The mainstream media was happy to spend hour after hour reporting on every aspect of the terrorist massacre at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine, where 12 people were shot and killed and more than a dozen more wounded. Yet none of them would show the actual moment when the Muslim gunmen shot a French policeman in the head. Should they have done so?

111 Responses to Question of the Day: Should the Mainstream Media Show French Policeman’s Execution [Show here]?

    • Seconded.

      I’ve read so much coverage of this event, and nothing…I mean nothing, conveys what this is about and what western culture faces, like the video of that unarmed French Policeman pleading for his life, only to have it so savagely, unremosefully, disposed of.

    • The main stream media is NOT in the news business, they are in the advertising sales business. So job #1 is to bring eyeballs to the screen. Anything that puts this at risk will not be covered.

      • Hey, what if one of the citizens in the area (on the roof, in particular) owned a SCARY BLACK “ASSULT RIFLE” with a 30 round magazine?

        Oh, that’s right, there is no need for military-style rifles to be “out in the streets.”

        I would have loved to have been on the roof and picked those guys off. If there was no other opportunity sooner, shooting them as they got into the car with an AR-15 would have been effective. Hit the driver thru the windshield and then fill the car with lead.

        • Bob please walk into the mental health clinic where I work. Anyone that would love to kill another human has some serious issues. I would not doubt my ability to defend myself or my loved ones but would never love to put myself into the situation where I would have to. So you are either 1) another Internet tough guy, 2) have a personality issue, or 3) have a mental illness. I hope for your sake it is number one because the mall called it is missing some ninjas.

        • @Jeff the Griz – so if you had an AR-15 up on that roof you wouldn’t have shot one of those guys who were in the middle of a killing rampage?

          An you would just assume that after they drive off they wouldn’t go harm another soul?

        • I do not know what I would have done if I was in that area, but
          I DO KNOW I would not love to insert my self in this situation. Life is not an action movie where the good guy always wins. Above you stated you would love to be there with your AR. Why? I can only think of 3 reasons someone would love to be in that situation. 1) keyboard commando- your talking big because you know how well your AR with 10 pounds of crap attached can punch holes in paper . 2) personality issue- you want to be a hero so you can feel important, possibly a narcissist, or have Antisocial personality disorder. 3) mentally ill, yes with current diagnostic manuals personality disorders are a diagnosis but there could also be some schizophrenia or schizo effective issue related to some bipolar causing you to have delusional thoughts. So I ask again why would you love to put yourself in the situation where you would have to use your firearm or kill another human? I will say I am not a coward, I have priorities. I have a family. I would make their safety my priority. I am not a LEO or military. I appreciate those that go towards danger but of those that I know none of them love killing or getting into gun fights.

        • I noticed a plant near the camera. Why not heave a few potted plants on to their car, or anything else handy? The best result would the killers deciding to come up the stairs after you, and possibly taking enough time to be caught.

          I’m sure I’d have been ducking and trying to hide for at least a few initial seconds, but if I were crazy enough to film it, I don’t think it would take more than a few seconds to be pissed off enough to start hevaing crap into the street just to distract them.

          Of course, armchair quarterbacking, hindsight, etc.

        • Jeff, I question how many LEO/military people you actually know because I’ve heard several say in response to situations like this that they would have loved to be there to do xyz. It doesn’t come from narcissism, delusion, or any of the rest of your assumptions, it comes from: Being trained to be in those situations and hating to see helpless people hurt by violent deviants. When your entire job and life is to deal with the asscrack of the universe every single day, day in and day out, seeing innocent people harmed makes you angry and want to do something.

          So there is nothing deviant or maladjusted or wrong about wanting to do something to stop innocent people being harmed by violence. It’s not necessarily a bunch of keyboard commandos. There are lots of LEOs and retired LEOs who come to this site. Possibly/probably active and retired military. How do you know Bob isn’t in this category. Even if he’s not, how do you know anything about his level of training?

          Even if he would die in such an endeavor, why have we decided to call bravery that used to be more standard among the men in this country “mental disorder” and “bravado”. There is plenty of macho crap that has no action behind it. But there is also a lot that does. Either way I don’t see anything deviant in this attitude toward such senseless acts of violence and terrorism.

