Talk:Polisario Front

message: Dear sirs
this situation is controversial
There are some points that are forgotten in this article 
SPANISH SITUATION WHEN THE MADRID AGREEMENT 
1, the UN recommended a referendum in the Sahara. 
2 The UN also called, at the request of Morocco, the  Hague court opinion  it  delay the referendum and independence (remember that at that time Spain gave independence to Equatorial Guinea, in Guinea there are  oil which invalidates the argument which Spain did not give independence to the Sahara for economic reasons, phosphate). 
3 in 1975 with the death of dictator Franco in Spain's internal situation was delicate. 
4 Morocco organized the "Green March" with the help of USA and Arab countries (except Algeria and Libya) 
5 In a war Spain Morocco USA made it clear to the Spanish government not permit to Spain the use of military equipment manufactured in America (what USA did to Spain in the war of Sidi Ifni) Thus Spain could not win a war with Morocco . 
6 due to points 3 and 5 agreements were signed in Madrid 
POLISARIO TERRORISM 
1 The Polisario terrorism was exercised against Spanish citizens in the Sahara 
2 against party members PUNS Sahrawi Spanish. For example On July 12, 1975 Alisal eight years old, and his brother Mustafa, aged six, two were sons of Ahmed Ould Brahim Ould Bachir PUNS 
3 between 1977 and 1987 (the date of completion of the wall of the Sahara) the Polisario terrorist activities killing 300 unarmed civilians (fishermen) can be found and check in an independent study: 
http://www.memorialdevictimas.org/ 
in Spain there is an association of victims of terrorism polisario ACAVITE
Best regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.145.18 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: something forgotten

message: If anyone who understands this topic is looking for cleanup suggestions, I'll start a list...
* Article needs an intro section, rather than consisting only of a chronolocial list of events. --Doradus 16:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
* It needs more coverage of the recent events, especially the recent freeing of prisoners.  --Doradus 16:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
===>Answers
Polisario used to be a socialist organization, but is now free market.
:This is american misunderstanding of socialism. In Spain, to pick one, the Socialist party is the majority and we are a free market economy and we love it. Socialism has become a by-word for welfare state, not communism as many americans with whom I have had the pleasure to argue think. In particular if you think socialism is not free market then I think american liberalism is fascism. Please, brush up on your politics and stop thinking of socialism and evil when it is the prevalent state of affairs in Europe and its Welfare State.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 22:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup suggestions 

message: And is the Polisario still seeking independence? It maybe its initial purpose, bur for many years it has agreed to settle for a referendum under UN supervision, a suggestion to which Morocco oposes by wanting only those in the occupied areas to vote, many of them Moroccan immigrants, and not the 300k+ refugees in Algeria... Furthermore, as of late Polisario is not a violent organisation and serves as a government for its people in exhile, organising public services such as medical cover and enducation.
Unfortunately Morocco, whith its military might, will continue to subdue Western Sahara for many decades to come, but so did the French in Algeria for 130years and eventually had to leave. Morocco has a time bomb in its hands unless it can get saharawis to feel Moroccan, and we in Spain know that is going to be impossible, because after nearly a millenium, there is still independence sentiment in regions like Vasque Country, Catalonia, Balearic Island, Valencia...
Furthermore, I have a Moroccan flatmate who is studying in a Spanish university, he is from Nador in north Morocco and he has told me that there are Bereber people who would be willing to kill and fight for independence of the north. At the moment, under an absolutist monarch, like those we had in Europe about 2 centuries ago, the country is held by a firm grip, but I cannot but feel that if Morocco continues to develop its economy, helped by the EU, its society will start to demand more democratic means of government and indivual rights, and many problems like the Bereber or the Saharawis will be more difficult to handle.
Cgonzalezdelhoyo 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there no mention of the 300.000+ Saharawis refugees in Algeria? 

