In Paris, car accidents: 39 deaths/year, homicides: 101/year, and Terrorism more than 147/year. Tobacco is a personal responsibilities problem and a life reducer more than a killer. If find those kind a comparison stupid because you don't even account for externalities and the fact that terrorism has more impact on social fabric than anything else.

If we speak only about economy, terrorism in Paris could make France loose several point of PIB, we are extremely reliant on tourism, this absolutely dwarf any foreign operation.

This type of comparison is quite common and I admit to simply not understanding the associated logic. The implied message is that terrorism should be shrugged off as part of everyday life, at least until the implied risk catches up to these other daily risks.

I don't think accepting 200+ intentional civilian deaths per day is a winning argument.

It sounds like we're succombing fast to the fear of terrorism. I cannot understand declaring war: It's reducing our civil liberties, bombing a foreign nation, spreading new hate and new orphan children, and accelerating our own economic crisis. Isn't that the dismay that terrorists want?

If we were purely rational on number of casualties, we'd be working on preventing our own 2-nd generation immigrants from considering becoming terrorists, using better education system and economic development. Or we would just proportionally jail all smokers who kill as many people per day as terrorism in a year. So we're not acting rationally, or the rationality of fighting back is taking over the consideration of the cost, and I'm not understanding why that's so important.

Rejecting the notion that we should do nothing is not the same thing as agreeing we should 'go to war'.

Personally I think the tactical approach (border checks, security checks, pervasive surveillance, drone attacks, special ops, etc) has huge costs ($$$ and in lost civil liberties) with little or no return on the investment (and arguably a net loss).

The core conflict is one of ideas: liberal democracy vs sharia, individual rights vs. communal strictures, equal rights vs patriarchy, and so on. Curiously, the belief in individual freedoms, tolerance, and in particular prohibitions against government preferences towards religion make it extremely difficult for the government to actively oppose ideas that are based on religion -- even when those religious ideas are diammetically opposed to the foundational principles of the system of government.

Even in public debate, where the actions of the government aren't in play, we have a difficult time with the notion of public criticism of religious beliefs, never mind criticism of extreme religious beliefs. Even stranger, in some circles it is completely acceptable to harshly criticize Christianity, for example, but it is off limits to be critical of radical and extreme Islam. Strange.

We have to figure out how to engage in the realm of ideas over decadal time spans if we ever want to justly declare 'mission accomplished'.