Being obvious about it

It would seem to me that, if you’re colluding with bad guys, you’d prefer that this collusion be low key — and the bad guys would prefer it to, so that it wouldn’t look as if you’re in their camp for PR purposes.  Somehow this basic fact about allegiances and publicity seems to have eluded the Palestinians.  How else to explain this from the Mideast Dispatch:


Wrongly believing that the British government colluded with Israel on Tuesday, Palestinian militants attacked many British targets. Among these, the offices of the British Council were burned down, and an HSBC bank was ransacked. In their usual intimidatory way, they also targeted journalists, briefly seizing two French reporters and a South Korean one. Armed gunmen also raided the offices of the German TV station ARD, shooting in the air. But what is interesting is that the BBC is housed in the same building as ARD in Gaza, and yet the Palestinian militant groups – who are much better organized and more sophisticated in their choice of targets than some in the media would have us believe – deliberately did not enter the BBC offices.

It seems that even on a day of widespread attacks on western targets in Gaza and the West Bank, the Palestinian gunmen know who their friends are.

The BBC has long been the best friend that radicals in the Middle East have ever had, but need they make it so obvious?

Talking to Technorati: , ,

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    It would be logical, except they have good reason to believe that either we suck so bad at propaganda that we can’t capitalize on that slip. Or that they are so good at counter-propaganda that they have nothing to concern themselves about. Or most likely, both.

  • erp

    Ymarsakar, who are the “we” to which you are referring. If you mean American media, they are masters at propaganda. Just check your Sunday morning paper and find out that there were massive anti-war protests yesterday. Here’s our local paper, top of the fold, front page huge headline: Year 4: Anti-war protests escalate.

    Of course, that’s not even close to true and from what I read last night even the disappointing numbers reported are inflated and in fact the anti-war movement is really a manifestation of the anti-U.S. Bush Derangement Syndrome with the war a convenient excuse to draw in the aging hippie dippies who long to relive their salad days.

  • Tatterdemalian

    I think “we” is the conservatives. People who consider action more important than words often dismiss the power of propaganda, to their own detriment.

  • Ymarsakar

    We, as in Bush, White House, Pentagon, Army PR, Marine PR, and various other agencies and departments.

    We, as in, our side.

    And no, I really can’t say the American media is either on my side, our side, or is in anyway have a better propaganda apparatus than Al Qaeda and Palestine.

    Bush, to my knowledge, has never mentioned the BBC. Clinton has mentioned the media and how they treated him.

    Not to put too fine of a point on it, Clinton knew how to destroy the media and fight back. Bush tends to ignore the BBC and various other appendages.

    As 9/11 should have taught him, ignoring threats is not a solution.