        • Summer I understand what you are saying. I personally know a handfull of sheriff deputies (4), 1 former metro officer and a lot of veterans and active duty (20+) please reread his post above my first post. He would love to be on a roof top with AR picking guys off. That is why I made such a long reply. There is nothing wrong wanting to stop violence but there is something wrong when someone loves using violence in such a way. I have heard combat veterans say strange things about the rush of a firefight but as soon as they are home they want to go back “to keep buddies safe” or they just want out and never see combat again. Also as I said above I am not a coward but my first priority is to my family, I’m not a counter terrorist trained special forces guy. I’m a nurse that lives near Detroit that works in Mental health, I see my fair share of unique situations. If Bob is an anti terrorist trained alpha team leader with the military I will apologize for my rant. But I firmly believe he is talking big from his keyboard.

        • I was putting myself in the shoes of the person filming. If he could do that with a camera in hand, it could also have been a semi-auto rifle. At the point when they were getting in the car it looked like a good and relatively safe opportunity to fill the car with bullets. So if I’m “talking big from a keyboard”, so be it.

        • @JefftheGritz
          As a balanced, moral, law-abiding individual I have absolutely no qualms in saying I would love to shoot those men until they were dead as an act of community service.
          The is nothing deviant about justice, and make no mistake it would be justice. Defending the helpless when no one else can is not vigilantism, its basic human decency.

          Now, big boasting claims about “what I woulda dun” basically amount to ego masturbation – useless. But that”s not what Bob was doing. He was lamenting that no one was there who could have done something to help. He was lamenting the death of the innocent, and the triumph of evil men.

          Nothing could be further from “deviant”.

        • @Jeff I see where you’re coming from, but if you’re on a rooftop at a relatively safe vantage point and you happen to have a sniper rifle and some terrorists happen to be on the ground shooting some people up and you happen to be able to take them out, um… why wouldn’t you “love” to? That’s what confuses me.

          Talking big would be if Bob said… “Man, I’d love to just run into a crowd of those assholes bullets flying!” Because that wouldn’t be realistic or logical and would be WAY too “movie-like” to be likely to have a good outcome. And given the level of real life risk and threat in such a situation, that’s mere fantasy and big keyboard talk.

          But what Bob said he’d love to do seemed relatively safe and non-movie-like. It was a pretty specific scenario. I still see no issue with wanting to be on a roof picking those fools off. I mean… remember, these are people who are actively killing/assaulting other people. I think his point is well taken that the issue is… dude on the roof had a camera and that was the only weapon he had. But if he’d had an actual real big boy weapon, he might have been able to get shit done. I for one would have applauded such a thing over a video feed.

    • I agree. Also, we should expose the truth that Muhammad was a violent, narcissistic, mass-murdering psychotic and that Islam does in fact teach violence. And if you are ignorant enough to disagree with that statement, please look up the history of Muhammad’s life and teaching before you embarass yourself.

      • and a pedophile serial rapist with all his child brides. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume they were not consenting to all that.

        • I do agree, however the vast, vast majority of Muslims are not violent, or hateful towards the West. There are many peaceful practitioners of Islam, and many Imams who preach peace and condemn the extremists. However, those who do decide to shoot up innocent civilians using religion as an excuse should be held to their crimes, and executed with prejudice.

        • I agree there are peaceful practitioners… however I say that with a BIG caveat. It’s fairly well known that they are encouraged to lie and appear harmless (even if they aren’t) to get in a position to do things like terrorism. I’m not saying every muslim is a terrorist. I’m saying that when the terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are encouraged to lie and play-act at being nice and kind and peaceful and loving until they get their moment, excuse me for opting out of developing any friendships with “nice muslims”. No thank you. They may be perfectly innocent but I feel perfectly comfortable “profiling” people before I let them into my circle.

          Also, note that muslims tend to be “very peaceloving” as a group until they get enough of their kind in one area. In Europe there was a LOT of immigrating of muslims and them all trying to get along and making noise about assimilating some UNTIL they reached a critical mass that allowed them to start being violent vicious assturds.

