The thing often missed is we have absolutely no idea what has been stopped, you don't know if they stopped 50 attacks and just one succeeded. In some instances the 'bomber' may have been identified and stopped in some way, they may have infiltrated the supply chain of parts or countless other things. They can't publicise how they found their intelligence, if it is know how they operate it's makes it easier to evade. We just don't know, and that is a double edged sword especially when being critical of their powers. I fully appreciate all the arguments about how they operate and what they should and should not be able to do but there needs to be a balance and level of trust. If you were empowered with gathering intelligence what tools would you want? You are not fighting an army with a different uniform on the other side of the field here.

Agree with you.

I also feel governments today are under much more scrutiny than they have ever been. Are we at a place were a new Bin Laden is going to get a new Bush to launch a war. Who knows? But people are much more aware of the costs than in 2001.

Still security responses aren't mature/sophisticated enough to prevent such tragic incidents, and must be given some leeway to evolve.

France has had the most extensive surveillance system in continental Europe for over a decade and it has helped roundabout nothing.

Indeed. It seems to be the prevalent opinion among European counter-terrorism experts that the most effective policies are:

- Bringing more eyes and ears in the form of social workers and community policemen in problematic neighborhoods.

- Provide better education/work opportunities for immigrants.

- Better cooperation between municipalities and Muslim organisations/mosques.

- Deradicalization programs.

Of course, implementing such policies takes time and it's much more popular to present the 'easy solutions' (more surveillance, closing borders, etc.).

France has been doing pretty much the opposite, investing money in surveillance and special forces instead. Belgium has kind of ignored problems.

>problematic neighborhoods.

That's part of the problem right there that people segregate into enclaves and have little contact with each other's communities.

Indeed, but we can't dissolve them overnight. Getting people the support needed to move out of their ghettos is a good step, though.

What are 'deradicalization programs'? I'd say if some people (i.e. some imams) are semi-openly calling for destruction of France, they should just be banished from the country.

Some of them are French citizens with no other nationality - you cannot "banish" them, the only thing you could maybe do is put them in prison, but putting people in prison for speech you don't like is a dangerous avenue.

That's of course debatable, but for me it's more dangerous to have them free disseminating warmongering propaganda.

Wondering why did I get a downvote? Isn't what I said just a valid opinion, on a matter of philosophical (i.e. irresolvable) differences?

Edit: getting more downvotes, without any of the downvoters caring to justify them so far, so I can only speculate as for the reasons behind them.

I'm wondering if the downvoters (I'm guessing from the USA) are aware that my views are already a law in many of the liberal democracies of Europe? There are laws which put you in jail for saying certain things, and they are enforced (there are people who are doing time just for saying things).

>"Of course, implementing such policies takes time and it's much more popular to present the 'easy solutions' (more surveillance, closing borders, etc.)."

Meanwhile, people are dying. That is exactly how some people see it, and exactly how I see it. I'm not emotional, I'm logical, and I expect government to protect us from evil individuals/groups. Arguably, it's not there to foster some sort of "long-term" sustainable co-existence between different cultures.

First, you establish security and root out potential problem groups. And once that's happened, and you have almost non-existent danger to the local populace, then you can start worrying about integration and grey-goals such as "peaceful coexistence" and "de-radicalization". And I don't say that as a means to single-out immigrants, or foreign groups. This reasoning should apply just as much to dangerous elements that are within, and part of society currently.

Here's a weird idea. What about cutting benefits and forcing people to get jobs? Would it prevent terrorism? If everyone is too busy working??

Not feeding the poor has historically a great track record for preventing unrest...

So America has a great prison system and no benefits. Most immigrants work... No real terrorism to speak of outside the lone wolfs. Bad? Good?

The US don't have terrorist groups, but crime rates in general are comparatively high.

Could be worse. Could be a lot better.

Sure, just let me grab a sack full of jobs off my jobs tree.

Nothing? I don't say that the surveillance is a total solution to anything, but certainly the surveillance has helped police to prevent attacks.

Just before Christmas last year:

French police have foiled an attack targeting police and army personnel in the central city of Orléans, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said on Tuesday. Two men have been arrested.

...

Cazeneuve said 10 attacks had been prevented this year in France, which suffered its worst atrocity for decades last month when Islamist militants killed 130 people in Paris.

http://www.france24.com/en/20151222-france-terror-plot-foile...

Even more blatant:

Exhibit A: The Mossad is generally considered one of the best intelligence services world-wide.

Exhibit B: There are still frequent terrorist attacks in Israel.

Please take a look at a map of what countries border Israel and what borders Belgium. This a highly misinformed comment.