http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/a...s7bd06162.jpeg
Printable View
Fuck yea
Yup.....they want attention
Why? Isn't it something we should examine as a society? I understand it's probably a shitty, sensationalist article designed to cause controversy and sell papers, but 'terrorists' are people just like anyone else and I think it's important to understand the type of conditions (social, political, psychological etc.) that lead to extremism.
I'd much rather see articles like this than just read quotes from fat, rich, white people crying 'they hate us for our FREEDOM!'.
Oh, I thought you were talking about the RobinThicke thing
I don't know its just seems a bit to rock star. I have no issues with the article itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
It is, and I doubt Rolling Stone has done this in good taste or with objectives more noble than selling magazines. However, more discourse and understanding is never a bad thing, especially regarding an issue as important as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitI don't know its just seems a bit to rock star. I have no issues with the article itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
If it was in a broadsheet newspapers supplement maybe it would make sense, but selecting a posed shot with rock star connotations on the front of a magazine that usually reserves it's cover for celebrity musicians is pretty fucked up. He already has immpressionable and vacuous tweenage girls moping after him so pretending that Rolling Stone is a good place to analyse and reflect in an objective manner just doesn't cut it.
I was fully expecting to find an article about 'One Direction' which would have been sacrilegious enough but at least the crimes they have committed are only against music and their victims will get a chance to grow out of such an unfortunate phase.
Context is everything.
I don't want to understand him. It's a cheap whorish move to garner attention and sales geared towards an already existing younger demographic who will cult celeb this killer. Its blatantly transparent. They dont care about terrorism, they jumped at the fact that he "looks like us". Charlie Manson had supporters too and still receives fan mail. I have more respect for Broner shitting in a fast food joint and bragging he wipes with cash. It's at least money put to a better use compared to this.
I have no issues with the cover. It is an image of a terrorist and within the context of the article makes complete sense. Rolling Stone has had plenty of non rock nutters on its cover in the past and is this no more that that. Rollingstone has excellent articles on all kinds of social issues and this is in that lineage.
"Oh but he looks likes a rock star". What do they want? The S and M gear, piercings, tattoos, and a face of pure hate? He was just a bloke and he isn't being glorified.
That would make a great T-Shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Better that than fat rich white people trying to brow beat me into thinking America is inherently evil and the excess with which we live is evil and we should all repent for harming our Earth Mother or God forbid having a job that allows us to make money. Like that Billy Bragg and Michael Moore and Tom Morrello....FUUUUCK those bastards don't fucking preach to me about how hard other people have it when you're crapping out the most expensive beluga caviar while sitting on your golden toilet seats!Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
....I bet they say Johar was "bullied" into Radical Islam or some bullshit like that to make it seem like "Well, he just had no other choice than to become a terrorist" some haughty "Well white people just don't understand" sob story about how hard it is being not white in America and how we should all feel horrible for the way Johar was treated.....wouldn't surprise me if Matt Taibbi wrote some bullshit like that
I'm kind of torn on this issue.
People bring up the fact that when you put a guy like Tsarnaev on the cover of the Rolling Stones, or name a guy like Luka Magnotta the "Newsmaker of the Year", you're really giving these guys what they want and encouraging these psychopathic fame-seekers to commit horrendous acts to achieve that notoriety. Essentially it's giving the psychopaths a world stage. And I'd agree with that assessment.
But on the other hand, it is the media's responsibility to report/write about/ect the most pressing and intriguing issues facing society, and like it or not, the Tsarnaev saga is an incredible story that had people on the edge of their seats internationally. The Newtown massacre had people mourning all over the globe, as did the Colorado movie shooting. As horrible as this stuff is, our natural reaction is to want answers. We want to know more about the perps and what would cause them to commit such horrible atrocities. I want to know what makes a priviledged kid want to shoot up a school, or a young university student who's seemingly so normal and ingrained in American culture suddenly participate in a 2-man war against the US. These issues really need to be examined.
But at the same time, I acknowledge that Rolling Stone is trying to drum up controversy with this move. Their motives aren't as pure as they'd like us to believe.
Rolling Stone Piece -- in 50 Seconds
Greg Gutfeld summarizes the Rolling Stone piece
An interesting (yet now deleted) Tweet from Rolling Stone's editor
'@'Christianhoard "I guess we should have drawn a dick on Dzhokhar's face or something?"
Seriously what happened to "common sense"? Where did it go and when is it coming back? Its certainly no longer common. Ok so news print is dying the death of a thousand cuts and they need to sell issues but at what cost morally? As a struggling utilitarian I believe profit has become some kind of omnipotent eternal nightmare.
Here is an idea in the next issue how about you put that butcher psychopath who cut that British soldiers head off in broad daylight on the cover in a Polo shirt, holding a bottle of Jack Daniels with and ad for Cold Plays next cry me a river record underneath it?
