France Is Rewarded for Its Pro-PLO Vote at the UN -- 12 Murdered

Unfortunately, sometimes our dismal and dreary predictions come true. My last blog post last week foresaw that France would be "rewarded" for its outrageous pro-PLO vote at the UN Security Council.

What we don't know is how the Arabs/Muslims in France will reward Hollande. Now, that France has voted at the Security Council in favor of an outrageous pro-PLO/PA Arab proposed resolution, maybe the days to come will bring more Muslim and Arab rewards for France. [here]

Now we see that terrorists, apparently professional killers, went into the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly that several years ago published an issue mocking Muhammad and more recently published a cartoon mocking him. The attack was well-planned and the attackers knew things that were not generally known. The offices of Charlie Hebdo had been firebombed several years ago after the issue on Muhammad was published. The attackers knew the new address which was not supposed to be public knowledge. They also seemed to know that there was going to be an editorial staff meeting in the offices at the time that they attacked. They went around the office asking, Are you so-and-so [names of cartoonists, writers, editors, etc]? Those who answered, Yes, were shot and killed. Before entering the offices, the policeman guarding the entrance was shot. One of the terrorists came up to him as he lay on the ground and made sure he was dead with additional shots.

The terrorists made their motives clear. They screamed, Revenge for the Prophet Muhammad & Allahu Akbar.

On the way out, the terrorists commandeered a car, perhaps a police car. They fled from the offices of Charlie Hebdo on Boulevard Richard Lenoir in the 11th borough [arrondissement] of Paris to the 19th borough. The last that I heard was that they were surrounded by police in one of the suburbs, banlieues, of Paris.

President François Hollande arrived at the scene of the crime and was joined by other high officials. He said some of the expected platitudes, including a promise to pursue and catch the culprits. Will he understand that this event was a reward for voting in the UN Security Council in favor of setting up another Arab state to be called "Palestine," whereas the Palestinian Authority was not willing to agree that this state to be would exist at peace with Israel and that it would foreswear any future claims against Israel and would acknowledge that the Israel was a Jewish national state?

 - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here are relevant links in French [ici] One of the attackers shouts that he took revenge for the sake of "the Prophet Muhammad" & "Charlie Hebdo is killed"
The cartoonists/writers who were murdered [ici]
François Hollande, president of France, calls this event "an act of exceptional barbarity"[ici]
Javier Solana, chief foreign affairs officer of the European Union, receives Arab/Muslim demands to censor European publications that are said to insult Islam [here]. Solana reminds  me very strongly of Pierre Laval. Solana traveled to Arab capitals to receive demands in the wake of the Muhammad Cartoons controversy and riots in late 2005 and early 2006.

Why Are Ukrainian Officials & Bashar Assad Allowed to Call Enemies "Terrorists" but the Western Press Won't Use the Word?

Forty years ago in the 1970s, the Irish Republican Army Provisional faction was performing acts of terrorism and sometimes mass murder in Northern Ireland. And the BBC called them "terrorists." In the same years, the Fatah --meaning conquest of a city in Arabic-- was acting as a mass murderous terrorist group. Neither Fatah nor its partners in mass murder terrorism against Israelis and Jews, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,  the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine plus half a dozen smaller murder factions, was called "terrorist" by the BBC. Who can reckon why this discrepancy? Why were IRA Provos called "terrorists" but not Fatah or the PFLP or the PDFLP?

Maybe the BBC thought that British blood was redder than Jewish-Israeli blood. I can only speculate.

In recent years it is not only the BBC that refuses to call terrorists what they are. Now it is a well-established widespread practice in Western press and media outlets that terrorists are called "militants." In earlier years, a militant was a guy who came out to walk the picket line during a strike, a guy who came to the picket line every day, even in bad weather when most people would be more comfortable at home. A militant for a revolutionary faction was somebody who would pick up a thousand leaflets printed by his faction and stand on a street corner all day giving them out. But nobody in those far off days  would call somebody who planted a bomb in a school playground a "militant."

But the word "terrorist" is still  used these days. Bashar Assad called his domestic enemies "terrorists" in 2011 even before allies and cothinkers of al-Qa`ida had joined the struggle against Assad, or what is now a struggle  to determine the future of Syria.
When Assad started calling the rebels against him "terrorists" before it was  true, back in 2011, he was wrong. But he knew very well what and who were terrorists. He himself and his father before him had funded and trained Arab terrorists attacking Israel. The Assad regime in Syria had funded and trained several of the smaller PLO factions since the 1960s, and Hamas & Hizbullah, since the 1980s. After the  US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Assad regime armed and trained terrorists who operated in Iraq against the foreign occupation troops, including Americans of course. These Syrian-trained terrorists especially took to using bombs to slaughter the Shiite population in Iraq. Surely the Assad regime knew that these were terrorists. By the way, today Assad is allied with Shiites warriors against Sunni Muslim rebels against him.

Now we know that Assad's regime is greatly aided by the Russian government. The Russian govt also supports rebels and insurgents in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. These rebels and insurgents who favor Russian rule over their home areas in Eastern Ukraine, in the Don Basin, and so on, are rough and abusive and often thuggish. But they are hardly terrorists in the sense of Hamas or Hizbullah or al-Qa`ida. Yet officials of the Ukrainian government, Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko and so on, call these rebels/insurgents "terrorists." This is one of the things that keeps the new Ukrainian govt from having any credibility,

Now the new Ukrainian govt is supported by Western powers including the EU & USA. So Russia's ally in Syria, Assad, called his opponents "terrorists"  even when the rebels fighting him were not terrorists.
Today, Ukrainian officials supported by the EU & USA call the rebels that Russia supports "terrorists" when they are not.

Meanwhile, Western news outlets like BBC, France24, the New York Times and so many others, call the real terrorists mere "militants."

Hence the word terrorist has become an ill-treated orphan. Can't somebody sort out the meanings and  usages of the words "terrorist" & "militant"? Where is Orwell when we need him?