Online discussions have made me rethink my deeply-held beliefs, forced me to re-examine my arguments, changed my opinion on several occasions...
You may be a minority there. Internet "debates" rarely end with anything other than one side shutting out the other. In fact, it's the ease with which we can filter out dissenting opinions on all kinds of media (traditional and new) that make them poor catalysts for significant changes in opinion. Face-to-face discussion trumps all else when it comes to magnitude of effect per person.
Terrorism is ultimately another bogeyman, and while a problem nonetheless, I believe that we are interpreting a situational cause (the "Great Game" that has practically never ended, resulting in turmoil in various countries and causing more people to look for extremist solutions to impose order) as fundamental (that Islam predisposes people to terrorism, which is contradicted by a study (Lewis, Bernard, 'Islam: The Religion and the People' (2009), pg. 53) finding Islamic jurisprudence to be at odds with terrorism and a report by MI5 finding Islamic terrorists not being particularly religious or irreligious on average).
The fundamental problem is that when you have a lot of young people who either live in or have active ties to a region that has been screwed over for a long time, you are bound to see increasing numbers of people getting angry about it and thus increasing (but still small) numbers of people channeling that anger into horrific acts (which will, of course, be high profile compared to more statistically significant threats), believing those acts to be a solution, and perverting a belief system shared by most other people from the group they believe to themselves to be fighting for to justify them and popularize their cause.
A day is 4 facets of Nature's Harmonic 4-Dimensional Time Cube, you are educated stupid to deny it, world leaders are in conspiring to prevent you from knowing the truth. I'm not sure if we're speaking the same language, but this is the closest I can get.