West Sahara

It belonged to them before you fuckers came in and fucked Morocco in the ass.

It's literally your fault.

And in the Sand War Kennedy actively sought out a plan of neutrality, Morocco did have US weapons, but that was from previous stuff.

>It's literally your fault.
Our former king sold that to the king of Morocco after the Green March. the UN doesn't recognize that deal, no refunds

Will it be the poorest country in the world once it gains independent? I cannot think of any significant export other than slaves

This is Morocco before colonialism, but then Sp*in and Fr*nce took over and separated the people like the barbarians they are.

Attached: Empire_alaouite_-_XVIIIe_s.png (570x320, 132K)

LOL

Attached: Viceroyalty_of_the_New_Spain_1800_(without_Philippines).png (1600x1192, 645K)

Imbecile. Other people outside Europe also had imperialism like policy to expand their borders..

How does that give any right for barbarian *uropeans to come in and destroy it.

Nature law.

I know a girl from there. West Sahara should be free and independant.

As I said lad, US did the same with Mexico, US did that too in the 60-70 in all Hispanoamerica, you are doing that NOW in all the MENA, the fuck are you talking about? ...

>>used to be a spanish colony along with Morocco
no?

Morocco was French, not Spanish. Spain didn't hold more than 5% of Morocco.

give it to Mexico you Mutt....those territories were part of New Spain therefore Mexico

I think that France had more Algeria than Morocco Muhammad, we had the Riff a couple of years too

stop having a ferry service with gibraltar and Algeria

is Algeciras to Tangier, and they go to your cunt by plane now, we aren't in the 70s

>Implying the entire "west saharan conflict" isn't merely a proxy-war between Morocco and Algeria
Btw, how does the fusion between Islam and Marxism of the Polisario work anyway?

Attached: arabic_dialects.png (2000x1130, 440K)

they have the support of all our commies here, I think some other countries in Africa give them support too because that

rarest flag on Jow Forums

Spain had 5% of Morocco, in the north (rif)
>The surface area of the zone was about 20,948 km2 (8,088 sq mi), which represents 4.69% of modern-day Morocco.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_protectorate_in_Morocco

France owned 95% of Morocco.

Saying that Morocco was a spanish colony isntead of french one is completly false

then Western Sahara is or isn't Morocco Abdullah? Morocco is nowadays 1000k km2 and we had 300k

No one or no country in the world consider western Sahara to be part of Morocco.

Also Western Sahara didnt represent 1% of the moroccan population back then or today. It's an empty desert.

Saying that Morocco was a Spanish colony is absolutly false in any geographic or demographic way. It was a French territory.

Don't know why the former British colonies are overwhelmingly supportive of them, what is the perfidious Albion planning again?

Attached: 940px-Current_relations_of_SADR.svg.png (940x415, 114K)

France consider that, Spain too, and ofc Morocco wich has the army there

Even if we consider that western sahara as part of Morocco, it only had like 20,000 people, compared to the 4 millions that France controlled.

Controlling 5% of the population or 5% of the territory doesn't make Morocco an ex-spanish colony. It was a French protectorate, end of the storuy.

>It's an empty desert.
500k people there and lots of phosphates that buy France, maybe even oil in the coast

When Spain took it in the early 20th it had less than 50,000 nomads niggers.

>When Spain took it
the fuck is the Berlin Conference?...

Yes, after 1884 and that conference Spain seized this empty desert with 50,000 or less nomads there.
That's completly irrelevant to the 4 millions country that France seized.

Good for them, we need that chunk to send niggas to America

What? I don't get it, how is spanish western sahara related to sending niggers to USA?

What exactly is Morocco's reason for claiming them? That they're sandniggers, too? Why don't they just go and claim Mauritania as well

While initial Spanish interest in the Sahara was focused on using it as a port for the slave trade, by the 1700s Spain had transitioned economic activity on the Saharan coast towards commercial fishing.[17] After an agreement among the European colonial powers at the Berlin Conference in 1884 on the division of spheres of influence in Africa, Spain seized control of Western Sahara and established it as a Spanish colony

Yeah so in the end that region was never used as a slave port.

It's a bit too far from the slave hubs of western africa anyway.

they owned them in the past
thats the only thing
youtube.com/watch?v=fzsGYB4qF6U

>Why don't they just go and claim Mauritania as well
Well, they did in the past. Basically it was post-colonial states going after their "lost possessions stolen by whitey", Mauritania claimed parts of Western Sahara as well.

Attached: Gran_Marruecos.png (593x491, 20K)

>Basically it was post-colonial states going after their "lost possessions stolen by whitey"

No.

France made Morocco 5 to 10 times biggers than before 1912 and the protectorate.
Morocco never controlled any part of Mauritania expect nominally for few years in the 17th.

>No.
I am only talking about their rhetoric. As if facts matter with Irrendist claims based on "historical evidences" pulled out of their asses. They saw their chance, made their claims and swept in.

Who in Morocco ever claimed that they "lost Mauritanai because of whitey" ?
France is not involved in anyway wich Mauritania not being morocco.
Lyautey made their country ten times bigger and everyone there is glad for that.

>As if facts matter with Irrendist claims based on "historical evidences" pulled out of their asses

In this case, pic related, they're quit right. After destroying the Malian and the Songhai empire, Morocco took most of western africa.
Funny thing is that the ones who did that conquest were spaniards mercenairies and they mixed with the locals to create a new population:

Attached: 131-39v1m4he13-whr.jpg (870x864, 133K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arma_people
>The Arma people are an ethnic group of the middle Niger River valley, descended from Moroccan and Andalusi invaders of the 16th century. The name, applied by other groups, derives from the word ar-rumah (Arabic: الرماة) "fusiliers".[1]
>As of 1986, there were some 20,000 self-identified Arma in Mali, mostly around Timbuktu, the middle Niger bend and the Inner Niger Delta.

literal wewuzing. kek

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashalik_of_Timbuktu

Attached: TombouctouPachalik_4.png (742x735, 30K)

I can't say im familiar with the history of thata area, but weren't some of the leaders of the Istiqlal party and in fact the Moroccan king Hassan II doing that tho?
historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?historyid=ad05
>At first the Moroccan king refuses to acknowledge the existence of Mauritania, claiming that it is historically linked to Morocco (it is the region from which the Almoravids moved north in the 11th century to establish themselves at Marrakech).

I apologize if I am wrong though, if you can correct me I would appreciate it.

What I'm saying is that they don't blame France for mauritania, but they do claim it as an historical clay and they had some bad relations with Mauritania. None of this is related to France tho.

The almoravid claim is quit ridiculous btw. That would be like Germany claiming all of Europe because Germanic dynasties since the collapse of the roman empire ruled most of europe: wizigoth, frankish, ostrogoth kingdoms etc.

Okay, I see.
>That would be like Germany claiming all of Europe because Germanic dynasties since the collapse of the roman empire ruled most of europe: wizigoth, frankish, ostrogoth kingdoms etc.
Hmmm...

Attached: download.jpg (660x440, 45K)