message: The article is definitively not neutral, please make some revisions to comply with WP principles of neutrality. Best regards. Daryou 08:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll remove this now. Arre 03:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: To Justin,
*Please refrain from rating links. Treating reports as controversial when they don't suit your own opinion is as such controversial. I don't tell how controversial I find all the links you use.
*In order to quote in a "scientific" maner I use now the original names of the links and/or the titles of the reports/texts/contents. This is the most accurate and obligatory way to quote sources.
*In order to separate (for visitors) the links on the basis of their view I wrote this in brackets, outside the link area. The link area shoudl contain the exact title of the site and the exact link. wikima 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I am surprised that nothing is mentioned about Spain, we, specially in Andalucia and other socialist majority regions (this is free-market socialims) feel we have a debt to Sahara as we let it down by allowing Morocco to take over. I believe there were agreements with Morocco that the Sahara would have a right to self determination, which ofcourse were ignored.
This commitment to the Saharawi people involve many aspects:
- My neighbour for one, hosts saharawi children who come in the summer to spend time away from the camps. They spoil them completely and treat them as one of their own. This is part of an yearly program to give the children a glimpse of life out side the camps, I am not sure how many came last year to Spain alone, but we are defenitely talkin in the thousands.
- The spanish government and in particular the Andalusian Regional government is comitted to the saharawi situation, regularly receiving politician to talk in parliament and to its members. As a recent example, there have been repeated attempts by members of the Andalusian parliament to visit occupied sahara as observers, being rejected by Moroccan authorities repeatedly.
- There is a general awarenes and sense of guilt, as I say, about the saharawis, I have attended several talks about the camps in Tinduf and the political situation of the conflict. These involved showing short films and documentaries as well as having saharawies come and talk to us. Needless to say that there is close coverage in the news about the conflict.
Please bear in mind that Moroccan King Hassan II, organized the Green march at a time when Spain was at its weakest, Franco, the military dictator, was dying and the Transition which led to democratic constitution being drawn and elections called (a period of about 6 years), was just embrionic and in the shadows waiting for Franco to die. With this situation in Spain we were in no position to make a stand in the Sahara. In that sense there is a general feeling that we have to return the blow to Morocco, as was shown a couple of years ago, when Moroccan officials occupied a lonely rock outcrop of the coast, nominally under Spanish soverignty, and Aznar, the then rightwing consevative prime minister ordered the army to go in with its special corps to kick them out. It was all simbolic, there was no aggresion from Morocco, but neither was there aggresion during the Green March in 1975 and we were forced by the circumstances to flee and abandon the saharawi people to Moroccan and Mauritanian domination.
Now that we finally again have a democracy there is an overwhelming feeling of guilt towards the Saharawi people. It is true that we were a colonial power but we also have a great simpathy towards them and we would have liked to see their right to self determination being upholded. I will try to get references and include as much information on this as possible.
------------
I would also like to see something include to the effect that Moroccos beligerant foreign policy with its neighbours, Algeria and Western Sahara, was a means to bring national unity under an absolutist Monarch like Hassan II, who suffered three assesination attempts by his own military forces. The use of wars under dictators is recurrent in human history as a means to divert attention from internal problems and conflicts. In that sense the saharawis have fallen victims to a larger more powerfull neighbour, which is also a  recurrent event in human history.
Unfortunately history shows that if a power can hold a territory it becomes its own, until it can no longer do so. I expect that if Morocco manages to develop with the help of the EU and obtain democratic rights and government, the issue with the saharawis will become more difficult to handle without the strong rule of force and eventually either they will get regional or full independence. Unfortunatelly, in the mean time, the saharawis will be the victims and the Moroccans will have to continue to pay the expensive bill of military occupation. The only one that is the real winner in this situation, is their absolutist monarchy.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations and Spain 

