Morocco's relatively reformist leadership is, by virtue of its reformist tendencies, not sufficiently Islamic. And so it must be fought. From Reuters, with thanks to DFS:
RABAT: Moroccan authorities are holding 14 people suspected of belonging to a regional radical Islamist group linked to Al Qaeda, government officials said yesterday.The 14 suspects had planned to carry out an unspecified "terrorist plot" on Morocco, with the help of Al Qaeda-linked foreign fighters who would travel from the Sahel-Sahara region, they said.
Morocco, a staunch US ally in the global fight on terror, has been on alert since 2003 when suicide bombings killed 45 people in Casablanca, the country’s commercial capital.
It has arrested more than 3,000 people since then and broken up more than 50 radical Islamist cells.
But it is the first time that the authorities have announced the arrest of people with suspected links to foreign cells.
"The 14 persons are suspected of being linked to a global terrorist movement which has connections with small groups operating in the Sahel-Sahara region and links with members of a group based on the Algeria-Mali border," an official statement said.
The statement did not name the groups but government officials said the small groups were Islamist cells linked to the main Algerian Islamic rebel Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) faction.
Anti-terrorism police officials in North Africa and Europe have voiced concerns that the GSPC might turn itself into a magnet for radical Islamists in the region, providing them with weapons and military training in lawless areas of the Sahara desert.
The GSPC said in September it had joined Al Qaeda, whose leader Ayman al-Zawhiri urged the Algerian rebel group to become a "bone in the throat of the American and French crusaders".
I concur. Nor do moderate moslems.
IF... The USA was to capitulate and become a Muslim nation converting the Constitution into Sharia they would be in the same un-enviable position of having to deal with Homicide bombers for exact same reason Morrocco, Algeria, Jordan (moderates as seen by some)have been under attack.
The Jihadists shall inflict their brand of Islamism regardless of what you do to placate them- unless of course it is total capitulation.
This is what the vast majority of Islamic apologizers and sympathisers in the West would prefer to happen by default. They would choose that life over what we have. I say if they want that type of life, book your flights now! There are about 30 candidate Hard-Line Islamic countries that would love to accept your pilgrammage.
Don't stay here and soil our country.
Here's an excellent article about Morroco and Terrorist Cells from May 9, 2005 in US News and World Reports:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050509/9morocco.htm
So, it's not like they haven't known for quite some time...
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
A-J-C. The point I was making was not that America SHOULD or WOULD do such a thing - even though it is looking more and more a possibility every day - it was that no matter how far you want to go towards Islam in the world, it would not be far or fast enough, and the attacks shall continue.
It is not enough to strike fear into every huma being, they like the Communists before them need tokeep the fear instilled in everyone so that they can totally control as many people as possible by as few people as possible.
Islam's violent Death Cult can only expand when
bloated by corpses.When there are no Infidels around to kill,they turn upon each other,citing
"Not Islamic enough..."That wicked old Paedophile
Mo may be dead but his crazy followers are still braying for murder and destruction.Let us boycott
all Muslim countries although with Mosques & black tented slaves to Allah everywhere one is not quite sure if you are in Britain & Europe but Middle East these days...
Calling a spade a spade here it's safe to say that the only reason Morocco fights terrorism is to preserve its royalty and to get a pat on the head from the West. So far, so good on both counts.
Just as there were a few Saudis and Yemenis in 9/11, there were Moroccans related to 3/11 in Madrid.
Morocco is a Monarchy, a traditional Arab Monarchy, just as Saudi Arabia. Its ruler has the title of "Amir al-Muminin", i.e., prince of the believers and he is the head in religious affairs.
He controls his country with an iron hand, while squeazing it out for his personal benefit (this has always been the Moroccan way), all in a system of neglect under a façade conceived to attract and deceive Westerners.
It seems all this have not been enough, for radical Islamists (the equivalent to Hamas, as opposed to King Mohammad VI and his guys, who are Fatah-like)are unhappy with the arrangement: their country is not Islamic enough, their King and Government is corrupt and sinful (not in the sense we give to these words) and they believe they can run Morocco much better...to carry out purification of the population and the Jihad (guess who is in their shorlist of targets?...)
To Spanish Guy,
I know I'm somewhat late on this thread, but what is your current view on West-Morocco relations? Do you feel Morocco should be outright boycotted the way blatantly hostile countries like Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan should definitely be?
My personal view of the country is conflicted. Obviously, the leadership has substantial character flaws: many of them think they're better than not only the Europeans but all their african neighbors. Not only did they take Western Sahara and severely oppress the Sawrahis, (ignored by the msn as it could not be connected to the evil JOOS), but they've also tried to take over Algerian territory as soon as Algeria was independent.
However, many securalists in Morocco, including the Surete National security, seem interested in constraining islam as much as possible, like in nearby Tunisia. Furthermore, the Morrocans who are under assualt from militant muslims for being allied to the US probably deserve Western support, as do the people of countries like the Central Asian states and China who have all been trying to crush militant islam.
Lastly, I am aware of the recent fighting between Morocco and Spain over the exclaves. This is an issue where I think America should probably just be nuetral as it was merely a typical quarrel over trivial territory. One one hand the spanish have a claim to it since 1417, but on the other hand the Moroccans could realistically argue that since the portugese and spanish onyl claimed in in the first place by military force, the Moroccans should also have a right to control it too. Howerever, I can understand why the spanish and moroccans would be upset over it, it's just that I don't see how the conflict should necessarily lead to the West viewing Morocco as an enemy, or vice versa.
