Talk:Operation Tailwind

message: While the subject of the article is controversial, currently I don't see anything in it that is POV.  If no one can point to something that is, I suggest removing the POV template.  Lawyer2b 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove POV label? 

message: Paranoia, it strikes deep. Into your life its going to creep. It starts when your always afraid, step out of line the man coming gonna shoot you down. Anyone with any knowledge of SOG's personnel or operations knew that the news story was bullshit from the get-go. What freaks me out is that so many people believed it (and still believe it). The fact that the reporters twisted the facts and statements of the participants and used Van Buskirk and Moorer in that way made me sick to my stomach. If Edward R. Murrow were still alive, he would have kicked both reporter's asses simultaneously while chain-smoking Pall Malls. They should be working for some ass-wipe paper in Pago-Pago now, yet, look what happened to them. This country is indeed turning into the ultimate in bizzaro. RM Gillespie 12:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place for your personal opinions. 69.22.242.15 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Wierd beyond belief

message: "Airborne", yes. --HanzoHattori 17:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "air operation" 

message: I assure you that Operation Tailwind did happen, as I was the SF Medic on the operation, and still have a scare on my right foot where I received a B40 rocket fragment.
G. M. Rose  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.22.25 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Tailwind 

message: Sorry about the date:  G. M. Rose wrote his comment 3 January 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.22.25 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Tailwind 

message: I take issue with the use of the term "fabricated" in conjunction with the CNN/Time "Tailwind" story. In his comprehensive report on the story in its aftermath for CNN, the attorney Floyd Abrams specifically notes that the reporters DID NOT fabricate the story.
And I quote: "While we offer considerable criticism in this report of CNN's newsgathering for this broadcast, we do not believe it can reasonably be suggested that any of the information on which the broadcast was based was fabricated or nonexistent."
In concluding his report, Abrams recommends that CNN retract the story and apologize, but he very clearly denies that the story was fabricated.
Dogwig (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and  "fabricated" raises BLP issues, not a very intelligent thing to do when there have been lawsuits in this matter, so I removed it.John Z (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It wasn't quite fabricated but it was far from accurate reporting. There are people who have believed since the 1970s that the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam and that the large number of wartime MIAs could be explained by Americans defecting to the VC & NVA. But while the stories of these things circulated, there were no facts to back them up. In the 1990s reporters latched on to someone claiming to have seen Americans during a mission from a distance, combined it with a "gas" being used on the same mission and came up with a story where Tailwind was a conspiracy to kill American deserters with nerve gas that fit all the conclusions that they had come to before they started. They then went out and pressed interview subjects hard to gather sound bytes to use in support of the story. They used leading questions and hypotheticals often on elderly interview subjects to get what they wanted. They also went and found the typical Vietnam story tellers who claimed to know all about the operation in spite of having no involvement. It wasn't fabricated. It was more that the reporters wanted it to be true so bad that they broke all the rules and disregarded what the evidence was actually saying. They assumed that all the written evidence was lies and that anyone in the military who didn't agree with the story was part of a conspiracy. The story wasn't fabricated in the same way that UFO and bigfoot stories are not fabricated. Its a matter of wanting something to be true so bad that normal judgement fails. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not fabricated 

message: I'd like to point out this is very similar to an R&D project known as Project 112 had not been declassified at the time of this "investigation" in the 1990s.  So there actually was a "cover-up" that started in Congressional hearings around 1977 to conceal even the name Project 112 before the tailwind investigation ever started.
There was actual documentation and factual information that came out of this in the form of records, depositions of Generals, statements of officials etc. Another incident in Cambodia was an R&D Project known Waterfall or Red Cap was discussed as part of Tailwind.  
Today, released Project 112 documentation shows that Phase II Item 7 was to fulfill the need for Special Forces to have available several dissemination devices for chemical agents by June 1964 and (five) biological  dissemination devices by June 1963.  Another document relating to Project 112 was the development of new gas masks for helicopter crews as discussed in tailwind. just two off the top of my head. My opinion is there is very likely something to this but we'll probably never know as sources are so limited. Sorry, that I don't have those available sources right in front of me. I do have them for another entry I'm working on.Johnvr4 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Project 112 was another of JFK's brilliant ideas. It doesn't relate to tailwind because 112 was generally speaking a failure. They did a great deal of generally foolish and useless research which resulted in almost nothing of practical use. It was in the same bucket of things as "Project Popeye" which aimed to control weather over Laos. Tailwind was just an SOG mission into Laos. As far as "Red Cap and Waterfall", there were no such projects. They were invented in a conspiracy oriented newspaper in the early 1970s. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Project 112

message: Hello,
Arrived here while editing the referred to military operation in Laos. I find reliable sources referring to said Lao operation as Operation Honorable Dragon. Over here, it is called Operation Gauntlet. Neither name is in the List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1970).Georgejdorner (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorable Dragon? 

message: When I double-checked Class B standards  on the Talk page template, someone had already failed it for lack of cites. I changed the mistaken assessment to Start class.Georgejdorner (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Not B Class

message: This article mentions "the plaintiff" four times, but fails to mention his identity.  Who was he? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is "the plaintiff"?