Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Jahar Tsarnaev makes the cover of Rolling Stone

Monster or not, he is so fucking hot.

by Anonymousreply 15408/02/2013

You disgust even us, OP.

by Anonymousreply 107/16/2013

And you're a freak, OP.

by Anonymousreply 207/16/2013

"Monster or not, he is so fucking hot."

OP, read the attached item and then shoot yourself in the dick.

by Anonymousreply 307/16/2013

I agree he is very hot. He has a gorgeous face.

by Anonymousreply 407/16/2013

Bomber or not, if he were hot, I'd say he's hot. He's not hot.

by Anonymousreply 507/16/2013

Fuck Rolling Stone.

Yes, let's give this piece of shit the COVER. Being on the cover of Rolling Stone used to mean something.

by Anonymousreply 607/16/2013

He's a skinny kid who needs a haircut desperately! !

by Anonymousreply 707/16/2013

"Being on the cover of Rolling Stone used to mean something."

What exactly did it used to mean, and when did it stop meaning same?

by Anonymousreply 807/16/2013

[quote]

What exactly did it used to mean, and when did it stop meaning same?

Let me guess, you're under 25.

by Anonymousreply 907/16/2013

[quote]What exactly did it used to mean, and when did it stop meaning same?

Let me guess, you're under 25.

by Anonymousreply 1007/16/2013

See "Almost Famous."

by Anonymousreply 1107/16/2013

Seriously R8?? Wow.

by Anonymousreply 1207/16/2013

FUCK YOU ROLLING STONE.

No, I didn't make this

by Anonymousreply 1307/16/2013

I'm quite serious. I'd like to know what it used to mean so that I can review the examples of covers from that era and confirm that it actually meant what you seem to think that it meant.

by Anonymousreply 1407/16/2013

It was the premiere source of information about music in a time before cable TV and the internet. Being on the cover was a symbol of success. Now go watch Almost Famous.

by Anonymousreply 1507/16/2013

[quote]Being on the cover of Rolling Stone used to mean something.

Whatever you say, gramps.

coughbullshitcough

by Anonymousreply 1607/16/2013

They had Charles Manson on the cover as a one off in the 70's, and that was shitty as well.

However, RS in it's current state is just trying to be "edgy"

by Anonymousreply 1707/16/2013

R8 and R16 are uninformed dumbfucks.

by Anonymousreply 1807/16/2013

He looks like a Jonas brother. Yucky! He's not adorbz like my cutie, James Holmes. Squee!

by Anonymousreply 1907/16/2013

Nah, they're probably just young kids, R18.

by Anonymousreply 2007/16/2013

His hair looks like pubes gone wild.

by Anonymousreply 2107/16/2013

What did they say?

Is he being framed because a lot of things don't add up. Was it an FBI screw up or was it the CIA?

by Anonymousreply 2307/16/2013

Read the article before judging. It makes clear that his insance fucking family left him to swing in the wind. Tamerlan was already crazy, he told his mother he felt like another person was living inside him and the silly bitch turned him onto radical Islam to try and cure him. She left Jahar in the care of a triple murderer and total nutjob.

Jahar came out of the boat when the cops reminded him of his school days, his wrestling coach and friends. The vile act he committed was indeed monstrous but the young man sitting in isolation is not a monster. The whole case is a tragedy for all concerned.

by Anonymousreply 2407/17/2013

They did not do a fucking cover shoot with him, R25.

This was a pre-existing photo.

You're a dumbass.

Just like the rest of you on whom the irony of the cover shot is lost: The terrorist inside the cute boy next door, etc. It's so obvious I cringe in saying it, but apparently some of you need everything spelled out.

by Anonymousreply 2607/17/2013

[quote]The vile act he committed was indeed monstrous but the young man sitting in isolation is not a monster.

I disagree. Yes, he had a difficult family situation, but he chose to help his brother blow up bombs in a crowd of people.

by Anonymousreply 2707/17/2013

I think r26's mother needs to give him a timeout.

by Anonymousreply 2807/17/2013

Lots of Freepers are commenting on the article (what's new?), pretending to be RS readers who will now be canceling their subscriptions.

by Anonymousreply 2907/17/2013

Oh. So he head professional headshots taken before committing the bombing, R26?

by Anonymousreply 3007/17/2013

Welcome to the wonderful world of Photoshop, R30. Nobody's letting him do photoshoots. They fixed up an existing picture of the kid.

Try to keep up.

by Anonymousreply 3107/17/2013

It's really amazing how people don't understand what the concept of Rolling Stone became in the last decade. It's only 50% music. The rest of it is ground-breaking investigative journalism. Their coverage of the war in Iraq put them on the map.

