That is the only valid response to such an attack. With different responses, the terrorists win.
For example, you might have an insurgent group somewhere or other, let's say Caucasus, those movements will have real boots on the ground doing fighting to win 'ground' and they will also have a terrorist operations. The terror operations are not there to win anything --just to instill terror. They are there for nothing else than instill terror. Not shut down buildings, not keep people from going to work or going to market --afterall people will _have_ to continue going to market. That's what I think.
In sports this would be like doing something to get a penalty. Doing something to injure an opponent will not get you the victory. Only points (goals, whatever) will provide the win. A boxer does not win by biting off the opponent's ear, they win by earning more points.
Movements don't win through terrorism. The movements (or however you want to characterize it) have to actually come out and put up a fight if they want to win. Terrorism tends to have the opposite effect --it alienates people from a cause they might actually see some commonality with.
Using the boxing analogy, someone is fighting Muhammad Ali, Ali is up in points, the opponent throws an illegal punch. With that strike is the opponent now winning? No. He is still losing. Further lets say he lands a couple of jabs, is he winning because he got a point? No, he's far from winning. Further lets say he manages to get Ali to change up, change behavior adapt, is he winning? Again no not till he has more points or knocks him out.
The republican terrorists in Northern Ireland didn't get everything they wanted, but they certainly ended up with more political power than they had when they started.