> The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, that one should not worry about one's enemies simply because they're unlikely to do as much damage

> The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, that one should not worry about one's enemies simply because they're unlikely to do as much damage as other problems, is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing; that because the odds are low, no preventative action should be taken because everything will be OK. There is no message and the article never draws any conclusions so it's up to the reader to decide what the data proves. It would be silly to believe that this is somehow trying to excuse terrorism, it's like letting a murderer go because car accidents killed more than he did that year.