The terrorist blackmail in France issue I've commented on earlier here and here and here is becoming more active. According to this afternoon's news there was a new explosive device found on the railroad tracks in France.



This UPI article indicates:



“a shadowy organization calling itself AZF, which has demanded roughly $6 million from the French government -- or else. . .



Two weeks ago, French officials found and detonated a surprisingly sophisticated bomb placed along the Paris-Toulouse rail line after receiving precise GPS coordinates by AZF directing them to the location. The group has threatened to bomb a dozen rail sites. . .



French officials acknowledge they have few details about AZF. The group's name mirrors that of a petrochemical plant in Toulouse that explode several days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.



According to earllier reports, the French government originally requested the media refrain from printing the story to enable them to maintain contact with AZF. They even attempted a rendezvous with the blackmailers for payment, according to the French newspaper “Liberation,” the leftist publication in which the French government would exchange cryptic messages with the AZF. It indicates in this article (translated by Alta Vista) :



“ . . . a new attempt at handing-over of the ransom, by helicopter, at the beginning of an aerodrome of Seine-et-Marne, failed, Friday, because of the weather conditions.”



The original request for secrecy was confirmed by a rather sketchy press release from the French embassy, which doesn’t include any mention of paying the ransom.



Although the French government maintains that there is no Islamic connection with AZF, the only supporting evidence shown to date is in news reports which state AZF called itself a "pressure group of a terrorist nature linked with a secular brotherhood" in one letter. I'm not so sure that holds water, given the proximity of the original bombing of the factory to the al-Qaeda 9/11 attacks, and the proximity of these attempts to the al-Qaeda bomb in Madrid. On the other hand, it appears that most al-Qaeda centered groups identify themselves as such.



I'm not the only one to wonder if there is a link between this and the Madrid bombings. Even the news reports casually mention Madrid when they discuss the French situation, but don't seem to be connecting the dots between the events.



Before proceeding further, I do realize that the voters in Spain claim to have voted in the way they did to retaliate against the current government for hiding the al-Qaeda connection in the bombings, and not to appease terrorists. But I cannot ignore that: 1) the motivation for hiding the connection between al-Qaeda and the bombs was a fear that public sentiment would turn against the government for its continued involvement in Iraq, 2) the terrorists indicated the Madrid bombing was in retaliation for Spain’s assisting the US in Iraq, and 3) the secondary motivation of the voters was exactly the backlash feared by the government – wanting to elect a party who would get out of Iraq to reduce the likelihood of future terrorist bombings. In other words: appeasement.



With France, the government sought to make the payments to the terrorists who threatened to bomb them. I personally believe they were hedging their bets: we’ll try to catch them when they pick up the money. If not, we’ll have paid and they go away. Regardless, there is an element of appeasement that is obvious.



The US has been divided in how to approach terrorism. In the days immediately after 9/11, some editorials pleaded for the public to understand why the terrorists hated us, and to use that knowledge to shape our foreign policy. They advocated we stop supporting Israel, and take a more pro-Arabic approach to mid-east politics. They eventually protested against our actions in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. Others advocated taking the aggressive approach, to hunt down the terrorists and take the war to them. Obviously, they have prevailed to date. These "hawks" are continually criticized by the peace movement as posturing hard-liners who have created a cycle of violence, rather than seeking a peaceful approach of understanding and negotiation.



I come down on the side of the government - in philosophy, if not always in execution - for this reason: when al-Qaeda believed we were vulnerable to coercion by terrorism, they decided to plot the September 11th attacks.



An excerpt from Encarta’s online encyclopedia entry on al-Qaeda:



”Bin Laden and his confederates doubtless hoped that the September 11 attacks would deliver a “knockout” blow to the United States—crushing its economy and demoralizing its citizens and government. Bin Laden has often described the United States as a “paper tiger” on the verge of financial ruin and total collapse—with the force of Islam poised to push the nation over the edge. In this way, he might alter U.S. foreign policy and thus prompt changes in line with al-Qaeda’s aims, including ending U.S. support for countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, withdrawing U.S. military forces from the Arabian Peninsula, and removing U.S. influence, business, and cultural activities from the Muslim world.”



This is echoed in this article from the US Military and a host of other articles printed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 which are no longer available online.



It is also apparent in a quote directly from the declaration of war against us by Osama Bin Laden:



“But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; whereafter vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.”



While I would have made some additional attempts to persuade the UN to see the wisdom in "revoking Iraq's probation" after it failed to live up to the terms of its peace treaty, I do not disagree with the war on terror, because appeasement simply won't work.



The point: I may yet get evidence on which philosophy is successful. The US decided to attack. Europe, at least in France and Spain, has apparently decided to negotiate or appease. Regardless of the source of the terrorism, we should see a decline in terrorist activity in the region whose philosophy is successful.



(UPDATE: I did a bit of clarification editing after ruminating on this overnight. )