And we go on with the pacifist hypocrites (I am going to add a label for hypocrites):
According to the President of the State Cooperation of the Associations of Solidarity with Sahara (CEAS-SAHARA), José Taboada, the Spanish Government, with its "infamous" support of the Moroccan Autonomy plan, "far from finding a just, pacific and enduring peace, is contributing to the return of war, completely justified". On the contrary, he asks in an interview, "What is the real cause of selling to the Moroccan kingdom more than 1.200 tanks, and other war weapons, worthy of 200 millions €?. Is giving weapons to a regime which has an open war with the illegal occupied lands, even if there is a truce, and which uses its tanks to break on the minority for, at least, not let them speak, as the Zapatero's Government wants to achieve peace?".
Peace, how many crimes are comitted in thy name!!! This is the Government of the absurd "peace processes".
"So, as the Saharauis of the occupied lands resist to the Moroccan pressure", says Taboada, " those who are in exile are facing the desert hostitlity, where at least there lives are not at risk". There are two Saharas, one occupied and another one, which is free, and now Spain is capitulating to Moroccan blackmail, he laments. This position of the Spanish Government, he continues, "is not ethic, it's not clever. It's dangerous as it maintains an status quo that makes the poverty grow when it could just use it's power to push Sahara into economic development". So many years of suffering, he goes on, to blush with the Spanish support ti a plan which does not even consider independence, conditio sine qua non for the conflict's solution, that was considered by James Baker plan, which was accepted in the beginning by all the sides.
But Taboada goes on asking himself: "Why Saharauis cannot have,as any citizen, of the minute of freedom that gives you the election? Does Spain has a debt so important with Morocco?". According to the coordinator, the answer is yes, and "the price is going to be paid by the saharauis, a change coin, with which Spain is protecting the agreements with Morocco regarding the fish market, the immigration and terrorism, or to prevent any question about Ceuta and Melilla".
He adds that the Kingdom of Mohammed VIth is also menacing other countries of UE and USA.
He considers the "possibility of Morocco being converted into a Republic under Islamic rule if the Western Sahara is lost". He denounces, in view of this dangerous considerations, that the Socialist Government prefers to "ally itself with the plans of the Moroccan Kingdom, that are no others than legitimate before the UN its illegal occupation".
So, let me sum up the facts. Morocco invades ILLEGALLY Spanish Sahara, in the precise moment in which Franco is dying and Spain is not worried but by its own existence.
Since then, Socialists and Communists have been supporting Saharauis. And pointing the blame on center-right people as the ones who "abandoned the Saharauis", and asking for "freedom for saharauis".
Aznar wins the elections and, not liking very much the Moroccan King, fights in the UN to maintain the Baker plan which recognises the right of the Saharauis to have a referendum to decide about their future and near the end of his 2nd term, makes a preference agreement with Algeria to import natural gas from there.
In a private conversation, Piqué, then Spanish FM, is menaced by the Moroccan King, telling him that "though Spain has not been the target of Islamist attacks, that does not mean that an Islamist attack couldn't take place in Spanish soil". Moratinos, later as FM, says, speaking about that menace, that "we have to maintain good relations with Morocco". (¡!)
Zapatero goes to Morocco where he is photographed with a map in which Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands are depicted as a part of the Moroccan kingdom.
Zapatero wins the election after the street, MSM and citizen pressure regarding the Iraqi war. And of course, after March 11th bombings, which causes I do not know, but of the people detained -I am not particularly inclined to any supposition: I think all of them are wrong and right. I do not think truth will be ever known ...- most of them are Moroccans, who cannot pass as very Jihadi types. Zapatero says, in relation with the Spanish foreign policy, that "he wants to go back to the heart of Europe".
Zapatero goes in his first trip to Morocco (which as you know is NOT Europe).
Three years later, after having a lot of crisis with Moroccan kingdom [Immigrants, the case of the oranges that some of the Moroccan producers say were invented by them and asked for a compensation -Lo leí en El Mundo, periódico de papel, si alguien tiene un link, me lo deja en comentarios-, the drug dealing...], he recognises the Moroccan autonomy plan, sells tanks and other weapons to Morocco for a total valor of 200 millions of € and agrees to build a train with Morocco under the sea.
Algeria raises the gas prices 20% as a result.
I keep on asking the same question: what has seen our president in this man?
Other related news:
Aznar reveals that Chirac told him to give Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands to Morocco. Chirac denies it (of course, the contrary is a little bit shameful: pressing on the President of an INDEPENDENT State to modify his territory).
So the question is: is Morocco related to the March 11th bombings or they are just playing the card of the Islamoterrorists knowing that so pacifist a Government, the same one who proposed the Civilizations' Alliance relies precisely in being the opposite to Aznar's Government? Could Moroccan King ally himself with the Islamists not to leave power, if the moment comes?
[NOTE: the related facts are only that: FACTS. Each one can interpret them as is able or wants to].
Powered by Zoundry