Skip to comments.
Three of Jessica Lynch Rescuers Dead
Posted on 10/31/2003 9:50:19 AM PST by eabinga
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Do I need to go out and get a tinfoil hat now? On the surface this seems to be an odd coincidence. I don't know, how many people are considered to be involved with the rescue to make this a feasable statistical probability. I would like to hear some opinions on this.
1
posted on
10/31/2003 9:50:19 AM PST
by
eabinga
To: eabinga
D*mn weird! Don't don the foil fedora yet, but keep it handy...
2
posted on
10/31/2003 9:52:41 AM PST
by
Frank_Discussion
(May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
To: eabinga
Spc. Williams was not a Pfc. Lynch rescuer.
To: So Cal Rocket
I took note of that in the title and only claimed 3 rescuers.
In addition to the rescuers, I noted one suicide of a 507th member.
4
posted on
10/31/2003 9:56:25 AM PST
by
eabinga
To: So Cal Rocket
He said that. THREE rescuers and ALSO a member of the maintenance company are dead. He did not say Williams was there.
5
posted on
10/31/2003 9:57:53 AM PST
by
RetiredArmy
(We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
To: eabinga
Judging by the language used, this is an awfully broad definition of "Jessica Lynch Rescuer".
A U.S. Marine who was part of the unit that helped rescue Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch
A Marine who helped in the rescue of Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch
There are probably hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who fit those definitions. By contrast, it sounds as if the SEAL who was killed was actually part of the rescue team.
6
posted on
10/31/2003 9:57:57 AM PST
by
Physicist
To: eabinga
You need to wrap your entire body in tin foil!
7
posted on
10/31/2003 10:01:05 AM PST
by
verity
To: Frank_Discussion
D*mn weird! Don't don the foil fedora yet, but keep it handy... Heck, I never take mine off!
8
posted on
10/31/2003 10:04:03 AM PST
by
gridlock
(Rooting for the Yankees means you can say, "We'll get 'em next year!", and mean it!)
To: Physicist
I agree with that. That's why my comment questions the number of people considered to be involved with the rescue.
I can see it to be a highlight in an obiturary of anybody, lets say a cook, who happened to be attached to one of these units that rescued Lynch.
9
posted on
10/31/2003 10:05:34 AM PST
by
eabinga
To: eabinga
I have wondered about the validity of the rescue from day one. She has no recollection of the incident and when I heard about Lance Cpl. Sok Khak Ung getting killed in a 'drive by' flags went up. I was not aware of the other deaths, but methinks it's starting to smell awfully fishy around here. The fact that the rescue occurred on April 1 is just another one of those coincidences I guess.
10
posted on
10/31/2003 10:34:27 AM PST
by
highnoon
(Revenge is a dish best served cold.)
To: eabinga
Going back and reading it over again, it's very hard to know what part the three played in the rescue. As you suggest, the news media are always looking for an angle to spice up the news. As I read it, only one of these men may have participated in the actual rescue, but there aren't enough details given to be certain.
11
posted on
10/31/2003 10:35:04 AM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Cicero
I agree, the more I think about it the less conspirative it becomes in my mind.
I am going to put the tin fez back on the shelf.
12
posted on
10/31/2003 10:55:55 AM PST
by
eabinga
To: eabinga
There ain't enought tin foil at the supermarket for this one!
13
posted on
10/31/2003 11:07:15 AM PST
by
Tallguy
(Leave the gun, take the cannoli...)
To: eabinga
I see that most of these deaths resulted Stateside. The U.S. is a quagmire, I tell you!
14
posted on
10/31/2003 11:34:23 AM PST
by
TexasRepublic
(Liberal = Socialist = Communist)
To: Mrs Zip; BOBWADE
ping
15
posted on
10/31/2003 1:44:32 PM PST
by
zip
To: zip
Plenty of statistical anomalies these days.
16
posted on
10/31/2003 1:50:22 PM PST
by
Truth666
To: eabinga
All four of the cat's grandparents are dead! Weird, huh? It gets weirder: all 8 of the cat's great-grandparents are dead too! Conspiracy, fer shore!
To: eabinga
I beleive hundreds were involved in the rescue if you count the Marine unit that attacked away from the hospital as a diversion prior to the rescue. Cpl. Ung was part of that unit. Navy SEAL David Tapper was actually part of the team that went into the hospital and brought Lynch out.
18
posted on
11/01/2003 12:57:20 AM PST
by
milemark
(Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is conspiracy.)
To: eabinga
Oh My! Many they all find peace. I have not seen anything like this since the Clinton body count!
19
posted on
11/01/2003 1:41:51 AM PST
by
JustPiper
(RIP Freeper Lynne - God loves you! You are our angel now!)
To: eabinga
Lance Cpl. Sok Khak Ung,Was a part of the rescue in-so-far as his unit created the diversion while the actual rescuers were going in. He wasn't at the hospital nor would he have likely been privvy to any super-secret details of the type that would get him whacked by the gov't. Although a Marine, he would've been at an entirely different echelon of operations than the SpecOps/Ranger types that went in to get Lynch.
The Navy SEAL, well one thing to keep in mind here is there isn't a great number of SEALs. SEALs and other SpecOps members have had a great deal of time and money invested in their training. A great deal. This administration believes in using them to maximize that investment apparently and it's hard to argue with that logic. It's good sound business.
Second the SpecOps take part in missions that are more dangerous by their nature than a normal soldier would. This raises their personal likelihood of becoming a casualty which was already higher by virtue of the fact that their numbers are lower.
Third, in Afghanistan you are going to see a higher ratio of SpecOps guys to normal infantry/combat soldiers being the casualties than you would in Iraq. In Afghanistan the conflict there is being prosecuted mainly by SpecOps where it is mainly ordinary soldiers/infantry etc in Iraq. So, Afghanistan is a likely place for a Navy SEAL to go down.
Think about some of the factors like this. Most of the soldiers involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom are likely still in Iraq but their mission has changed gradually over time and they have been right tin the middle of that transformation. The mission has gone from a high level war to a lower level one, from an invasion to an occupation/stabilization/fighting sporadically type mission. Those soldiers have had time to learn that environment gradually and learn to deal with it. While they are still in harm's way, the level of threat they are exposed to has been lowered over time.
On the other hand, a fellow like this Navy SEAL is going to be taken from one hot situation and placed into another a lot quicker than an ordinary infantryman would. The situations he's going to be involved in are just different in nature and more dangerous than that of an infantryman in the 3rd ID.
That's the way I see it anyway. I don't even see it as an odd coincidence. It is likely that a Navy SEAL would get killed in combat. The others got killed in the USA- a much more dangerous place than Iraq.
Lynch just wasn't that important to have to go around and kill people involved in her rescue now. The whole uproar over her rescue was created by the press- the Wash Post in particular- not the military. What would be the reason for wiping out those involved with her rescue?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson