As another commenter mentioned, that's an old conspiracy theory. It's already being discussed in the press (see link below). It's problematic that even when you

As another commenter mentioned, that's an old conspiracy theory. It's already being discussed in the press (see link below). It's problematic that even when you have a growing surveillance state, the state has less incentive to act to protect or attempt to prevent attacks on "soft targets" ie: the public at large even when they have solid information supporting an imminent attack. Or worded a bit more strongly, a state hoping to garner support for more sweeping anti-civil liberties measures has an incentive to allow such attacks to happen even when they could be prevented. As a practical matter of how this could occur, a small group of intelligence analysts could selectively withhold important information from decision makers, or decision makers could selectively ignore key pieces of information. Either can get you the result of allowing an attack while leaving plausible excuses as to why it wasn't deliberate. http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/paris-attacks-raises-questions-about-what-french-authorities http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/paris-attacks-raises-quest...