The terrorist attacks that took place in Paris a few days ago let all mankind shocked. The scale of the tragedy is apocalyptic: More than 130 dead and more than 200 wounded, some of whom are in serious condition. In addition, the entire nation of France lives these days in a state of fear and terror.
The Islamic State has struck at the heart of European democracy and of the whole world, the country that created the first modern democratic system, homeland of the Enlightenment, is brought into its knees twice in less than a year. Tragedies from Charlie Hebdo and multiple bombings in Paris creates the premises of a wide debate: How was it possible that French intelligence services did not intercept anything suspicious? Only two days earlier a similar attack had occurred in Lebanon in a highly-secured area.
Another question would be: Would the attacks have occurred if France would not have participated in the bombing against ISIS in Syria? These are legitimate questions. In this type of events the cause-and-effect relationship should be studied closely.
Another item needs to be inserted into this discussion: The Muslim community in the nation of France is extremely large. In recent years religious tensions on this issue have been increasingly higher. It is also a factor that must be taken into account. Religious tensions have a tradition to develop later into significant violence.
One more thing: Among French Muslims (many of them of African origin) there's a wave of repressed hatred against the French State. And this happens because much of North Africa was part of the French colonial empire. Many of these northern African States were drained of resources during the occupation.
As we can see, there are many reasons for these attacks. Does the French administration, especially the intelligence services and information, have good prospects of all these risks? Common sense tells us that every action has a reaction.