message: ===The beginnings===
* There is no link between the Polisario and previous Sahrawi political activity. The Polisario founding members were Moroccan students, sons of Moroccan Southern Liberation Army veterans. The only founding Polisario member to have had a contact with Bassiri is Lehbib Ayoub, who is now in defence of Moroccan territorial integrity. The preambule of the SADR constitution says "The Sahrawi people - arab, african and Moslem - who decided to start its struggle of liberation in 1973, under the the guidance of the POLISARIO Front, to free the country from colonialism ...". So the Poilsario takes on itself the credit to have started the struggle, and if someone alledges the opposite, there should be reliable sources (other than Hodges) to support that.
:This is not true. Numerous activists were active in both Bassiri's movement and in the Polisario, and Polisario has from the very start referred to him as a father of the nation, and his Zemla riots as a pivotal moment for the decision to enter into armed struggle (the organization of what would later become Polisario began only months after it happened). All of the books mentioned below, that discuss the Polisario, detail these connections. Hodges, by the way, is one of the main (I'd say THE main, or who else?) authorities on the background of the organization, so you can't dismiss him out of hand like that.
::No, Refering to someone in what you do does not make you together in one basket. Bassiri was protesting against Spain's colonialism, and he was killed by the Spanish way before there were any Polisario. Then "almost" all Polisario's founders were inside Morocco either in the South (Tantan) or studying in Rabat. So when they started the Polisario front, it is normal they looked backward to some model, and the closest to mind was Bassiri. Of course, they also were inspired by their fathers, the veterans of the Moroccan Liberation Army in The South who fought for the reunification of the Saguia Hamra and Rio de Oro to the motherland, under Sultan Mohamed V. I have a video, where many veterans relate their memories, about how they fought for their country, Morocco, and about their biggest of memories, the visit of Mohamed V to Mhamid Alghizlane where they vowed, they would not spare anything to reunite under his throne. But to say that Polisario is a "continuation" of Bassiri's movement is wrong and misleading.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the Moroccan view: that nasty Algeria went in and kidnapped Sahrawis, placed them in the monstrous death camps of Tindouf, and then brainwashed them to fight Morocco (thanks to cosmic mind-warping rays provided by Fidel Castro and the Free Masons, of course). I'm okay with removing "expelled" in favour of the pitifully neutral third voice's "were displaced", just to avoid more debate, though it is in many cases certainly accurate, but not to remove references to invasion. Because an invasion it was, with fighting. Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "View" you are saying is not the Moroccan one and has never been said by any Moroccan official or unofficial. Algeria did indeed made it clear it will do its utmost for the Sahara not to be part of Morocco; and has provided political and military support to the guerillas. Algeria, and you know it, attempted at the beginning to set foot in the Sahara, but was defeated at Amgala, 1976. The official reason for the presence of Algerian troops in Amgala, more than 300 Km deep inside the Sahara, is to help the refugees to safety. One needs to have a very low IQ to not understand that it means they were giving a ride to the refugees, in other words, displacing them from their land to Tindouf. So who is to blame for the displacement??. Those that were far enough have stayed home and are still in their homes in Layoune, Dakhla, Boujdour, etc. Why did not Morocco displaced them like the others, if it was Morocco who was displacing??. As to Fidel, there are many former Polisarians in Morocco that can silence you with what they endured in the Cuban ordeal. Separation from their families, and spending years in Cuba without seeing them, and forced to swallow the Marxist ideology of atheism that is contradictory with their strong Islamic backgrounds, etc. As to invasion, you surely believe that Morocco was sending its troops to a land that is not his. Well that is not the neutral POV, for, Morocco was in the eyes of many others sending troops to Saguia Alhamra and Rio de Oro on the same basis they were sent to Tarfaya and Tantan, and Ifni. So keep that word invasion specific to Polisario sites, but not on Wikipedia.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In favour of mentioning the M. A, but not of portraying that as some uncontroversial agreement -- they hold zero value in international law, and the invasion took place in spite of an ICJ ruling which called for letting the inhabitants themselves decide. Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Madrid Accords are mentionned without any special portrayel. different opinions about the treaty did exist, and that is normal given the fact that it created a situation not in favor of some. But sticking some's opinion here as a judgement on the MA is unacceptable.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The ICJ opinion says explicitly that there ARE ties to Morocco, but that these ARE NOT enough to negate self-determination, meaning that neither Morocco or Mauritania could just go in and take a chunk of the territory without consulting the inhabitants. You can't refer to the first part only, that's not a fair way of quoting the document.Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the Algeria/Polisario POV that takes the ICJ opinion out of its circumstantial context. The ICJ was asked for an opinion by Morocco I guess, in an effort to stop Spain from going ahead of staging a theatrical show that was called a referendum to make the territory a formally independent entity, but inderectly subordinate to Spain, and using it at the same time, as an argument against Morocco, that if The Sahara was Moroccan for less than a century ago, is becoming no more so, how could Morocco demand the return of Ceuta and Meillia that were Moroccan the last time more than 4 centuries ago, i.e. removing the argument of the historical rights. So the ICJ took in the case when there were a process of so called self-determination in progress with the spanish referendum. The court gave its opinion, where it confirmed that Moroccco's and Mauritania's claims for the territory were not coming from nothing, but based on historical ties. And so as not to be an obstacle against the ongoing process, the ICJ added (and that had nothing to do with the 2 questions it was asked) something like in simple language: Here I answered what you asked, but continue doing or not doing what you wanted to do, as if I (the ICJ) did not say anything. In the Islamic tradition, the Beyaa, is the act by which one is a member of a community. So Morocco ( and Mauritania till it officially abandoned its claims in 1979) is in his right to claim the Sahara as his. The Polisario/Algeria, of course, focused not on the answers of the ICJ to the 2 questions, but on its statments for the record that the answers were only advisory and should not alter anything that was under consideration or underway (in this case self-determination referendum). I hope you look at it from a different perspective than the Algeria/Polisario one.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem with this, except its 44 states now with Haiti, and that the first edit should make clear the institutions are based in the Sahrawi autonomous areas around Tindouf, not in Algiers or suchlike.Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations for the Haitian case. As to "the Sahrawi autonomous areas around Tindouf", this is the first time I hear something like that. There are autonomous regions in Algeria, the Kabyls, did you hear the call?.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone left from Western Sahara and then entered Morocco, he didn't "return" to Morocco except in the eyes of Moroccan expansionist nationalism -- if Lahbib Ayoub now adheres to that, fine, but Wikipedia should remain neutral on the issue. Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is the kind of headache that I most hate: No Mr Ayoub, you said you returned,but I say no you did not. You departed, .. wait, you left, or shall I say, you took off, or .. well wait Mr Ayoub, I will think for you for the right terminology that suits your return to your land. For once, to put it correctly, he did not "left from" Western Sahara, but "disappeared/vanished/evaporated" from Tindouf, Algeria. So he should be returning to Morocco from Algeria, that is right?. As to Moroccan expansionist imperialist colonialist *ist ... nationalism , wow I am impressed. All that without Gas/Petro-dollars nor nuclear arms. They are great the Moroccans.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me. ¦ Reisio 02:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Some fine, some un-fine by me. As seen above. But I'll avoid an immediate revert -- hopefully A. Jalil can have a look at the portions we disagree on, and make it acceptable to all? Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arre, please spare yourself the pain, and us with you. The anarchy you used to fill the Morocco related articles with anti-Morocco rethoric is over. I am not putting pro-Morocco stuff either, but we can be sure none will be.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modifications explained

