This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack, and the answer isn't just "stop making such a big deal about it". When I get into a car, I'm putting myself in a situation that could be dangerous, and am accepting those risks for the reward of not having to walk to work. When these people sat down to have a drink, watch a soccer game, or enjoy a concert, they were doing so with the implicit safety that those venues and events provide. It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected", and your answer can't just be "stop making such a big deal", because if we didn't make a big deal, the attacks would get bigger, broader, and more damaging until they got the reaction that they wanted. It's a complex problem with a lot of moving pieces, and this answer just takes away from that and presumes that there's a simple answer to a very hard problem.

> It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected"

No it's not - people die from unexpected accidents completely unaware of the risks all the time - intuitive risk perception doesn't work really well - caveman instincts and all that - risk perception is not the problem - if this was indeed an isolated incident that would not repeat it would be sad but not very relevant - an example of this is Breivik murders.

But obviously this is not comparable - people behind this will try to repeat it if not dealt with - this is why it's a big deal.

"This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack,"

Unfortunatley from a mathematical standpoint you are incorrect, from an irrational human standpoint you have a point however.

The human mind is much worse at reasoning and reality than anticipated, how you and others perceive the world is not as real as you'd like to think, thats the whole point of math and science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

I don't agree. There's a stark difference between a car accident and a fellow human being pumping rounds into people in your local restaurant. The other driver is not trying to kill you typically.

Then the relevant detail to compare to would be the number of other violent crimes that occur on a far too regular basis.

Why does intention matter?

> Terrorist acts damage the social fabric far beyond the death toll.

Intention is all that matters, and why its attempting to damage social fabric.

London. Paris. Madrid. New York. Why are these the cities terrorists have targeted? Perhaps because, say, a Londoner who dies in a graphic way will cause more notoriety-- i.e. stir more terror-- than a Bangladeshi. It maximizes their bang for... uhh... their bang. Given the size of the world's suicide problem, starvation problem, poverty problem, rape problem, etcetera etcetera, of course terrorism actually isn't of much relative consequence. It intends to make people like you freak out, viscerally (just as CNN et al does when they cover these so much).

I'm not changing a damn thing in how I live my life, and not even out of courage (i.e. the "we can't let the terrorists win" bromide that took over in America in late 2001). It just shouldn't matter that much to you, and it only prevails insomuch as you let these irrational fears get to you.

But people like you who are over reacting are the people who are allowing the social fabric to be damaged.

So if I intend to kill you horribly, but instead serve you a nice cup of chamomile tea and a comfy pair of slippers, is intention still all that matters?

I'm not trying to be flip. I'm saying that by any viable moral theory, you are catastrophically wrong.

That's exactly the attitude with which we will get the situation Michel Houellebecq describes in his "Submission" novel.