Image talk:Brzezinski-BinLaden.jpg

wow

the statement below was moved from the image's main page to this talk page

Second that: It's a fraud

The man doesn't look anything like Bin Laden, who is 6 foot 6 and thin. The total lack of source and verification tells me it is fake. The poster says that he can't prove it is fake. But I think proof is needed to show it is genuine. The burden of proof is on the original poster, not on us to show it is photoshopped. In fact, I don't think they need to photoshop in this case: It is just two other people playing with a gun. Neither Brzenzinski nor Bin Laden. What an obvious sham.

Moreover, read the 911 Commission report. The US including CIA totally missed Bin Laden, who they called "Osam Ben Laden" in 1994 and thought was merely a "financier" until 1998. Sorry but you need to update your conspiracy theories, mac.

Authenticity?

I am suspicious that this photo is even real. I find it hard to believe that the only place such a significant historical image would be commented on is a Polish anti-war site. I don't read Polish, but on that site there is also the famous (and obviously photoshopped) image of Bush with beard and turban. While there is little question that the US government funded training for future terrorists in Central Asia, I find it highly unlikely that the National Security Advisor had no more pressing business than providing personal tutoring in the use of firearms. csloat 22:50, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I said in the Copyright statement, my source for it was not the polish site (their copy isn't the same; it's reduced in size by about a third). The site I saved it from (now down), was in English. I understand and appreciate the concern, and I'm working to verify it beyond any doubt.

The fact that a copy of this image appears on a site that also hosts a photoshopped image of Bush doesn't necessarily mean that this image is photoshopped as well. The Bush image is a piece of satire. This image, if it is doctored, it is designed to look genuine, and in context (of the polish site, at least) appears to be presented as such. It certainly was on the site I got it from.

In light of the well-documented connection between the CIA and the Mujaheddin, and Brzezinski's vociferous support of them, as well as his position as National Security Advisor, this historical scene is extremely likely. It's in keeping with his politics, his job and duties at the time, his ideology, and with the throughly documented actions of his subordinates in the CIA. It would be dubious indeed if Brzezinski had denounced the Mujaheddin, if the historical record showed that they were considered enemies by U.S. foreign policy, or even if the United States had simply been ambivalent about the Soviet–Afghan conflict. This is not the case.

Clarknova 04:49, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is dubious to me is not whether the US supported the mujaheddin, which is a well established fact. What I find dubious is that the National Security Advisor is offering hands-on weapons training, even for a photo op. That kind of training is done by much lower level CIA field agents and military advisors, not the NSA himself. In the case of Afghanistan most of the direct training was done by the Pakistani inteligence agency. Most US support for the mujaheddin was funnelled through the Pakistani ISI. Also, it is unlikely that bin Laden himself interacted with US forces directly. He denies it in interviews when asked about it, and his ideology certainly makes it unlikely.

This photo is not commented on in any credible work that I'm aware of on US support for the Afghan Arabs. That fact alone doesn't prove anything, but it does make me suspicious. I also realize that the fact that the photo is next to the doctored photo of Bush on the polish site doesn't prove anything, but it does suggest to me that we all would benefit from being able to read the Polish on the site -- who knows, it may say, "look at these photoshopped pictures!" (though of course it probably does not). I found other copies of the photo on other sites but none that seemed to offer any evidence that the man in the photo is actually bin Laden or any suggestion of when the photo was taken and by whom. --csloat 17:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Weapon in picture is probably an RPD, not an M249

The picture's caption incorrectly identifies the featured weapon as an M249, which the linked Wikipedia article states was not mass produced until 1982. Even if the United States were to export a weapon it had only recently acquired for its own forces, I doubt the National Security Adviser demonstrated the weapon during a tenure that ended one year before the gun's mass production began.

Using the pictures of the RPD (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg14-e.htm) and M249 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg17-e.htm) from http://world.guns.ru, note specifically the differences in the buttstock design, the distance between the trigger and the ammo drum/belt/box, the presence of a wooden handguard forward of the ammo drum on the RPD, and the differences in barrel length. From this comparison I believe that the weapon pictured in the photo more closely resembles an RPD than an M249.

BTW: A majority of the text on the Wikipedia M249 page and the http://world.guns.ru page are identical.