message: * There is no link between the Polisario and previous Sahrawi political activity. The Polisario founding members were Moroccan students, sons of Moroccan Southern Liberation Army veterans. The only founding Polisario member to have had a contact with Bassiri is Lehbib Ayoub, who is now in defence of Moroccan territorial integrity. The preambule of the SADR constitution says "The Sahrawi people - arab, african and Moslem - who decided to start its struggle of liberation in 1973, under the the guidance of the POLISARIO Front, to free the country from colonialism ...". So the Poilsario takes on itself the credit to have started the struggle, and if someone alledges the opposite, there should be reliable sources (other than Hodges) to support that.
:This is not true. Numerous activists were active in both Bassiri's movement and in the Polisario, and Polisario has from the very start referred to him as a father of the nation, and his Zemla riots as a pivotal moment for the decision to enter into armed struggle (the organization of what would later become Polisario began only months after it happened). All of the books mentioned below, that discuss the Polisario, detail these connections. Hodges, by the way, is one of the main (I'd say THE main, or who else?) authorities on the background of the organization, so you can't dismiss him out of hand like that.
::No, Refering to someone in what you do does not make you together in one basket. Bassiri was protesting against Spain's colonialism, and he was killed by the Spanish way before there were any Polisario. Then "almost" all Polisario's founders were inside Morocco either in the South (Tantan) or studying in Rabat. So when they started the Polisario front, it is normal they looked backward to some model, and the closest to mind was Bassiri. Of course, they also were inspired by their fathers, the veterans of the Moroccan Liberation Army in The South who fought for the reunification of the Saguia Hamra and Rio de Oro to the motherland, under Sultan Mohamed V. I have a video, where many veterans relate their memories, about how they fought for their country, Morocco, and about their biggest of memories, the visit of Mohamed V to Mhamid Alghizlane where they vowed, they would not spare anything to reunite under his throne. But to say that Polisario is a "continuation" of Bassiri's movement is wrong and misleading.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The beginnings