Interested in your response.
maxwell46&2,
Morocco is an expansionist State. It is heir to the Middle Age Almoravid, Almohad and Benimeri empires which controlled large areas of North-west Africa and Al-Andalus.
That memory, plus the nationalistic interests of the political élite, have created a political design that most Moroccans easily support.
When Morocco was finally taken into Protectorate in 1912, its borders did not include the territories they now claim as theirs:
-Mauritania, which is an independent country.
-Western Sahara, which they have annexed, with Saudi, Arab League, French, Spanish dhimmi and Kissinger´s help. It is not internationally recognized and the Western Sahara is still to be decolonized.
-south-western Algeria. Moroccans claim sovereignty over the area around Tindouf and they challenge the present border arrangemente. This lead Moroccans and Algerians to a short War of the Dunes in 1962, the year of Algeria´s independence.
-Ceuta, Melilla and the other tiny Spanish presidios in North Africa. Morocco´s claiming of these territories is not recognized by the United Nations. These territories are integral part of Spain, there is no legal difference whatsoever between them and the mainland and the historical connection between them and the peninsula dates centuries. Their population is Spanish as well (Christian, Jew, even Hindu). In recent times there has been an influx of Moroccan immigrants to Ceuta and Melilla who have altered the population mix. But the majority is still Christian (or post-Christian...).
- The Canary Islands (Spain) and Madeira (Portugal). Morocco has not publicly claimed sovereignty over these archipels, however, it is common knowledge there that thay want them, and in official publications, schooltexts, etc they tend to include them into their irredent territories.
- In their wildest dreams, some Moroccans also claim Al-Andalus as part of Morocco.
You can see Morocco´s wide array of territorial interests. There is not a single unaffected neighbour of Morocco.
After Morocco´s independence the Istiqlal party was the instrument of the ruling class in Morocco (whose collective name is "al-Makhzen") to vie for territorial agrandisement and conquest. But this élite is sophisticated enough to disguise their aims in the most attractive way, thence their strong pro-Western policy all along the Cold War and since. The Western Sahara occupation is so far their most outstanding success.
As for Spain, you should keep in mind that we are infidels, kaffir. Therefore it is, simply, unacceptable for them to contemplate infidels holding sovereignty over any territory they claim as Islamic (simply because it once was it). There are many examples of countries whose territory is geographically divided between different land areas: Turkey, Egypt, Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the USA, etc. There is nothing special about Spain´s Ceuta and Melilla. The only reason they pretend they have a right over them is the exploitation of the colonial guilt, even if they are not legally entitled to claim them.
But on top of that please remember the populations there and the nature of the (jihadi) enemy we face here. The former German FM Joschka Fischer said once that "should Israel ever falls down, the next target would be Spain". Al Andalus was here, and they lost it. They have idealized it and you´ll find plenty of references to it throughout the Muslim world.
Not everybody here realized that. PC thought, multiculturalism and the sheer distance between the mindset of most people in Islamic societies and that of ours make together very difficult for some people to understand the threat. However there is widespread lack of trust on Moroccans in Spain, and, generally, attitudes are negative (though not aggresive).
As for helping those opposing the jihad in Morocco, I think we can follow the same lessons we should have learnt elsewhere: never give open assistance. Whatever kind of help you might offer, it should be covert, otherwise you discredit and jeopardize them in front of their community.
But we should also choose carefully who are our true friends. And, certainly, the Surété Nationale and other human-rights abusers are not. They are the protectors of a corrupt and unenlightened régime, they are not comparable to Tunisian authorities (hard people, but they give) or the Turkish secular-republican military. In Morocco you have a tiny Jewish community; and they should absolutely be helped. With some exceptions: André Azoulay is a very high ranking Jewish official in the Palace of King Mohammad VI, he is a happy, rich dhimmi. Among Muslims: perhaps some middle class people in Casablanca and a few other places. But our REAL circle of friends there is not as wide as our dumb politicians and academia want you to believe.
Morocco sides with the West out of calculation of what their national interests are (Morocco is one of not many Muslim countries with real national counscience). But not out of ideological fervor or
like-mindedness. Let´s not confuse things.
Jordan, in this respect, is by far a much more enlightened and pro-Western régime (even if the, by the way, very nice population, is not).
I think the West should entertain the best possible relations with anyone in the Muslim world able to advance our security and interests, be that a Government or its opposition (or preferably, both). And we should also make sure they stay divided by whatever mean.
In North Africa, I believe, the West should support Algiers and Tunis. Algerians have been fighting the jihadists for many years. Their régime is not nice, make no illusion. But they fight our enemies (and theirs too). We are obvious allies. For Spain it is also an obvious ally to contain Morocco. We should also support Tunisia. Its President is a dictator, but a enlightened one who knows how to ruthlessly suppress the jihadists. For the time being both régimes do not have aggresive foreign policies, so you can respect them.
Lybia is always doubtful, but you can work with them in the economic field. As for Morocco, they should be told in clear terms to mind their own business and forget about their irredentism. This include allowing Western Saharans (who by now are not yet contaminated by the jihad ideology) to be decolonized; the same way as Indonesians had to do with East Timor. As for the regime, I don´t think it is secure as the population is growing more unhappy about it. I don´t see there is something we can do other than wait and see (and help covertly our friends...). I would certainly advise against open intervention in Moroccan affairs.