> They aren't safe in their own country. Huge numbers of them
> die prematurely of random causes every month.
The crux being that people have either accepted those random causes of death, or they feel that they have enough control to avoid them (even if that isn't true). Terrorist attacks (though rare on American soil) are something that people have not (yet) accepted as unavoidable, or are something that they feel they have control over avoiding.
The following also contributed:
- The attack was perpetrated by Muslims against a predominantly Christian country. Especially a country with a lot of 'born-again'/Evangelical Christians that are rabidly religious. This helps to form a "Us vs. Them" mentality as well as a "They are attacking our way of life; our very identity." I have a strong feeling that the reaction would be less severe (though maybe not by much) if it had been perpetrated by members of another religion (or at least people that didn't use their religion as a reason for their actions).
- The attack was perpetrated by a group. A group that has members that are still 'at large.' (i.e. "It could/will happen again.") By contrast, the Oklahoma City Bombing was easy to dismiss as some random crazy guy.
- It came from outside of the country. If the attack had been from a group that was based in the US (i.e. some political group that resorted to terrorism), then the reaction probably wouldn't have been so severe. It's easier for form an "Us vs Them" mentality when there is a greater distinction between "us" and "them." If the people behind the attacks were Americans, people would still be outraged, but it would be a hell of a lot easier for them to picture those people as just 'crazies.' I think that a number of people also view Arabs/Muslims as 'below' them (i.e. "a bunch of rag-heads living out in the middle of god-forsaken desert") even if they consider themselves to be more enlightened than that.