message: * "Moroccan and Mauritanian troops invaded and occupied the Western Sahara and expelled most of its native population.". The Polisario front says the refugees FLED to Algeria. Here we have someone sick enough to even contradict the Polisario front and claim Morocco/Mauritania expelled the civilians, though the majority of Sahrawis currently live under Moroccan Administration. Algeria was involved in displacing civilians to Tindouf, and Algerian military was engaging in direct confrontation with the Moroccan Royal Forces deep inside Western Sahara (Amgala, 1976).
:Well, that's the Moroccan view: that nasty Algeria went in and kidnapped Sahrawis, placed them in the monstrous death camps of Tindouf, and then brainwashed them to fight Morocco (thanks to cosmic mind-warping rays provided by Fidel Castro and the Free Masons, of course). I'm okay with removing "expelled" in favour of the pitifully neutral third voice's "were displaced", just to avoid more debate, though it is in many cases certainly accurate, but not to remove references to invasion. Because an invasion it was, with fighting. Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "View" you are saying is not the Moroccan one and has never been said by any Moroccan official or unofficial. Algeria did indeed made it clear it will do its utmost for the Sahara not to be part of Morocco; and has provided political and military support to the guerillas. Algeria, and you know it, attempted at the beginning to set foot in the Sahara, but was defeated at Amgala, 1976. The official reason for the presence of Algerian troops in Amgala, more than 300 Km deep inside the Sahara, is to help the refugees to safety. One needs to have a very low IQ to not understand that it means they were giving a ride to the refugees, in other words, displacing them from their land to Tindouf. So who is to blame for the displacement??. Those that were far enough have stayed home and are still in their homes in Layoune, Dakhla, Boujdour, etc. Why did not Morocco displaced them like the others, if it was Morocco who was displacing??. As to Fidel, there are many former Polisarians in Morocco that can silence you with what they endured in the Cuban ordeal. Separation from their families, and spending years in Cuba without seeing them, and forced to swallow the Marxist ideology of atheism that is contradictory with their strong Islamic backgrounds, etc. As to invasion, you surely believe that Morocco was sending its troops to a land that is not his. Well that is not the neutral POV, for, Morocco was in the eyes of many others sending troops to Saguia Alhamra and Rio de Oro on the same basis they were sent to Tarfaya and Tantan, and Ifni. So keep that word invasion specific to Polisario sites, but not on Wikipedia.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In favour of mentioning the M. A, but not of portraying that as some uncontroversial agreement -- they hold zero value in international law, and the invasion took place in spite of an ICJ ruling which called for letting the inhabitants themselves decide. Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Madrid Accords are mentionned without any special portrayel. different opinions about the treaty did exist, and that is normal given the fact that it created a situation not in favor of some. But sticking some's opinion here as a judgement on the MA is unacceptable.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The ICJ opinion says explicitly that there ARE ties to Morocco, but that these ARE NOT enough to negate self-determination, meaning that neither Morocco or Mauritania could just go in and take a chunk of the territory without consulting the inhabitants. You can't refer to the first part only, that's not a fair way of quoting the document.Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the Algeria/Polisario POV that takes the ICJ opinion out of its circumstantial context. The ICJ was asked for an opinion by Morocco I guess, in an effort to stop Spain from going ahead of staging a theatrical show that was called a referendum to make the territory a formally independent entity, but inderectly subordinate to Spain, and using it at the same time, as an argument against Morocco, that if The Sahara was Moroccan for less than a century ago, is becoming no more so, how could Morocco demand the return of Ceuta and Meillia that were Moroccan the last time more than 4 centuries ago, i.e. removing the argument of the historical rights. So the ICJ took in the case when there were a process of so called self-determination in progress with the spanish referendum. The court gave its opinion, where it confirmed that Moroccco's and Mauritania's claims for the territory were not coming from nothing, but based on historical ties. And so as not to be an obstacle against the ongoing process, the ICJ added (and that had nothing to do with the 2 questions it was asked) something like in simple language: Here I answered what you asked, but continue doing or not doing what you wanted to do, as if I (the ICJ) did not say anything. In the Islamic tradition, the Beyaa, is the act by which one is a member of a community. So Morocco ( and Mauritania till it officially abandoned its claims in 1979) is in his right to claim the Sahara as his. The Polisario/Algeria, of course, focused not on the answers of the ICJ to the 2 questions, but on its statments for the record that the answers were only advisory and should not alter anything that was under consideration or underway (in this case self-determination referendum). I hope you look at it from a different perspective than the Algeria/Polisario one.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawal of Spain