          So excuse me for being highly skeptical of “peaceful muslims” and that it isn’t just part of a long game to position themselves well for later carnage. That’s the playbook they’ve been using for awhile now.

        • al-Taqiyya:
          deception; the islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.

          And there it is.

        • Also, before someone calls me a racist or compares it to anti-semitism. Being a Jew is both a religion AND a cultural identity/nationality. You can’t help it if you are born into a nationality. BELIEFS however are always able to be changed, and harmful beliefs that threaten civilized society should always be called out. Muslim isn’t a race. It’s a religion. And the vast majority, no matter how nice they pretend to be seem to be operating from 9th century goat-herder logic. I would not cry if I woke up tomorrow and the Muslim faith had somehow been wiped from the minds of the entire world. It’s a mind virus. And in the end it will destroy us if people don’t take it more seriously.

  1. I don’t know what it would achieve if they did. But then I came to maturity before the internet. Nothing seems to be off limits these days.

      • More significantly the libtard media refuses to show the cartoons that have the mohammadans panties twisted. At a minimum, these cartoons should recieve wall to wall coverage in the civilized world, if it is merely to poke a stick in the eye of these 9th century degenerates.

        • Those cartoons *will* receive wall to wall coverage *now*.

          Let’s see how long that lasts, given the libby legacy media’s short attention span toward any news coverage that doesn’t promote continuous drama, divisiveness, and their own biased progressive perspectives.

  2. It could be mind playing tricks on me but I thought I did see it early on – Fox or CNN. Perhaps I saw it on the web and just forgot where I saw it.

    • Fox did. watched it when I got to work. CNN are a bunch of politically correct cowards these days that self censor themselves. Why? I thought we were adults that can handle some of the unsettling truths of our little reality. CNN does not agree the truth matter anymore

    • FoxNC started playing that video in its unedited form. Then, as the morning progressed, began showing it only with a bunch of blurs so nobody would be offended.

      • Right. With the entirety of western civilization under attack (which is exactly what they have stated as their mission), let’s not offend anybody’s twee little fee fees. Let us just continue on with starbucks and my little pony as usual.

  3. Everyone’s brave enough to point camera’s, but no one’s brave enough to pull out a gun and defend themselves or their fellow citizens.

        • That seems a rather foolish and short-sighted fear unless they want their women and children enslaved and in hijab. But yeah, let’s worry about the law abiding citizens who DON’T want to decapitate people. That makes sense. o.O

    • I was thinking about those people with cameras recording the videos. Like most of us here on TTAG, I have guns at the ready in my home. It would never have occurred to me to grab a camera. But, I guess, if that’s all you have …

      • Well, thank you. What a fascinating comparison, and I had never thought of it. Yes, I can imagine an event as horrendous as this was, and every time my reaction would include my gun, wherever it was at that moment, not ever would I wonder where I left my camera. How society has changed.

  4. Why was there no bloodshed in the non edited video…you would think a shot to the head would make a mess…and even if not the head there should be blood spatter….and to make that shot while he was on the run he must be pretty good too.

    • At least one of the shooters was at a minimum “pretty good”, based on the tight round grouping shown on the rear window of a police vehicle. About 10 – 12 rounds, low, left of center, about a 16 inch diameter group, apparently placed slightly lateral for the diver.

    • Because when the tissue is damaged the arteries and veins constrict slowing/stoppingblood flow. The heart stops beating and systemic pressure drops meaning that the clots that form, and they form fast, won’t get blown out. In about shell when a human/mammal dies instantly there isn’t usually a lot of blood. Living wounds however bleed because we remain active which increases B/P getting blood past clots.

      • But there should still be some blood….he was shot more than one time.

        And i was wondering wouldn’t a 7.62 take a chunk of concrete off the ground? Look at zoomed in versions of this .

        • Yes there IS blood, most likely on his back (gravity) and absorbed into his 2-3 layers of clothing (capillary action). Further the shot may not have been in the head instead the upper neck or some where severing the C-spine with minimal insult to the vascular system. You can also clearly see the spalling from the round impacting the cement to the right of the Officer. You all watch these holly wood movies and “shooting the bull ammo quest” but that isn’t how bullets behave in LIVE tissue, the human body is very well designed to do damage control when damaged thus stopping bleeding. Holly wood would have you believe people who suffer from IED amputation would be bleeding like crazy but they usually don’t due to vasoconstriction. My personal opinion as some one who does medicine within the military is that this man got shot and he died. Ya’ll need to stop focusing on the trivial details trying to convince yourself you didn’t just watch a video of a good man being killed, because you did.

