US military identifies 3rd service member believed to have been killed in Iranian attack 13%

By ALLEN G. BREED10% DAVE COLLINS44% KONSTATIN TOROPIN10%

7/21/2026, 6:57:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Halo Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 741 faulty-reasoning hits from 765 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.4% and a BS Rank of 13% (24,207 of 27,714 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.30% of the article peer group.

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP)  The U.S. military has confirmed that a third service member is believed to be dead in Friday’s attack on a base in Jordan and identified them as Sgt. 
Angel S. 
Rampersad, 28, of New York. 
The confirmation brings the death toll to 18 U.S. service members killed since the war began. 
On Monday, the Pentagon identified 1st Lt. 
Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, and Pvt. 
Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas, as the two other soldiers who were killed in Jordan in Friday’s attacks. 
The soldiers were killed by Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks in the first troop deaths from direct Iranian fire since the opening days of the war. 
They were deployed to support a U.S. mission against the Islamic State group, a U.S. 
Central Command statement said. 
After the attack, U.S. 
Central Command announced that two servicemembers were killed and another was missing. 
The following day, the military command said that troops found unidentified remains and that an examination process to verify the remains was underway. 
Now, the Pentagon says that Rampersad is believed to be that missing soldier and her official status is now “Duty Status–Whereabouts Unknown” and she is “believed to be deceased.” 
Rampersad belonged to the same unit as Gonzales  the 10th Army Air & Missile Defense Command based in Ansbach, Germany. 
Also, a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq during a controlled detonation of an Iranian drone was identified as Sgt. 
Michael Emmanuel Swinton, a 30-year-old father from North Carolina who had served for nearly a decade, according to a military statement Tuesday and his family. 
Swinton will receive a Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge, and will be promoted to staff sergeant. 
The Army said it was investigating the circumstances of his death Sunday at an air base in Irbil. 
He leaves behind a 6-year-old son and a 4-year-old daughter, his mother said. 
“I will never recover from this,” his wife, Mia Gonzalez-Swinton, posted Monday on Facebook. 
“We had so many plans for when you got back, I’m sick to my stomach.” 
She said she was notified Sunday that he had been killed. 
Two U.S. 
Army soldiers were also killed in Jordan last week while defending against Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks. 
They were the first U.S. troop deaths from direct Iranian fire since the opening days of the war. 
His wife and kids were the center of his world, his mother, Christel Swinton Andujar, told The Associated Press. 
“His legacy will live on through the countless lives he touched, the laughter he shared, the strength he gave others, and the unconditional love he poured into his family,” she said via text message. 
“He will forever be missed, forever honored, and forever our hero.” 
Swinton enlisted in the Army in 2017 and was assigned to the 55th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 
He lived in Spring Lake, a popular off-base location for Fort Bragg families, according to pubic records. 
The military gave his hometown as Fayetteville, another nearby community. 
“Sgt. 
Swinton was an experienced noncommissioned officer who took great pride in his work and the people around him,” said Brig. 
Gen. 
John L. 
Dawber, commanding general of the Army Air and Missile Defense Command. 
“He answered the call to duty with courage, honor, and selfless dedication.” 
Renewed fighting between the U.S. and Iran is now in its 10th day, with both sides launching barrages of strikes. 
Iran has attacked U.S. allies in the region, and American soldiers are stationed across the Middle East. 
Iranian authorities say U.S. strikes in just the past three weeks have killed at least 50 people and wounded more than 500 others. 
Both sides have targeted civilian infrastructure relied on by millions of people. 
Workers on ships, as well as foreign workers and others in Gulf nations, Israel and Lebanon have also died in the conflict. 
The U.S. 
State Department said in a new warning to Americans that “Iran and groups supportive of Iran may target other U.S. interests overseas or at locations associated with the United States and Americans throughout the world.” 
U.S. 
President Donald Trump has said the war is necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 
Trump, a Republican, now faces political pressure to bring the war to a close and avoid the kind of prolonged Middle East conflict he had campaigned against. 
The escalation has pushed oil prices higher in recent weeks. 
___ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.7%ALLEN G. BREED: 1.2%Associated Press: 2.0%Confirmation Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.3%Associated Press: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%ALLEN G. BREED: 2.4%Associated Press: 2.9%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 1.6%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic1.6%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%ALLEN G. BREED: 1.6%Associated Press: 5.1%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.5%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.3%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.6%Associated Press: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 22.1%ALLEN G. BREED: 6.0%Associated Press: 8.2%Negativity Bias22.1%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%ALLEN G. BREED: 4.2%Associated Press: 0.9%Halo Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 1.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.2%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.5%Associated Press: 2.8%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 1.6%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.6%Associated Press: 0.8%False Dilemma1.6%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.9%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.7%Associated Press: 2.3%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.9%ALLEN G. BREED: 2.9%Associated Press: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion13.9%This article: 2.1%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.5%Associated Press: 0.8%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 1.3%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.3%Associated Press: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.3%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.6%Associated Press: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 1.3%Associated Press: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice3.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%ALLEN G. BREED: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

765 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers22%attributed speech594writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words37% of attributed speech56% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Christel Swinton Andujar: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Christel Swinton Andujar: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.