message: I added that
* "a parliament and a judiciary, all based in Algeria". That is a fact. all SADR institutions are in Algeria.
* "Abdelaziz has been its president for more than three decades". This is a fact. Abdelaziz has been in office for more than 3 decades (August, 1976- )(We are in November 2006).
*  the number of countries to still recognize the SADR is 43. "and has been acknowledged as a state by over 70 states although". more than 70, is not the same as more than 80. 
:No problem with this, except its 44 states now with Haiti, and that the first edit should make clear the institutions are based in the Sahrawi autonomous areas around Tindouf, not in Algiers or suchlike.Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations for the Haitian case. As to "the Sahrawi autonomous areas around Tindouf", this is the first time I hear something like that. There are autonomous regions in Algeria, the Kabyls, did you hear the call?.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic 

message: *"defected" changed to returned: Lehbib Ayoub declared he returned to his country in response to the king's call and because he saw how Algeria proposed a partition of Western Sahara in 2001 to James Baker. If Lehbib Ayoub and Hadrami etc. say they "returned", who in the world can be so ridiculous to qualify their return of "defection" or "left the ranks of .."
--A Jalil 14:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone left from Western Sahara and then entered Morocco, he didn't "return" to Morocco except in the eyes of Moroccan expansionist nationalism -- if Lahbib Ayoub now adheres to that, fine, but Wikipedia should remain neutral on the issue. Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is the kind of headache that I most hate: No Mr Ayoub, you said you returned,but I say no you did not. You departed, .. wait, you left, or shall I say, you took off, or .. well wait Mr Ayoub, I will think for you for the right terminology that suits your return to your land. For once, to put it correctly, he did not "left from" Western Sahara, but "disappeared/vanished/evaporated" from Tindouf, Algeria. So he should be returning to Morocco from Algeria, that is right?. As to Moroccan expansionist imperialist colonialist *ist ... nationalism , wow I am impressed. All that without Gas/Petro-dollars nor nuclear arms. They are great the Moroccans.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me. ¦ Reisio 02:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Some fine, some un-fine by me. As seen above. But I'll avoid an immediate revert -- hopefully A. Jalil can have a look at the portions we disagree on, and make it acceptable to all? Arre 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arre, please spare yourself the pain, and us with you. The anarchy you used to fill the Morocco related articles with anti-Morocco rethoric is over. I am not putting pro-Morocco stuff either, but we can be sure none will be.--A Jalil 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Algeria and Polisario