      • Just a note, a shot to the head does no immediately stop a heartbeat, which is not controlled directly by the brain.

        • Yes this is true but it doesn’t beat long enough nor hard enough to overpower the mechanisms to stop the bleeding.

  5. I think so. If you want to engage in a war, and have no qualms about showing those killed buy your side, I feel that it is only right to show what truly happens when it comes back to you.

        • 1 grammar point and 1 logical point;

          1. The headline should read “Have Shown” and not “Have Show”.

          2. One cannot see when they are asleep (eyes are closed) so therefore, by saying they “won’t wake up until they see…” is wrong and impossible. You could say people won’t REALIZE what’s going on until they see, but they can see only if they are awake and thus you cannot see something unless you are awake.

    • Oh, BS. We are never again likely to see anything as horrendous as 9/11, photographed from hundreds of angles for hours, and here we are twisting our panties into a knot over waterboarding?

        • Reality and history are right wing, my friend. The Constitution is a construct based upon the reality of a formerly oppressive government, with measures such as checks and balances creates in the hope of preventing another oppressive government in its future. Reality is both Independent and Republican. Democrats fail to live in a realistic world and create their policies accordingly. Their response to failure is simply to say that they did not go far enough in their gun control / statist / government control measures. Getting Democrats to admit failure based upon facts and objective performance measures is very nearly an exercise in futility.

        • A81, I don’t find anything to disagree with you on in that statement. I will reiterate though, that reality presented by events shown in full such as the latest massacre in France is, indeed, non- partisan in nature; it simply is a factual event in continuous action until it’s over, and should be shown in all its viciousness, and glory, in order to portray an unaltered record of what happened and the nature of the players involved..

          How people *interpret* those events varies depending on their mindset and cultural perspective and political orientation.

          Anti-gunners will blindly see this massacre as vindication for their naïve cause and another opportunity to promote their whimsical utopian notion that without any guns in the world none of this would have happened. THAT conclusion is a progressive fantasy I and most other logically thinking folks would find to be…’felony stupid’.

    • Agreed. People should also see the unedited video and photos from Sept. 11. Seeing the brutal reality of what the terrorist pigs do keeps anger alive and the issue at the forefront.

  6. I think TV news outlets have a certain obligation to not play NSFW/NSFL content. And I have yet to see any online news outlet not have the video up with every article (with a THIS IS GRAPHIC CONTENT plastered over it before clicking.)

  7. IDGAF. Don’t watch TV and don’t intend to waste my time on Youtube. Don’t get any sick thrills from watching people die.

    • I don’t get thrills watching such a video. I watch such videos for the lessons you could learn. Also for the reality of the event over the propaganda one is fed by “news reports.”

      • There is nothing this video has to teach by showing the moment someone gets killed that can’t be learned from reading what happened.

        Except thrills for people who want to pretend it’s ‘educational’ and not murder porn.

  8. No, it would be disrespectful to the family members of the cop who was murdered. I also don’t think the idea that showing this idea would some how ‘wake us up’ holds water. When 9/11 happened there were news videos of people plunging to their deaths and being crushed to death when the building collapsed. If THAT doesn’t result in a long lasting resolve of the American public then there is absolutely no reason to think this would do any better.

    • I agree with this. There are plenty of videos these barbarians post showing them executing helpless captives. The police officer’s family has enough to deal with.

  9. I rather see all the videos unedited and uncensored than have corporate/political script readers tell me what happened. I find that you do not get facts with “news” reports even when they are playing the video of the event while they are “reporting”.

  10. Insulating yourself or others to the reality of the world in which we live is a pointless and counter-productive task that serves to retard civilization. So does exaggerating imaginary dangers.

    To listen to paranoids you’d think the world was populated exclusively by pedos and cannibals. Yet these same paranoids who fill their childrens heads with ridiculous fears jump through hoops to make sure they never see a real instance of harm. Well, make sure is not the right word. The internet is in their kids room after all.

