RollingStone crossed the line imo

[Gandalf]

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.

[El Kabong]

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.

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

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.

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.

[El Kabong]

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

[Gandalf]

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

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.

[El Kabong]

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

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.

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.

And our soldiers aren't having their fucking glamor shots on the fucking cover of the Rolling Stone either.

[Gandalf]

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.

[Britkid]

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.

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.

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.