message: I deleted the following "Today Polisario controls the part of the western sahara on the east of the moroccan wall. Comprizing about a third of the territory" because this bit of information isn't founded. In fact, this part of western sahara was named by the UN as a buffer zone which is part of the 1991 ceasefire agreement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 12:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No The buffer zone is only 3-5 km on either side, the rest of the territory is administered per the Framework Agreement by the SADR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there is no mention of Free Zone in UN resolutions !!! In such case and to be in conformance with the UN resolutions, I propose to get rid of this term. Besides in UN resoutions, there is no mention of territories under SADR control.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So? What do UN resolutions have to do with anything? The Free Zone is still real and is still a product of MINURSO and the cease-fire. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UN resolutions and reports of the General Assembly on Western Sahara are the impartial notes on the Western Sahara issue. Everything else is about pro-moroccan or pro-polisarian thses. Saying that the MINURSO is dealing with a 'Free Zone' on Western Sahara is simply a copy&past of what polisario propaganda is spreading on Internet. In UN work and reports, there is no mention to a 'Free Zone'. Each time Polisario front has gone inside the buffer zone, he was threatned by the MINURSO to stop his activities. Each time Morocco did the same, he got the same appeals. We need to respect the reality of the ground and the content of the ceasfire agreement where the zone is called 'Buffer Zone'. Anything else is about misinformation.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Buffer Zone You're not paying attention: the Free Zone and the buffer are two different things, both established by the Agreed Framework. Why you try to conflate the two is beyond me. Obviously, the UN is not going to call the area administered by the SADR the Free Zone or Liberated Territories; the fact that they don't use those names in no way makes them cease to exist. I also don't see what exactly your point is and what it has to do with this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't do the job of the UN. If the UN hasn't statute any 'Free Zone', I think this appelation must disappear from the text. There are many other misinformation on your text. I will be back to comment them in the very near future ;-)--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all Wikipedia has a guideline for using the most common name, not for using whatever the UN says something is. If there was a more common name for the region, it would be used. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Moroccan Wall stalemates the war 

message: In a revision on  2009-05-20T11:54:23, user:Jahailyass added a section called "THE SOLUTION OF THE CENTRY". The text is not formatted, making it one long paragraph, appears biased and un-encyclopedic, and has no citations apart from a link to a blog. I assume this is vandalism and I am deleting it. --Pgan002 (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting vandalism section "THE SOLUTION OF THE CENTRY" 

message: "In the mid-1980s, Libya detached itself from the conflict, as it joined Morocco in a short-lived union."
What is this? If this is true, then I think Wikipedia is missing an article somewhere.--189.33.40.151 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just in relations, not a political union. See here for more info. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article? 

message: The infobox lists Communism under Polisario Ideology; I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. 
In a number of countries "Communism" is used as an epithet for movements and ideas that would be considered heretical by any recognized Communist party, So unless someone can sight some credible sources listing the frente Polisario as a Marxist-Leninist movement, I'm going to go ahead and delete it.--69.140.82.63 (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism 

message: We should keep to one of the two forms, not switch between "POLISARIO" and "Polisario" in the same article. Unless there are good objections, I will replace all instances of "POLISARIO" with "Polisario". – Danmichaelo (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I will replace Polisario with POLISARIO, as acronyms are always in caps.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POLISARIO or Polisario 

message: Actually, the European strategic intelligence and security center (ESISC) is not at all a "research center" but a commercial firm (sprl), officially registered as such in Belgium (see the article in the wikipedia in French. It produces only what it is paid for, its "reports" are indeed not considered as having the least scientific value among academics (its chairman is Claude Moniquet, a former (?) agent of the French secret service who masqueraded for 20 years as a journalist, as he explained himself in the Belgian newspaper La Capitale) and it has presently as a client the Moroccan embassy in Brussels for which it designs and sends an electronic bulletin. As to its "staff", besides Moniquet there is only Dimitri Dombret, former director of the lobby "European Friends of Israel". And according to its own official report to the National Bank of Belgium it has no paid employee. --Pylambert (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ESISC report on Polisario 

message: I think a remember hearing somewhere that the Polisario Front (at least at one point) subscribed to Arab nationalism. Does anyone know if that was (or still is) the case? It seems so considering their usage of the pan-Arab colors and the fact that their partially recognized state is called the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Charles Essie (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Arab nationalism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Polisario Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060601120914/http://www.genevacall.org:80/news/testi-press-releases/gc-03nov05-polisario.htm to http://www.genevacall.org/news/testi-press-releases/gc-03nov05-polisario.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060904233342/http://www.genevacall.org:80/news/testi-press-releases/gc-02mar06-sahara.htm to http://www.genevacall.org/news/testi-press-releases/gc-02mar06-sahara.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061210082330/http://www.merip.org:80/mero/mero080103.html to http://www.merip.org/mero/mero080103.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under "Political Ideology", it says that "by 1991, the Polisario was explicitly pro-free-market." Meanwhile, the infobox says "Islamic Socialism" and "Democratic Socialism". Being pro-free-market and socialist are, by definition, diametrically opposed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:301:4980:50AA:3E3B:CE78:326 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency (pro-free-market vs socialist) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Polisario Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721144448/http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo035/fmo035-6.htm to http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo035/fmo035-6.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The cited source does not say that. This is the first case of source misrepresentation to push a POV.
:The cited source does not say that either. This is the second case of source misrepresentation to push a POV.
:The two cited sources do not say that. This is the third case of source misrepresentation to push a POV.
 what exactly are you playing at? M.Bitton (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect you to address the concerns about the sources that you have clearly misrepresented. M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources misrepresentation to push a POV