    TLDR: Real danger = eyes wide shut. Imaginary danger = drill repeatedly until crippled by fear.

  11. If the MSM can censor the phrase “Islamic terrorism” from its reports, it certainly can scrub the image of one Muslim murdering another. Yeah, the bicycle patrolman who was shot dead on the street was a Muslim named Ahmed Merabet.

    Well, at least he died for Allah. I’m sure that must have been a great comfort to him during his last seconds on Earth.

  12. Yes. I It is very relevant to understanding what happened and what type of people are doing it.

    to NOT show it is to be disingenuous and patronizing.
    We are adults and need to know what we are up against.

  13. Yes. People need to see the atrocities the religion of peace is committing in all their peaceful glory.

    When the mainstream propaganda outlets are too afraid to show or republish the cartoons, let alone the unedited video, we have already lost to the terrorists.

  14. That sorry excuse for a human being murdered that officer as though we was stepping on a bug.

    If that is the sort of evil that is out in the world, then people need to know about it.

    • I understand about the need to show people the face of evil. Too many people can’t bring themselves to admit there is evil in the world. However, I’m dubious that even such graphic examples of violence will get through their denial. For them to admit that some people/religions/values are evil and inferior would threaten to collapse the underpinnings of everything they stand for. Still, we have to keep showing them evil and hope they can see the foolishness of their political correctness. Otherwise, they won’t see reality till there is major a collapse of the social order.

      • It’s because people believe somehow someway that they will never have to get their own hands dirty. If nobody is truly evil, just “misunderstood” and you can negotiate with them because they are “reasonable deep down”, and nobody has to get hurt… then they don’t have to think about or face what they might do or be forced to do in such a situation. It’s all fine and good to go on about how peaceful and tolerant you are and how you would never hurt another living being and how as long as you live a good clean live you won’t have to because Karma or God or something. But that’s not the reality.

        They are protecting themselves from the choices they might be faced with which are often die or commit violence to protect themselves or others. A lot of people think they would just die, and many would. But if someone is trying to rape your sister or mother or wife or doing other unconscionable things right in front of you, you might have to do things that will fundamentally change you to stop it. Not everybody can deal with that. And those people will protect themselves with their blinders until they are literally faced with it.

  15. All I can think about watching the video is what if that had been an AR in the videographers hands instead of a cell phone camera. Those were easy fish in a bucket shots on those two schmucks. But they never once looked up because they knew the French public is all but disarmed. Sad how different this story could have been. Truly sickening.

  16. what the EXPLETIVE DELETED is wrong with you people? you WANT to see some one’s life end? wow, yall are FLAME DELETED.

    • Preston,

      People on this forum do NOT get some perverted thrill from seeing a terrorist kill someone … quite the opposite.

      Rather, the people on this forum advocate that we all see the reality of terrorism — a necessary evil (no pun intended) if we are to truly understand and set about to defeat terrorism.

      • Exactly. We’re against innocent people being so shielded and babied from reality that when they are actually faced with it, they are unable to prepare or defend themselves. It’s much kinder to show someone some carnage from a distance to let them know what’s going on, what’s out there, and what’s coming to a town near you, maybe even your town, than to shield them from it until a terrorist has them in their cross hairs. Not all realities of life are pleasant, and we are not children.

  17. Yes, it should be shown worldwide along with the video of people jumping out of windows of the World Trade Center so people stop forgetting what we are up against.

    • Yes, he was muslim. But I guess to the terrorists he was still an enemy – he was serving the state/culture/civilization they hate. So I guess they had him for a legitimate target – “a good muslim” from their point of view would be there with them, not against them.

    • It’s already happened here. Not just 9/11. Boston bombers, fort hood, oklahoma workplace beheading. Fact media tried not to mention or to downplay: Muslim. All of them.

  18. People were indifferent-to-disapointed when they saw Ray Rice drag an unconcious Janay Palmer out of an elevator.
    People were suddenly outraged and moved to do something (even if it was just write letters and threaten to start boycotts) when they saw the video of Ray Rice slugging Janay Palmer in the elivator.

