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.