Forgive me if I came off that way.
However, quibbling about tone is probably the least productive thing we can talk about. It'd be better if I had said things more charitably, probably take out the "just sayin', yo" part. I admit, I've failed already precisely because I didn't present my case in a more charitable way.
Again, I'll state that my overall interested is putting up a bulwark against responses by people to this attack that play off emotion instead of rationality, responses that'd inflame national / racist / whatever sentiment and pave the way for massive foreign interventionism, unjust wars, and so on. Things that'd take many more lives...
Now that I've laid the above out, I challenge you with this: was it more the way I said it, or the content of the message? If it was the content itself, please directly refute that if you disagree. If it was the tone, I acknowledged my failure in that department already.
There's no need for insults.
I remember those things well, and they are all grave tragedies. Never once did I say that terrorism wasn't a threat. Please don't mistake me.
Edit: I hope none of you are in doubt as to my intentions now.
Here's a link with the likelihood of things:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...-be-killed-by-a-toddler-than-a-terrorist.html