Paul Lowe, right, with cousin Barry, left, and brother Craig. Paul was killed two days ago. Picture: Tim Ockenden/ PAPosted on 11/06/2004 1:58:09 PM PST by dinok
Paul Lowe, right, with cousin Barry, left, and brother Craig. Paul was killed two days ago. Picture: Tim Ockenden/ PA
THE killers of the British hostage Kenneth Bigley last night claimed responsibility for the suicide attack on the Black Watch in Iraq in which three soldiers died.
The followers of the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said they carried out the bombing on Thursday, according to a statement on an Islamic website.
Iraq’s most wanted group made the chilling claim as a bitter political row broke out at home over the regiment’s re-deployment in support of American troops.
On a day when the 12-year-old daughter of Sergeant Stuart Gray broke down while laying flowers in her father’s memory there were vitriolic political exchanges, in particular between Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, and the SNP leader, Alex Salmond.
The veteran nationalist said "a tide of anger" was sweeping across Scotland, and repeated accusations that the Black Watch’s deployment into the Sunni Triangle near Baghdad had been a political favour to the US president, George Bush.
A furious Mr Hoon said Mr Salmond’s remarks "demonstrate clearly there are no depths to which he will not sink", and accused him of trying to score political points over the deaths of Sgt Gray, 31, Private Scott McArdle, 22, and Private Paul Lowe, 19, all from Fife.
Meanwhile in Iraq, the Black Watch’s commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel James Cowan said that while the regiment was "saddened" over the loss of their comrades in the suicide-bomb attack and ambush, they would "not be deterred from seeing our task through".
(Excerpt) Read more at news.scotsman.com ...
No, that doesn't mean not to question and all that. But people demanding the military do this that or the other without knowing the whole story (and none of us know) are the ultimate armchair warriors.
Al Queda was in Iraq long before we arrived there and it had been allied with Saddam since the early 90s. Iraq was the center of terror and trained and funded terrorists from throughout the region as well has providing refuge for them to escape US and Israeli justice. A War on Terror would be impossible to win if Iraq was left unmolested to provide that sanctuary as the removal of Zarquawi to Baghdad from Afganistan for medical treatment clearly shows.
There is no such thing as a discreet al Queda organization rather it is a conglomeration of cells operating loosely throughout the world including Russia. It happily fought Kurds for Saddam as well as fly airliners into buildings in NY or slaughter school kids in Russia.
As a matter of fact, all those whose worldviews are determined by the RATmedia could use education since their heads are filled with mush even if they are soldiers.
"You seem to blend the Battle of Britai
No I haven't. A cousin was killed flying Spitfires. Your revisionism forces one to unearth ghosts that should stay burried. Just leave it all alone."
What was your 'cousin's' name?
See I'm a little confused. Of the 7 Americans flying in the RAF during the battle of Britain only one was killed.
Moreover he died crashing a Hurricane. Either you're mistaken or telling fibs.
"These scumbags are too cowardly to face the Black Watch in battle like Men but scurry around in the dark like the Rats they are. Sneaks, no Bravehearts, can never win because they abhor valor and the light."
Certainly as fighters one wouldn't describe their tactics as honorable. However they seem to be faily typical of a guerilla force. To be perfectly honest they probably aren't equipped or trained to be able to attack the allied forces in a straight shootout. They realise this of course and conduct their insurgent activities accordingly. This is not really pussiliance, but logic.
In fact what ever their cause is, they seem to be ruthlessly committed to it. I'm sorry, but loading a car with explosives and driving it into enemy soldiers is an action that is difficult to reconcile with the accepted definition of cowardice.
Make no mistake their cause is far from just, but to dismiss them as cowards understates the enormity of the task ahead of our warrior as they take on Fallujah. This is a foe that is unbelievably committed, which is precisely what makes Islamic extremism so dangerous to us all.
Your knowledge of the history of World War two is laughable. I suggest that you go back and immerse yourself in the history of the second world war before you make such baseless and outlandish claims. Yes the Brittish won the Battle of Brittain in the air on their own. To claim however, that they avoided invasion in the long term without US participation in the war is totally unwarranted.
How could I, an American not be lying when I ascertain that a cousin flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain, when no Americans flew Spitfires in the Battle of Britain? It is a wonderful little riddle.
Answer - my cousin was British, AH.
First, yes, there are a few certain articles in the UCMJ about contempt, etc.... Second, I served, at a NATO Headquarters. British Officers served alongside me. Third, I was an officer and a gentlemen and did not need to be told not to express contempt for the leaders of my allies.
Sorry wrong on this point. When you bad mouth any leader publicly (same side/working with) you are bad mouthing your own leader. This is besides the point, you are demoralizing you own troops. He is a free citizen and can say what he wants, but when you are in a combat zone, shut your mouth and do your job. When you get home then you can be just like Kerry.
Saddam had them, used them, then said he destroyed them. Would you believe someone who would use WMD on his own people?
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1218913/posts
Al-Qaeda was not linked to Saddam. No investigation by our govt claims as this. Secindly, the authorization for war to congress gave other reasons than al-Qaeda why we went to war. You want to buy the fantasy of al-Qaeda in Iraq as justification you can.
Back to you.
Here I am saying what we did was sanction based on that fact and your type freak out as if I went against some sort of party/cult line.
It is time to update your knowledge and thinking.
I agree - bad manners - but not prohibited by any rules of court martial the way such bad mouthing of Bush would fall under if you were an American serviceman.
I agree - bad manners - but not prohibited for Brits by any American rules of the UCMJ or any American court martial the way such bad mouthing of Bush would fall under if you were an American serviceman.
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I assure you that an American serviceman serving with allies cannot express contempt for our allied leadership. It is more than bad manners. It's the law.
Yes, well as a retired O-6 I do.
Well there you have it - contact the British and ask when will the private face discipline for remarks against Bush? Proof is in the pudding.
Sorry, I can only speak for what are the rules governing american servicemen serving with allies. The UK have to figure their own side out.
ME "All I can say is, I have a bad feeling the Z-man is not holed up in Fallujah and therefore will not be eliminated once our forces remove all insurgents in Fallujah soon."
You:
Well he certainly wont have hung around long, what with all of our stupid public announcements about how "the attack is coming soon". I don't recall us annoucing the landing at Normandy."
Agree. But lets face it, our military has allowed embedded reporters amoung them to report real time events. So I guess we cannot complain. Regardless of the reasons behind allowing reporters to show real time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.