Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo

[JuliaL]

These two are using a tactic that you nor your buddies are able to respond to.

False
We would rather not sink to their level.
Other effective responses can and do protect our journalists.
Intelligence, police action, even NSA monitoring is intended to eliminate attacks like what happened at Charlie Hebdo.
There are ongoing arguments over the balance of liberty vs security, but the rarity of effective terrorist attacks in the west speaks to how well these approaches work as well as the incompetence of the attackers.
There is another balance at play, commercial media wants to put as many eyes on themselves as possible so they can sell those eyes to advertisers. This plays into the hands of those whose chief impact comes from small scale, dramatic violent events. Without media attention the structural or economic impact of terrorist attacks is negligible. The most effective terrorist attack (9/11) of recent memory had a substantial impact;
$178 billion in physical and direct economic damages.
However it was the violent -let's go get them- reaction that really cost: $3,122 billion mostly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/....html?_r=0
We would all like to see the terrorists get their comeuppance. They are despicable toads but an eye for an eye is a really antiquated strategy. We should publish more satirical cartoons and fewer breaking news reports on zealots with AKs.