THE SEAN HANNITY SHOW

Paris Terrorists Dead Terrorists continued to terrorize Paris today as breaking news unfolded in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting earlier this week. Now we can report that three terrorists are dead. Taking at least one hostage in a printing plant, the Charlie Hebdo terrorist brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi reportedly said that they plan "to die through martyrdom." Well they are now dead; the brothers were shot and killed by French police. We are now coming to learn more about these terrorists. According to a report by the Wall Street Journal , Said Kouachi allegedly trained with an al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen. What's not known is whether al Qaeda ordered the attack or was aware of Kouachi's plan. The other brother, Cherif, is a known suspected terrorist on the government no-fly list. He attended a mosque espousing al Qaeda rhetoric and planned to travel to Iraq to fight U.S. troops in 2004 and 2005. He never got the chance, being stopped by authorities where he is quoted as telling authorities that his mentor (the imam at the Paris mosque) had convinced him that "to die a martyr is a good thing." In a separate situation, a gunman, linked to the shooting of a policewoman yesterday, held multiple hostages in a kosher deli on the eastern edge of Paris. The identified suspect is Amedy Coulibaly and is linked to the Kouachi brothers. They knew each other, met several times and allegedly joined the same jihadist group years ago. He was also shot and killed by French authorities, though four hostages unfortunately also lost their lives. A woman, Hayat Boumeddiene, has also been implicated in the attack. What we are witnessing is a shift in the battle against Islamic extremism. As The Washington Times points out, recent successful terrorist attacks - Australia, Canada, France - point to a shift to "soft targets." While it remains an absolutely possibility that terrorists organizations like al Qaeda are planning mass-casualty attacks, these recent, smaller attacks are certainly making impact and doing as they intend: terrorizing, intimidating and harming those who dare to defy or insult Islam. What is the appropriate response? If you were to ask former national security advisor for Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who also advised Obama, the answer is appeasement. He believes that the most important thing we can do is to "avoid becoming the number one enemy of the fanatics." He says we must balance our freedom of speech while avoiding being "provocative and unnecessarily nasty." He calls for measure, even in humor. In other words, we need to back off. We need to appease. We need to compromise our values in order to spare the sensitivities of a radicalized religion. Is that not exactly what the terrorists want - for us to compromise our values and bend to their ideology? Unfortunately some in the media seem willing to take this approach. For example, the New York Times is making headlines today for what it decided wasn't appropriate to report in an article about the Charlie Hebdo shooting. In its original reporting, Times reporter Liz Alderman described the sparing of a woman's life with this quote: "I'm not going to kill you because you're a woman, we don't kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself." But The Times apparently went on to remove this quote and changed it to: "'Don't be afraid, calm down, I won't kill you,' the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. 'You are a woman. But think about what you're doing. It's not right.'" Add this removal of the references to Islam to the other examples of the media refusing to show the cartoon images of Charlie Hebdo's magazine. What we have is a media that is scared to stand up in the face of radical Islam. Unfortunately we have an administration that is similarly cowardly.