I love how people think that kids are going to go out and kill people over this, thinking he's cool now that Rolling Stone put him on the cover. Kids don't read Rolling Stone. Seriously, the people making a fuss are old and out of touch. They sound like their parents back in the 1950s/Tipper Gore. They didn't even read the article. This guy represents the current youth culture, just as Charles Manson did back in the 60s, a person, who btw, made the cover of Rolling Stone too.

Matt Taibbi is known from Rolling Stone.

Rolling Stone today = Time Magazine. I have no doubt they wouldn't be bitching about them putting him on the cover.

BTW, this shot they used on the cover -- people are outing themselves as finding him cute/hot, since it's just his face, and they're objecting to the photo used. He's not sprawled out on the bed, so what's the problem with this particular shot? Oh, because he's appealing, because he turns you on. It's too alluring for you.

by Anonymousreply 3407/17/2013

[quot...the concept of Rolling Stone became in the last decade. It's only 50% music.

That's the problem.

by Anonymousreply 3507/17/2013

Hey look, they're getting the attention this cover was intended to get them.

by Anonymousreply 3607/17/2013

This reminds me of the "outrage" over the proposed Islamic community center a few blocks from ground zero. What drives people to create these scandals out of nothing? Evil people are on magazine covers all the time.

by Anonymousreply 3707/17/2013

[quote]What drives people to create these scandals out of nothing? Evil people are on magazine covers all the time.

We have 24 hours of television to fill and international and financial scandal news is too complicated and boring.

by Anonymousreply 3807/17/2013

This is not coming from the media (except perhaps Fox). I think It is part of the right wing's "keep 'em outraged" strategy. Liberals are traitors.

by Anonymousreply 3907/17/2013

[quote]he chose to help his brother blow up bombs in a crowd of people.

That sort of activity is only acceptable when the Obama administration does it with unmanned drones.

by Anonymousreply 4007/17/2013

Tim McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City on April 16th, 1995 and was on the May 1st cover which would have come out the week before May 1st.

by Anonymousreply 4107/17/2013

Wow this statement makes RS seem so childish. Bostonians need to grow up? WTF?

-------------

Rolling Stone says " It's Irresponsible to Boycott Our Boston Bomber Cover"

Bostonians upset by the new Rolling Stone cover -- featuring Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- need to grow up and learn from the tragedy that rocked their city ... according to the magazine's editors.

The editors just released a statement, saying their hearts go out to the Boston bombing victims -- but "the cover story we are publishing this week falls within the traditions of journalism and Rolling Stone's longstanding commitment to serious and thoughtful coverage."

The statement continues, "The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens."

In other words, stop burying your heads in the sand, people.

CVS and the Boston-based Roche Bros. supermarkets have boycotted the latest issue of the magazine because of its controversial cover ... saying it's disrespectful to the victims.

by Anonymousreply 4207/17/2013

[quote]Bostonians need to grow up? WTF?

Substitute "Bostonians" with "Americans".

Rolling Stone's 'The Bomber' Issue Banned By CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid (UPDATE) Only in America...

Walgreen's announced it via Twitter. lol

Okay, here's my rant:

Will this country get some goddamn balls already?! Jesus. So sick of this touchy, feely nonsense. Will they ban Time for putting him on the cover too? They didn't even bother to read the article. It's like the Aurora shootings, and them wanting the film, "The Dark Knight Rises" to be held back. Give me a break. They're already doing the "think of the children!" routine too, saying that this will lead to more bombings if children see this magazine cover.

If you don't want this magazine, don't buy it! Americans want their sociopaths to look ugly, and evil. This is reality folks.

Faux outrage = American as apple pie.

by Anonymousreply 4307/17/2013

But they will still sell tobacco and junk food, right?

This kid really is hardcore, I guess. "I'm too pretty to be seen, bitches!"

by Anonymousreply 4407/17/2013

[quote]That's the problem.

Oh, dear, and no, it's not a problem. It's only a problem for people like you who want dumbed-down entertainment. Stick to Fox.

by Anonymousreply 4507/17/2013

Their argument is not with his appearing on magazine covers. Just Rolling Stone. They think that sends the message to our impressionable youth that becoming a terrorist will make you like a rock star.

Sadly, I am serious.

by Anonymousreply 4607/17/2013

[quote]Sadly, I am serious.

Sadly, you're stupid.

You're the same lot who blames video games for kids who kill people.

by Anonymousreply 4707/17/2013

Celebrating another murderer. American media does this a lot.

