Seriously? People living in fear of terrorists is actually a feat mostly of US politicians, inciting it and using it to manipulate the masses.
If people were rational, and weren't purposely deceived by people on TV, they would be more scared of driving than terrorists, since more people die in car accidents every year, than all people ever killed in terrorist attacks.
This was the pre-9/11 mindset. Don't forget. Nobody wants to bother figting the terrorists. Before they came to your shores. There is a big difference between rational strategy and having your head in the sand. Its called a lack of imagination. Until flight 93, nobody bothered...just like you suggest
But you are suggesting 9/11 is almost the only terrorist attack or activity, and you are only talking about the US. If you actually considered the rest of the world as well, you'd see that in Spain for example, people have had to deal with ETA's terrorism for a long time, yet the Spanish government hasn't terrified people with an endless discourse about war on terror, and people don't expect their freedom or privacy to be limited in the name of it.
I'm specifically talking about the "social engineering" the 9.11 hijackers used. they exploited the expectations of people to self-absorbed to think outside the box. The advice for the passengers in a hijacking was not not resist. the only difference between flight 93 and WTC was what? an hour or two and some more imagination...
But this was on multiple scales...(a) They exploited the unwillingness to hunt them down (ie, after mogadishu) so they operated with impunity to prepare; (b) They expoloited the social norms by using educated terrorists to fly first class and get "student" visas to be trained; (c) Nobody wanted to bother thinking through the consequences, because it was not so pleasant to imagine people might not be so nice...
Terrorism is at heart anti civillian warfare by definition, this is the problem and the challenge.
Car accidents are, well, accidental. Terrorist attacks are not.
Rational people understand this.
Now, if I were an embassador, or judge, or some big fish, I could understand that this intent would make an attack more probable. The vast majority of people, however, will never have the luxury of a powerful enough enemy mailing a fundamentalist hit squad to their homes. We, fortunately, are the tourist-class fliers of global terrorism, lacking any kind of personal attention.
So you, as a rational person, don't seen any difference between someone bumping into you accidentally and apologizing, and someone deliberately shoving you? Really?
Rational people forgive accidents and punish intentional or negligent harm. The RATIONAL basis for this is that the punished offender is less likely to repeat the offense in the future.
I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.