I think you underestimate the impact this type of terrorism has. The real massive danger is constantly trying to downplay it. The simple fact is, when facing an irrational enemy the last thing you can do is try to shift the blame to those who react.

It's practically impossible to underreact to terrorism, since its goal is to incense you and provoke a reaction. Mourn the loss, and take reasonable steps to prevent it, but dont put deaths to terrorist attacks on a pedastal as more tragic than other losses or make the perpetrators into some sort of demonic antiheroes.

What impact? They kill a few people. That's terrible, but it's not even enough to dent the murder statistics. Let alone all causes of premature death.

The only impact is people's reaction to it. Blame should be shifted to those who react. It absolutely should be downplayed.

There were less than 100 homicides in Paris in 2012 and 2013 [1]. More than 100 might have been killed today.

[1] http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2015/05/05/01016-201...

And compared to the average for that block it's even worse.

The point being of the people murdered in France this year less than 1/5th of them where killed by terrorists. Yet, the other 4/5th don't make international news.

Yes, this is a tragedy, so are all those other deaths.

PS: Even at over twice the normal rate, the average US city is far worse every year.

There are around 700 people murdered in France each year. But in most cases it's someone from your family killing you, or someone that hates you for some reason, or you're involved in criminal activities.

Maybe there are 100 people killed in France in a typical year by complete strangers. And we're talking about 180 people (maybe more) killed in 2015 by complete strangers and in the name of Allah. I don't think that can be easily ignored.

Most people ignore the 400,000+ people murdered every year.

What's hard, is accepting that things like this happen, but there not reason to alter policy in any meaningful way.

> It absolutely should be downplayed.

Wait till you live in Iraq or Afghanistan where these incidents occur on a daily basis and see if you will still stand by your statement or revisit it very soon.

But we aren't talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. We are talking about Western countries where terrorist attacks are not that common.

The enemy is not irrational. The moment you understand that, you'll understand why fear is not the answer.

Try convincing fear is not rational to the people close to the attacks today. I understand what your point is, but the fact is that fear is exactly what people will feel.

I know. :(

Someone blowing himself up is not irrational?

The ones blowing themselves up are the pawns. They are driven to do this generally by the environment.

The pack leaders are the rational ones. The ones that stand to gain the most from organizing these horrors.

>The real massive danger is constantly trying to downplay it.

No, it's not. The danger is over reacting, as history has proven time and time again. Fear is not the answer.

Well it's true that France doesn't need to pass their own patriot act tomorrow and start restricting freedoms, under reacting is also possible. The fact is they were attacked and a response is necessary. It doesn't need to be reactionary, it can be thoughtful and measured, but something needs to be done.

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be no response, people just think we shouldn't over react. Closing off the borders and refusing to take more Middle Eastern refugees is a sane response, starting more wars is an insane response.

I think you'd feel differently if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11

In times of tragedy it is especially important to think rationally. This does not demean ones loss, but prevents further loss from occurring.

I have no idea what your point is. If I lost a loved one to a vending machine accident, I might develop a really irrational fear of vending machines. It doesn't mean vending machines are a threat to our society.

I know someone who is deadly afraid of putting shoes on tables. Because her friend did that before dying in a traffic accident.

Why are you so convinced that terrorism is not a threat to society? Lots of Romans probably thought the Huns were a laughable foe as well.

Well I'll start with these two gwern essays:

Terrorism is not Effective: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective

Terrorism is not About Terror: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror

Just look at the statistics. The total number of people killed by terrorists is negligible. And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals.

I remember the Boston bombing. That same week, there was another explosion at a chemical plant that killed many more people, and blew up a nursing home. Guess which event got more press, by a large amount? Which event are people more likely to remember? Can you even name what city the chemical plant exploded in or remember any details about it?

Why is this? It's because people react to violence much differently than they react to accidents. Because thousands of years ago, violence was the one cause of death you could do something about. If you got an infection, or if a natural disaster struck, or a famine broke out, etc, those are all out of your control. But if someone was a threat to your family or tribe, you could fight them, or flee from them.

We have many emotions and social instincts whose entire purpose is to deal with other humans that threaten us. Like paranoia, anger, and hate. No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it. People hate the Tsarnaev brothers.

I think that you have all the answers to the questions you posted here on why people in general have disproportionate reactions to death caused by violence and death caused by accidents.

It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason.

So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.

I don't think that bit about 0 groups achieving goals through terrorism is true. For example, didn't the Medellin cartel effectively use terrorism?

>And 0 terrorist groups have ever won and achieved their stated goals.

Hmm. Wasn't it Bin Laden's goal to restore the Islamic Caliphate?

> No one hates the chemical plant, and wants to go kill it.

Don't speak too soon. We have several political movements dedicated to this.

Exactly. Look at what the Shining Path did in Peru.

Blow up enough people often enough and fear and panic will become pervasive. People stop opening their shops, investments stop coming.

Terror is a pretty effective way to overthrow a gov't.

Algeria.

Great example.

Another is South Vietnam.

Although there was a war going on the NLF did a great job of terrorizing the local population and installing their own shadow government. The terror attacks fractured the populations allegiance to the South Vietnamese gov't (what good is a gov't that can't protect you?).

Terrorism can be an effective tool in guerrilla warfare.

The point is that the effect that attack has had on the US for the past 14 years has been massive. Probably thousands of new security protocols are in place, that arguably wouldn't have stopped an attack like that had they been in place previously.

Every time they strike they put us on edge, and we make new laws and protocols to protect ourselves, giving up freedom in the name of security.

He might feel differently. He's still right that the overreaction causes more damage than the terrorist attack did.

I even think that if you had a loved one in the towers on 9/11 you could feel inclined to go to a third unrelated country, like... lets say Irak, and start to killing thousands of innocent civilians, also loved by somebody. This would be a bad idea of course.

Flashing the towers card here sounds a little embarrassing in retrospective. Sadly, the I.Snake is also the bastard son of Bush great plans for Irak and the Guantanamo shame.