This article from the Cato institute is by far and away the clearest and most balanced response I have seen to the hyperbole surrounding the current threat (or lack of) terrorism. His opening paragraph summarizes the paper with these two important and simple points.
Assessed in broad but reasonable context, terrorism generally does not do much damage.
The costs of terrorism very often are the result of hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions.
It covers the hyperbole of weapons of mass destruction as well as the costs of attempting to marginally reduce the likelihood of an already unlikely event.
How much should we be willing to pay for a small reduction in probabilities that are already extremely low?
How much should we be willing to pay for actions that are primarily reassuring but do little to change the actual risk?
How can measures such as strengthening the public health system, which provide much broader benefits than those against terrorism, get the attention they deserve?
Overall I cannot recommend this paper enough its not a long read, it's well written and gets to the heart of the problem. It is not terrorists we need to be afraid of, it is the people that over-respond and tell us we must be afraid that we should worry about.