If you know that people will die, but are simply indifferent to it, the difference between that and actively wishing to murder is at least arguably academic. You are killing people with your choices in either case.
This is the precise attitude GP is railing against.
Are you seriously tabling the notion that "gee, hundreds of Americans will die in car accidents today, oh well" is even in the same universe as "gee, I think I should drop a bomb in the middle of a crowd"?
The difference here is as wide as the ocean, it is anything but academic.
And this is why some arguments cannot be taken seriously. No one is saying that car accidents, heart disease, and cancer shouldn't be Big Deals, but to say that being idle in these matters is tantamount to mass murder is how you get people to stop taking you seriously.
Plus there's the obvious angle. Accidents are part of life and are random. With any crime there's always the possibility of repeat, or worse, escalation (this was an act of islamic terror, so chance of escalation if this goes unpunished is probably very real).
A society must ensure that crime doesn't pay (because the reason crime is committed in the first place is obviously because it does pay, not necessarily in money, but it does pay). Arrest and punishment is essential for that purpose.
By this logic why even try to apprehend the terrorists at all? The death toll was a rounding error in the number of fatal car accidents during the same time period. Since we're not going to do anything differently in response to the fatal car accidents, why should we spend any effort at all trying to stop those responsible for the bombings?