It's an overreaction. Lyle, knows that I watch Piers Morgan and some guy who hated the cover was asked 'Have you read the article'. His response was basically: 'No, the picture is enough'. It is such a shallow attitude and why they were even interviewing this man was a bit pathetic. It's just an image and how the guy looked. He is on the front of a magazine. Read it for gods sake and then decide. Personally, I can see why they did it, think it was a good job, and of course it is firmly in tradition for Rolling Stone.
No it's a slap in the face of people who have suffered due to the actions of that monster. Write the story by all means...but how about a picture of the BOMBING or the victims or a less "regular guy" picture of Tsarnaev? I guarantee you if they put a picture of George Zimmerman on the cover they would have made HIM look like a monster why? BECAUSE OF THEIR AGENDA...what does Rolling Stone want the reader to take away from this story? Tsarnaev was an easy going every day average dude who smoked pot and was the typical Rolling Stone reader who somehow got into radical Islam through no fault of his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
With issues like this there are certain people who ALWAYS look in the mirror...."Well surely this happened because of something I/WE/America did wrong....let's navel gaze a bit and see if we can't figure out why"...fuck that attitude, some people CHOOSE to be bad, they CHOOSE to break the law, they CHOOSE to kill, to murder, to attack, and they don't need a reason or some life changing event to get them headed down that road.
Lyle, he was a human being and an image was put on the cover. It is no different to Charles Manson being on the cover. It is a story with a lot behind it and Rolling Stone fleshed it out as few others have. I don't understand the issues with an anti-hero being put on the front. The fact was for much of his life he was a likeable young chap. It is that dichotonmy that gets people all twisted up.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongNo it's a slap in the face of people who have suffered due to the actions of that monster. Write the story by all means...but how about a picture of the BOMBING or the victims or a less "regular guy" picture of Tsarnaev? I guarantee you if they put a picture of George Zimmerman on the cover they would have made HIM look like a monster why? BECAUSE OF THEIR AGENDA...what does Rolling Stone want the reader to take away from this story? Tsarnaev was an easy going every day average dude who smoked pot and was the typical Rolling Stone reader who somehow got into radical Islam through no fault of his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
With issues like this there are certain people who ALWAYS look in the mirror...."Well surely this happened because of something I/WE/America did wrong....let's navel gaze a bit and see if we can't figure out why"...fuck that attitude, some people CHOOSE to be bad, they CHOOSE to break the law, they CHOOSE to kill, to murder, to attack, and they don't need a reason or some life changing event to get them headed down that road.
I think Rollingstone have done a very good job here and only those who haven't read the article will have issues with it. The article itself is very well researched and the cover is just to show the duality involved in character.
They are helping to make him a martyr and the young skulls full of mush will read the article and maybe instead of buying a Che t-shirt they'll buy a Tsarnaev one.
He is a murderer and a coward long may he rot in jail
Just because it is more complicated and less straight forward to realize people do things for reasons, often outside their own control, does not make it any less truthful.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
This issue is not black and white/good and bad, both sides here have areas of grey. It is not right a young child died. But that death is not entirely the fault of one individual. It is in part due to the failings of society, that this man could do such a terrible act.
To just blame one individual would be a failing of society, and will almost certainly lead to the death of another young child. If the problem is going to be solved, it first needs to be addressed...
And the fact that people on this forum no matter what their views are debating this subject, shows as well as getting a load of free advertising, The Rolling Stone magazine has helped push forward debate on the subject.
Apply the same rules to your own military services overseas too. Many murderers there too, but they have the authority to do so. Personally, I see little to no difference between that and this.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
Again, the suggested "Look in the mirror, we're the real monsters"....no that is bullshit, we're not throwing acid on women trying to go to school, or stoning rape VICTIMS to death or chopping off hands of thieves, or hacking the heads off of random people visiting our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfApply the same rules to your own military services overseas too. Many murderers there too, but they have the authority to do so. Personally, I see little to no difference between that and this.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And our soldiers aren't having their fucking glamor shots on the fucking cover of the Rolling Stone either.
Your soldiers are responsible for the worst crap in history lest you forget. The A-bomb, the chemicals in Korea, the entire nation slaughter of Vietnam.
You forget your reasons for war. Terrorists, then in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction and now arming Syrian rebels.
The world thinks of you as in their face. And you are in their face and tell them what to do.
How could you ever market yourself to Rolling Stone? That would be absurd considering most of your wars have been based on lies. Rolling Stone is on our side and most ordinary people mock the American war effort.
Rolling Stone presented an honest shot, and like I say.....read the article Lyle. Otherwise you argue in ignorance.
Your view on American military history is crooked and absurd. #1 The atomic bombs dropped on Japan SAVED LIVES that is 100% fact. They saved American, British, Russian, and Japanese lives it is undeniable. #2 The United States has dropped more A-bombs on Nevada than anywhere elseQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
I'm 100% opposed to arming the Syrian "rebels" those bastards are terrorists!
"Our" side...who's "our" represent? The commies, the panty waste bleeding heart liberals who don't work for a living yet want the biggest say in the government, the professional students who have no common sense at all? The Occupy groups....lazy entitled bums....they should be so lucky they are allowed to speak unlike Conservatives who are constantly attacked for using their right to free speech.
