Not U.S. attack
The news story “1972 Vietnam napalm victim shares tale of healing” (Nov. 8 and TribLIVE.com) about a speaker at Sewickley Academy was inspirational. However, as they were 41 years ago, a lie was repeated and certain relevant facts were omitted:
• The village where she was injured was a Viet Cong stronghold under attack by South Vietnamese forces.
• A South Vietnamese Air Force pilot mistook the fleeing villagers for enemy soldiers and dropped the napalm.
• U.S. forces were nowhere near the village.
None of those facts alters the reality that war is horrible or that she was an innocent victim. At the time, the North Vietnamese government, the Viet Cong and various Communist governments used the incident as a propaganda tool against what they termed “U.S. imperialist aggression.”
Unfortunately, they were joined by the anti-war U.S. mainstream media in twisting and omitting the facts of the story, which perpetrated the falsehood that the attack was executed by American forces.
In every war, it is near impossible to avoid civilian casualties. In Vietnam, it was not U.S. policy to target and kill innocent civilians, and troops who did so were court-martialed.
Quite often, what isn't reported is sufficient enough to obscure the truth.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Don’t forget Highmark patients
- AG’s office no place for porn
- Beyond wacky
- Perk in peril?
- EPA proposal a threat to all
- Get revenue elsewhere
- Bad politics, poor judgment
- Wrong then & now
- Political minority’s plight
- A proper salute