceeded to occupy several points ... The three oases in the Guir-Zousfana triangle, Bechar, Kenadsa, and Ouakda, were given the unconditional right to choose either nationality ... The three qsar-s named in the Protocol all opted for Moroccan nationality" (Resistance in the Desert: Moroccan Responses to French Imperialism) "Algeria today has stood by the claims made by France during the years 1956-1962; and, fully in accordance with the policy statement relating to colonial boundaries that was put forth by the Organization of African Unity, has stated simply that Algeria's rightful boundaries are those that were inherited from the French colonial regime. Insofar as the portion of the common frontier region that is being examined here is concerned -- the Guir-Zousfana river basin area -- the Algerian criterion for legitimacy is not well founded. It can be proven that during the period 1956-1962 the French presented a case for their claim that was distorted by their failure to make known some of the most relevant documentation bearing on the issue. ... Morocco today can legitimately claim the right to a territorial boundary at the 1901 line." (Morocco's Boundary in the Guir-Zousfana River Basin, African Historical Studies) www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1xGzcPNgHE www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjsnqZaf4Dw My final word: If the treacherous socialist revolutionaries of Algiers wish for North Africa to remain divided, then so be it; but be very sure, we will never give up on our legitimate fight for decolonization: Tindouf, Bechar, Touat, Ceuta, Melilia were all part of the our Kingdom and were unlawfully stolen by the colonial powers. General Assembly resolution No 1514 (XV), paragraph 6 states: "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations." "In itself, allegiance to the sovereign is of a political and constitutional character, as in certain countries that were subject to a military feudal system. Furthermore, at the time of colonization by Spain, that is to say towards the end of the nineteenth century, the Sultan combined in his person the legislative and executive powers, to which was added the spiritual power. He exercised those powers by means of dahirs, which were issued - a significant fact - under his sole signature. Does this not mean that the Sultan at that time personified the State, all of whose powers he exercised? Therefore allegiance to the Sultan, or sovereign, was equivalent to allegiance to the State. This entails acknowledging that the legal ties between Morocco and Western Sahara recognized by the Court took the form of political ties, indeed ties of sovereignty. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6205.pdf

02/11/12

riffi said:

... keep barking,you are the three mousketers now algerian,sarhane and m'hamed ,the team is building up.by the way we are there to stay we are not going no where.

02/10/12

Mhamed said:

Comaraison n'est pas raison ! Comparaison n'est pas raison(Comparison is not right)! Azawad is not included in the Fourth United Nations Commission on the territories to be decolonized! Algeria has always defended international law, Saharawis have the right to self determination. You scream louder than the Saharawis and you are supported by France and the United States, it does not give you much reason to!

02/10/12

Algerian said:

... Riffi you sound more and more like a broken record As for the Algerian army, well lets see what jeune afrique has to say about. Just note that most of the generals and the dinasors are.either dead or retired Can you say the same about benslimane and CO. http://www.jeuneafrique.com/Ar...F8D212534/

02/10/12

riffi said:

... yep the history sometimes repeat itself,this time we will let the marines do the job,the clock is ticking see you in May and be ready with atai and kahwa and bring as many bodies as you want ,it is on the house this time commander algerian ,by the way welcome back your body sarhane needs as much help as he can get at this time of sorrow. As you keen on the word "pushing" be ready to push the coffin of the military junta

02/09/12

Algerian said:

... To add to Morceli's contribution, ill say keep pushing our buttons dear " brothers" and next time around we won't stop at figig.

02/09/12

Morcelli said:

... Everything you said Mr. Massiki would make sense if we were dealing with normal human beings, we are however dealing with the North African butchers who indiscriminately killed 250,000 of their own people. Bunch of killers who supported the ruthless Qaddafis and who are now aligning with communist Russia and China to support another dictator who is killing hundreds of Syrians on a daily basis while the world is watching and no one can do a thing about. No matter what we do or what we say, Algeria's oil is doing the trick, subsidizing the Algerian population to keep it quiet.

02/09/12

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment Preview