    We have movies and games full of “clean” violence were there are no consequences, no blod, no brusing, no horrifed screaming as a victim is dying; no consequences.

    The public is generally disconnected from the violence of the world, and as suhc, they are rarely spured to action; and when they are, unfortunetly, they focuse on the tools and not the fact that an individual committed a violent act against an other.

  19. No. I’ve recently been hired for my first LE job and I have a family. Think about that guys mother, father and possibly wife and kids. If it happened to me i cant imagine my family watching it on tv. Id never want them burdened like that

  20. I think the loved ones of the man might find it insensitive to show it, and they should have the final say. For the rest of us, I saw nothing educational in the clip of his death, and anybody who enjoyed seeing it is really sick. I see no value in showing it, but possible harm/pain for the family. We don’t show the beauty of birth. Why show the ugliness of death?

  21. Censorship?… … everybody censors, Everbody…. even TTAG.. So are we pointing fingers at one form of censorship, while accepting another?….. Why should we care about seeing someone getting wacked in Paris, while accepting TOS in order to talk about it??

    • Allowing flaming posts through serve no real purpose and just brings down the value of the community to others. Showing people “what they are up against” is preparatory and will “allow those with eyes to see to see” and prepare for their own hopeful survival should they be faced with similar terrible situations. Nobody’s life is saved or bettered by letting someone be a keyboard ninja and poop all over a forum/blog thread.

      • So, censorship is simply to stop flaming? and keep everybody civil?…. really?…
        What a simple fix to such a pesky,long standing, overly used, and individually judged subject.. / Sarc

        • Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT stops speech, usually with heavy consequences for defiance. This is a privately owned website where the owner of said website can handle things as he sees fit. We are at his house, putting our feet on his coffee table. If you want to let people say all kinds of snotty abusive things to each other, then form your own website and try to draw people to it.

          The tone and level of the conversation in general here is the only reason I’ll participate. If it degenerated into a bunch of nasty bullshit I would leave. I’m sure a lot of other intelligent people interested in real conversations would as well. There’s no real value to letting assholes be assholes on a privately owned website anymore than there is value in my letting you curse at me in my own literal house because “freeze peach!”

  22. Yes, of course it should.

    We can watch youtube clips featuring waving dildo_$, encouraging conversations on gun safety,
    but we can’t acknowledge the reality of the Religion of Pieces when they use guns to kill citizens for free speech?

    Why not? What are the StateRunMedia so heavily invested in, as the promoters and protectors of the Progressive Agenda, that they censor themselves?

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/09/muslim-multiculturalism-and-western.html

  23. YES YES YES. Saw the head shot on Youtube. The world needs to get off its collective ass and show the brutality these people live by. More important is all the “were gonna get the baddies” declarations after the killing. To harbor Islamist and restrict peoples ability to protect themselves is high crime against a nations citizens.

  24. Yes. the Saracen’s and their unrelenting 1400 year long war against the West must be exposed at every turn. Stand to.

  25. If any good were to come of showing it, it would be to bolster the resolve of Frenchmen and people everywhere to meet force with force. But, in countries where so few people are armed outside of their homes, it would serve less of a purpose, unless it mobilized voters elsewhere to demand the right to bear arms that so many of us Americans enjoy but take for granted. Of course, if shown, the press would promote it as a reason to have fewer guns in the hands of journalists, etc., not more.

  26. YES. Show it. It wasn’t any more graphic than the blurred version. I do think France is a lost cause. I HOPE my country is not. Remember when the lame stream showed all the uncut 911 videos? Can’t be upsetting the religion of peace…Barry Soetoro especially. BTW Preston good job trolling.

  27. No, the mainstream media should not. Cutting the video off at the moment he is raising his hand but just before the shot is more than dramatic and illuminating enough.

  28. The offices of this magazine had been attacked more than once before, by the same kinds of religious morons for the same reasons. They knew they were targets yet there were probably no firearms in the possession of any of the employees or stored anywhere in the office.

    I’m not blaming the victims here, but seriously…

  29. Yes, people need to see the cold, callous deliberate approach these barbarians have so they can understand the reality of what Islamic terrorists and Sharia law represent.

