Blown Away?

Apparently it was the US that invented the car bomb. That is, according to programme on Channel Four I saw part of. Now, leaving aside the question of just why anyone would want to claim responsibility for a weapon of terror which, over the years, has claimed so many innocent lives, I was left marvelling at the audacity of the Yanks - is there nothing they'll try and take credit for? I wouldn't mind, but the claim was based on pretty shaky evidence. Actually, it was completely nonsensical evidence. It seems that just after the First World War, a device exploded on Wall Street in New York. Now, not only did the programme have to concede that said device was carried in a horse-drawn cart, but it was planted by an Italian anarchist. So, on two counts - it wasn't actually a car bomb, as no automobile was involved, and it wasn't built and used by an American - the dubious claim of US ownership of the car bomb falls down. Joking aside, this cavalier disregard for facts typified what was wrong with this programme. The presenter/writer was allowed to keep repeating his pet theories as if they were fact, regardless of the evidence to contrary given by other contributors.

What I really objected to was the programme's moral 'neutrality' on the subject. Former terrorists were allowed to trot out their dubious self-justifications for employing car bombs unchallenged. I found the section on the IRA particularly sickening, with nothing being done to challenge their continued assertions that their car bombs weren't intended to kill 'civilians' and they always gave warnings. If we were to believe this programme, their targets on mainland Britain were primarily economic, and it was the cost to business which 'forced' the UK government to negotiate with them. This conveniently ignored the Warrington and Victoria Station bombings which were clearly directed at shoppers and commuters respectively. But, of course, these weren't car bombs, so fell outside of the programmes remit. They did mention the bombing of the Arnedale shopping centre in Manchester, in passing, but glossed over the loss of life involved. Because it didn't fit its thesis, the programme completely ignored the fact that a major contributing factor to the IRA's abandonment of its bombing campaign and its decision to negotiate with the UK government, was the loss of support it suffered in Ireland as a result of the terrible loss of life caused in the aforementioned incidents. But hey, why should we let the facts get in the way of personal bias?