Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf View Post
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.