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.