So, in the 1970's and 80's which I can remember vividly, when the I.R.A. detonated a bomb in a terrorist attack in the U.K. we would have had a state of emergency declared.
We would have had armed police everywhere.
Of course, we couldn't then have invoked some obscure article of some undemocratic treaty, from an unelected foreign body for help, as the Lisbon Treaty didn't exist then.
But we would have attacked the country they came from (Ireland) because, apparently, we were at war.
And we could have clamped down on free speech and civil liberties.
Of course, none of this happened.
Well, even though there was a massive ideological threat with many attacks, it was after all said and done, criminal acts of violence perpetrated to further a cause.
Subsequently, we used the criminal justice system to deal with it and life went on.
The only difference now is that the cause is religious, not political.
The notion that we need to attack people in other countries to defend ourselves is ridiculous.
On that basis we'll be attacking people all over the world.
We need to tighten (or at least have some) border control instead of paying lip service to security, more police and crucially, police that actually police the streets, as opposed to reacting in force after the event. (See blog, Peter Hitchens on B.B.C. 1 'Question Time', 4th November 6/11/15).
You see put simply, if you can't even enter a country because of strict border controls and vetting, then you can't commit any acts of violence there.
Because you're not there.