message: Might I ask what we are edit warring over? Can we stop edit warring and reach a general consensus? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @user:Blaze The Wolf unfortunately @M.bitton appears to be making edits based on ideological motivation and claiming my edits misrepresent the primary sources listed. This is not the case, I am trying to draw attention to a legitimate human rights issue and am providing primary sourcing in doing so, whereas @M.bitton is selectively deleting only information that appears to conflict with his views.Incrdiblehumans87 (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I don't actually know anything on this subject so I might see if I can get a 3rd editor to come in and resolve this. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

text: @User:Incrdiblehumans87 @User:M.Bitton Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring 

message: Polisario Front and terrorism 
The Polisario Front, a separatist group operating in the Western Sahara region, has long been a source of regional instability. While presenting itself as a liberation movement fighting for self-determination, evidence suggests a deep connection between the Polisario Front and terrorist activities. This article aims to explore the link between the Polisario Front and terrorism, shedding light on notable incidents and supporting evidence from reputable sources.
A Twitter post by the Ausa Coalition (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) highlights the connection between the Polisario Front and terrorist activity. Although the content of the tweet cannot be directly accessed, the mention of the Polisario Front's involvement in terrorism underscores the seriousness of this issue.1(https://twitter.com/ausacoalition/status/1661401453817126916) In a news article published by MAP News, Spanish victims have called for the immediate arrest of an individual named Brahim, citing his association with Polisario Front terrorism. The article provides firsthand accounts of victims affected by the group's violent actions, further supporting the assertion of a connection between the Polisario Front and terrorism.2 (https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/politics/washington-requested-designate-algeria-state-sponsor-terrorism/20230124151318159892.html)  More evidence is found in other media such as Radio France Internationale and various researches. An article from Radio France Internationale (RFI) reports on the questioning of a Polisario Front leader in Spain regarding allegations of torture. This incident raises concerns about the group's engagement in violent practices and indicates a potential connection to terrorism.3 (https://jamestown.org/program/al-qaeda-infiltration-of-the-western-saharas-polisario-)
Among the research on the subject, an analysis published by the Jamestown Foundation delves into the infiltration of the Polisario Front by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). The article outlines instances of cooperation and coordination between the two groups, revealing the terrorist elements present within the Polisario Front.4 (https://www.mapnews.ma/en/actualites/politics/spanish-victims-polisario-terrorism-demand-immediate-arrest-man-named-brahim)
Webpages about Moroccan politics have also provided information about the Polisario Front. Morocco On The Move, a platform dedicated to providing accurate information about Morocco, sheds light on the true nature of the Polisario Front. The article highlights the group's use of terrorism and guerrilla tactics, reaffirming the link between the Polisario Front and terrorist activities.5 ( https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20210601-polisario-leader-questioned-in-spain-over-torture-allegations-western-sahara-morocco) Atalayar, a Spanish digital media outlet, reports on Washington's request to designate Algeria as a state sponsor of terrorism due to its support for the Polisario Front. This suggests a wider network of support for the group, adding weight to the claims of its involvement in terrorist activities.6 (https://moroccoonthemove.com/policy/the-truth-about-the-polisario/) Likewise, the matter has also been analyzed in the Middle Eastern media. Middle East Online presents an alarming report detailing the involvement of over 100 Polisario Front separatists in Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. This provides concrete evidence of the infiltration of the Polisario Front by terrorist elements.7 ( https://middle-east-online.com/en/over-100-polisario-separatists-active-within-al-qaeda-maghreb) RichardMiller330 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Please simplyfy your text into "change X to Y" format. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023