  30. I think it’s about time the media stopped playing the PC ratings game BS. They should show all violent acts in their entirety. Maybe then the Utopian unicorn lovers would realize just what is going on in this world. How the hell can they breathe with their heads buried in the sand?

  31. As sad as this all is these things should be mandatory to report and show and let parents control what there kids view. All the media is doing is downplaying and whitewashing the true nature of these Satanic Islam Indoctrinated terrorists. The people a a whole need to see, watch and realize just how Vial a cult Islam truly is, there is nothing holy about this so called religion. It needs seen like the public exicusion’s and hangings for most of these liberal Idiots to truly grasp just what is happening to our Nation and what is to come if they are left unchecked as our fearless leader would have people believe. The Enemy is our yard waiting his opportunity to pounce!!!

  32. I can’t help but think if my two children were sitting with me watching the news, and they saw this horrible act of violence. Call me old fashion but, I’d prefer to have the screen blocked out. Yes the world is a violent place, and yes, the news needs to be reported honestly, factually & accurately but, there’s a moral responsibility and the consideration of the victims family to take into account here. For all the tough guys here…., what if it was one of your family members? Honestly…., think of your wife, brother or child being video taped while being shot & murdered, and played over & over on TV. If you honestly have no problem with that….., that’s a problem.

  33. “Yet none of them would show the actual moment when the Muslim gunmen shot a French policeman in the head. Should they have done so?”

    Yes. Show islam as the barbaric, anti-human sh*t that it is.

    • Woah, dude, calm your jets. Not all Muslims are barbaric, anti-human pieces of shit. The majority are peaceful, non-violent people who condemn the actions of these shits. They should not be lumped alongside the shits who slaughter indiscriminately using religion as an excuse.
      It’s getting ad nauseam repeating this.

      • Really, skippy? That is funny. I see muslims dancing in the streets in celebration of terrorist attacks. I see them pouring money into the hands of terrorists. I see them giving political support to terrorists. I see them sending their sons and daughters to participate in terrorism. What is not happening is muslim ending terrorism. Or slavery. Or the use of rape and sodomy as weapons.

        Believe any sick a$$ed fantasy you want, it does not change reality. islam is the problem. Period. Full stop.

        • Agreed.

          And even if someone is “practicing peacefully”, what difference does that make if the overall philosophy is so harmful to civilized society that we could wind up regressing completely on all progress in the world for being “tolerant” and letting it run rampant.

          It seems to me that most of the civilized rules we’ve made in the world about freedom of religion were because innocent people not hurting anybody were being rounded up and slaughtered for not following the right deity. But now we have the slaughterers trying to hide behind the freedoms that were granted to protect people FROM people like that.

          Either way, nobody should be called on to endorse anybody’s beliefs. If you are totally peaceful and believe in moronic things, people should be able to say that without people crying about how somehow me insulting your deity hurts your freedom of religion. No it doesn’t. Freedom of religion only extends as long as you aren’t actively harming people and committing other crime.

        • I have seen the pattern repeated over and over. Muslims flee from their homelands to escape the terrorists in islam, they settle down and raise families, and then one of more of those children or grandchildren go militant and begin pushing for precisely what the parents/grandparents fled from. Running from it does no good. It must be eradicated, and muslims are the ones who must lead that war. Reformation. Or destruction. Those are the choices.

  34. Yes, the media should show these things because people need to begin to understand how completely ruthless these Terrorists are. Will they do so? Probably not because it might traumatize some lefties’ ten-year-old and give them “bad dreams”. Better they face the possibility of experiencing first-hand such a situation and be terrified only a few moments before being slaughtered. Or the reality is probably: better the News Media not risk being sued for traumatizing some leftie’s ten-year old and giving them “bad dreams”. Another possibility is that the leftist News Media thinks they are supporting the Obama Administrations’ spin that there is no “war on terror”, and your chances of being shot like a rabid dog, or blown to pieces, or beheaded or some such other form of slaughter are minimal because the Government is keeping you safe. Probably, the News Media will say they don’t show these things out of consideration for the Families of the victims (which is understandable to a point), but this is a serious situation that invalidates what we may have considered “civil behavior”, so that excuse is not applicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *