Rolling Stone magazine puts Boston Bomber on cover.

They did listen to the Russians. What did you want them to do arrest them for hanging out with extremist in Russia, apply 24 hour surveillance on them and every other individual that has been associated with extremist groups in America?

You guys aren't that realistic.

 

You´ve never been to the place I live have you.... have you ever left your little home town and mom.... It looks like no.

I can assure you that my standard of living and freedoms are far greater than yours... and these are the two thing that you pride yourself on.

 

That's exactly what you said. You blamed our support for Israel and the drone strikes. Do I have to quote you as well?

And you left off the question I posed to you:

Bin Laden said the reason he attacked us was because we had bases in Saudi Arabia. The bases were removed. Did he stop attacking us?

Answer the Question.

This delusional state of appeasing terrorists under the threat of terror is pure cowardice. They will always have a reason to attack us. We aren't a Muslim country. Get with the program

 

I think I am going to go to the closest Barnes & Noble and protest there until they remove every copy of this Rolling Stone from their shelves. I am that angry about this!

On second thought, I think I will just not buy this particular issue & stay home and watch Deadliest Catch on my DVR. Seems more sensible.

 

Yeah, but at least they could have put a big "L" on his forehead.

 

Glamourizing a murderer who used a WMD to blow apart an 8 year old and riddle his body with nails to the point he was a human pin cushion. Do you need more than that or are you still confused by all the adult talk? Only a liberal can look at a child murderer and think to themselves.....welll he is kinda cute though.

Effing disgusts me. Rolling Stone....FU and any sack of fecal matter that buys it.

 

I bet the left media will have him as a white male before this is all over.

 

Excactly, just so we are clear, Zimmerman was a white racist until he was found not guilty, then the same lefties said he was hispanic and made racist comments saying what was it now......hmm.....eating....what was it .....churros at the taco bell? This coming from the people who said HE was a racist.
Same with this filth. If it was a fat white guy that did the boston bombing the lefties would be occuturd orgasming all over themselves about hanging him...but since the murderer was cute and looked like a rockstar in their dumb %^&ing heads they put him on a magazine cover.
Listen up libs. Your little rockstar looking rolling stone hero is either going to be executed or raped in prison for years to come. Enjoy him while you can before we send him to his terror loving mom in a tiny little box or we hand him over to his cellmate nicknamed tripod.

 

I've seen far worse than this - I'd say the glorification of people like Malcom X is more offensive, he was really just a black version of David Duke.

At least they're not praising his actions as a reaction to 'white oppression'. The 'failed by his family' bit seems a bit apolegetic though

 

Really that's not true - ultimately it's up to the individual, however I'd say glamorization of violence in the media that in particular the has a negative influence on youth.

This is why black and urban youth have such high crime rates, partly because of the glamorization of 'gangsta rappers'. That's just one example.

Understanding the science of human behavior, and apologizing for evil actions aren't the same by any means.

Ultimately though, if you believe that society's got no part in influencing bad behavior in youth - then there's no point in griping about it, because in your own words there's no way to affect the outcome. Griping serves no purpose unless it offers a solution.

 

I didn't see the 'glamorization' - beyond that of the entertainment industry in general. The fact that so many shows/magazines/films deal with subject matter such as terrorists, serial killers, etc I think shows an unhealthy fascination with violence, and is a negative influence on youth.

This article in particular's nothing special, it's just par for the course. I think it's a bad thing that society seems to be more fascinated with violent and evil individuals than good ones.

 

He admitted that he did it, that's good enough.

 

Hell Obama's best friend jayz stabbed a guy several times because they disagreed and he is a Rock star and is looked upon ad admired by our president. A person that committed attempted murder had the prez ear. What kind of message does that send to the youth I America. Hell he even get special privilege form the prez that Americans could never get. Like the trip to Cuba the the White House said was for educational. By educational you mean smoking cigars and drinking sure it was educational.

 

I am really rather shocked at the response an article posing a viewpoint, that perhaps the monster was manufactured, is drawing so much ire.

Are words that offensive? Should folks not view things from different angles rather than shutting ones mind once decided?

Whilst Rolling Stone has perhaps lost much of the relevance it once had and this could simply be a tawdry gimmick to sell magazines, the outrage over words printed on paper is reminding me of folks acting in the very way they claim to hate.

 

So not sympathizing with Islamic terrorists is tantamount to acting like an Islamic terrorist?

I wonder if Rolling Stone magazine would have done this if the bomber turned out to be a white supremacist or "Tea Party extremist"? I wonder if left-wingers would be talking about the need to view the person from different angles?

 

This is not surprising with these liberal rags glorifying criminals:

 

Looks less likely for greater sales, CVS, Walgreens, Rite-Aid, Stop & Stop, and Tedeschi Food Shops have said they will not sell that issue in their stores, and that's close to 20,000 locations.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/studentnews/tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

I would offer my sincere congratulations on the birth of your strawman argument. Kudos to you.

Shall we now move on to you hurling juvenile insults, and me kicking them in the teeth?

 

Why not? Almost every news outlet, magazine, tabloid, right or left has sections dedicated to exploiting gruesome crimes just for ratings. It's an industry wide problem and it's been that way for a long time - this particular magazine isn't anything special, it's just par for the course.

 

I don't remember such reaction outside of Hitler as Man of the Year... with at least an explanation. The Tsarnev's wanted to be famous. This is not how such things are handled.

That is why all those national chains have dropped them. Expect to hear more in a few days.

 

It'd say it's a good thing, however this isn't a "Rolling Stone" only trend - pretty much every news site, magazine, etc out there exploits violent and heinous crime just for ratings. This specific incident seems pretty tame honestly - just read the "crime" section of a site like Huffington post, for example.

The only immediate solution to the problem would be obscenity laws applied toward tabloid crime stories.

 

It's not a strawman

Since these words revolve around justifying and sympathizing with the Islamic terrorist, what other conclusion is likely?

 

Terrorist attacks by a group we are at war with, who learned to do this from Al Qaeda, do not qualify as "crime". This is war. You do not turn the sworn enemy of your nation into a rock star.

Not sure how you are missing this...

 

It is a strawman, and amazingly your post continues with the strawman, sympathizing nonsense.

 

Never said I was in favor of it - I just pointed out how this isn't all that shocking compared to anything else you'd see in a tabloid - be it a terrorist, a rapist, a murderer - etc. Glorifying ne'er do wells is par for the tabloid industry's course.

The anger should be directed at the tabloid industry as a whole, rather than cherry-picking this particular article.