Did the US kill the Jews in the Holocaust miles? Did they kill the Jews in the Pogroms in Soviet Russia? Did we starve out the Chinese under Mao? Did we starve out the Irish? Did we implement Apartheid? Did the US military cause the rape of Nanking? Did the US military do nothing to prevent ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? The killing fields in Cambodia...is the US directly responsible for that as well?
End fascism and destroy the Nazis in the most important war fought and end communism peacefully and you still get spat at by mealy mouthed crybaby liberals and called a "baby killer".....Here's a fact for you to chew over you ungrateful bastard, if not for the military men and women you so love to condemn then you miles wouldn't be in South Korea where you're free to speak your mind and think all the outrageous bullcrap you spout...you'd either be in England which would either be a bombed out husk or part of the Nazi super state or perhaps part of the Soviet Bloc or you'd be in Korea and all of Korea would be as fucked as the North.....so when you have your little socialist daydreams about how great and wonderful life would be without the United States just remember what this nation has provided you by simply being around to kick the ass of bad guys.
Rolling Stone does very good hard news, I use to be a subscriber and every issue would have a story on Bush and they would have dumb quotes by politicians.
It's funny because the picture was used in other places and no one cared.
Yeah that's just about the way they do things...malign and ridicule the Right in an attempt to silence them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onetime
I think the purpose of the "regular guy" picture was to reiterate the frightening possibility of "home-grown" terrorism perpetrated by your everyday normal "boy next door". I don't object the choice of picture: people know what he did and the horror he caused. I think the article's purpose is to go beyond the acts and examine what inspires a "normal", fun loving guy like Dzhokhar to do something so horrific.
Now whether or not it belongs on the cover is certainly debatable.
Is Rolling Stone the magazine that has the depth, the knowledge, and the gravitas to ask such questions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
To be honest, I'm not a Rolling Stone reader. If the article turns out to be complete exploitative garbage, then I think they deserve the shit storm they get. But from what I've read of their intentions, I don't see anything wrong with going for what they are going for.
That's like me getting mad at Fox NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYeah that's just about the way they do things...malign and ridicule the Right in an attempt to silence them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onetime
To me, saying that they needed to use an unflattering picture of him is agenda-driven in itself, and almost a form of censorship. The public aren't stupid, they remember the horrible thing that he did. But the fact is, he was a normal kid who was well liked, had friends and did and liked what most 20 year olds do.
And I usually shit on the media for intentionally using the most sinister/ominous pictures they can find. Just like they did with Zimmerman and Trayvon: sinister, mean looking pictures for Zimmerman. Innocent, baby-faced pics of Trayvon.
You seen the picture Fox using for Zimmerman he's smiling all fatQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
So. Who has actually read the article?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Jahar's World | Culture News | Rolling Stone
One of the most liberal and intellectually sophisticated cities in the U.S., Cambridge is also one of the most ethnically and economically diverse.
.....I hope they didn't strain anything patting themselves on the back :rolleyes:
"In terms of politics, I'd say he's just as anti-American as the next guy in Cambridge"
There you have it....fucking liberals
I don't look at it as a right or left thing. I just view it as a right or wrong thing. Regardless of political stripes I just think its over the top. There is something wrong if the need to keep something antiquated afloat resorts to this kind of tactic. No doubt they may have broken a record in sales or perhaps increased stagnant sales generally but were the purchases made for the articles or the cover? At least when Manson appeared on the cover almost in Warhol fashion it was clear he was a psychopath. This mad bomber is depicted as a hipster Jim Morrison look alike with an expression in kind and almost victimized in parts of the article.
It all seems so schizophrenic.
The point I was trying to make @IamInuit was that quote "In terms of politics, I'd say he's just as anti-American as the next guy in Cambridge" is something that was said in such a nonchalant manner but it evokes a very deep issue in America especially in terms of the politics of the youth in America and where does that come from? Most of those kids are not smart enough to research and figure out their own political stances they get it from TV and the internet and celebrities I am certain but my own personal issue is that teachers in the schools are teaching American kids to hate America...I know, I've been in classes with some of those professors who for no good reason bash the fuck out of this country. America isn't perfect no country is, but to cultivate self loathing and self hate.....that really bothers me as a citizen but as a human being too. Why would you hate yourself for being born in a certain place or a certain culture? Hating America doesn't change America....Dzokhar's bombing won't make America treat Muslims in other nations any differently and it will probably stoke an anti-Muslim sentiment in the Northeast rather than make people empathize with their supposed plight. Nothing in America got in the way of those Tsarnaev brothers practicing Islam, NOTHING, they are free to worship and live and prosper in America and what did they do? They let down their nonradical Muslim friends and family by bombing the marathon. They too cultivated hate, and that won't serve anyone well.
Dzohokhar Tsarnaev pictures: Dramatic new pictures of the moment Boston Bomber emerged from the boat | Mail Online