That was his best photo. They knew what they were doing.

by Anonymousreply 4807/17/2013

[quote]"The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers

The average Rolling Stone reader is actually older.

by Anonymousreply 4907/17/2013

Seems like people think if you don't see his face, it will bring back the lives and limbs of the victims. And if they didn't show us any picture of him, then the screeching would be bigger and more deafening.

by Anonymousreply 5007/17/2013

Rolling Stone is for cultural icons. People don't go there for "hard-hitting news". The least they could have done was chosen a less flattering picture of the little cunt. I am certain if the editor or another of the RS higher ups was the parent who lost that 8 year old child, they would not have put out this cover. Leave this time for Time Magazine.

The Bostonians are perfectly fine in their boycott of the magazine. If you knew someone who was either killed, paralyzed, disfigured or lost a limb due to the bombings, perhaps you would feel more sensitive about it as well.

by Anonymousreply 5107/17/2013

[quote]Sadly, you're stupid.

Said the man who fails to understand the use of third person pronouns or the meaning of the adverb "sadly."

by Anonymousreply 5207/17/2013

And in our lifetime those who kill

The news world hands them stardom.

Morrissey

"The Last of the Famous, International Playboys"

by Anonymousreply 5307/17/2013

R47 Please find whatever teacher taught you to read and punch them in the face.

by Anonymousreply 5407/17/2013

Rolling Stone does publish hard hitting news. Matt Taibi's profile of Goldman Sachs and Michael Hasting's article about Gen McCrystal are recent noted examples.

by Anonymousreply 5507/17/2013

The link to the cover set off my pop-up sissy. Did they airbrush out that infectious little thing on his lip?

by Anonymousreply 5607/17/2013

Tim Dickinson's "Make-Believe Maverick" and Matt Taibbi's "Giuliani: Worst Than Bush" which deflated the myths of John McCain and Rudi Giuliani respectively are two of the best pieces of political journalism I've ever read.

by Anonymousreply 5807/17/2013

A very weak individual in more ways than one. Not hot. Long nose as well.

by Anonymousreply 5907/17/2013

R57--Terrorism is not about a body count.

by Anonymousreply 6007/17/2013

His band review was terrible. Only 1 1/2 stars.

by Anonymousreply 6107/17/2013

This entire episode was wrong, wrong, wrong, but it will take honest historians (are there any left?) to set it straight. It had almost NOTHING to do with the bombs, the two idiots, the casualties, the grief, etc and EVERYTHING to do with 10 fucking years of pent-up frustration trying to do something about the FIRST 911.

by Anonymousreply 6207/17/2013

Murder is murder, R60. Why the hysteria and calls for vengeance about 3 dead people in Boston while there is silence regarding tens of thousands were murdered by corruption?

by Anonymousreply 6307/17/2013

"Murder is murder" is a ridiculous thing to say.

Apparently the older brother had killed three men in an apartment is Waltham about a year before the bombs. Do you believe that crime is the same as the Marathon bombs because they both killed three people? You miss the entire purpose of terrorism--the impact it has on the community, not the body count and ignore its motivation--making a political statement.

Of course even by your crude metric, the dismembered must count for something.

by Anonymousreply 6407/17/2013

Hate to say it but at first glance of he cover thought it was a very young Jimmy Page circa ’67 or ’68. Same pale face, dark eyes, halo of dark hair and hazily lit photo. Eerie.

RS has done socio-political reporting for years, this is no different. The could have dispensed with the hazy romantic cover image perhaps, which is what's causing the outrage.

by Anonymousreply 6507/17/2013

[quote] "Murder is murder" is a ridiculous thing to say.

No it isn't.

by Anonymousreply 6607/17/2013

[quote] Apparently the older brother had killed three men in an apartment is Waltham about a year before the bombs. Do you believe that crime is the same as the Marathon bombs because they both killed three people?

Cant speak for anyone else, but I do.

And I believe Jahar helped his brother murder those three men on the 10th anniversary of 9/11,

by Anonymousreply 6707/17/2013

Jahar is so damn hot, I feel sorry him having to be locked up.

by Anonymousreply 6807/17/2013

The OP must be desperate. I don't find the scrawny, disheveled little bastard "hot" in the least.

by Anonymousreply 6907/17/2013

Gonna see my picture on the cover

Gonna buy five copies for my mother

by Anonymousreply 7007/17/2013

"Jahar is so damn hot, I feel sorry him having to be locked up."

I hope you're a troll. If you're not, then you're too pathetic too live. Go fuck yourself.

by Anonymousreply 7107/17/2013

"Was it 'murder' murder?"

by Anonymousreply 7207/17/2013

He's ugly.

by Anonymousreply 7307/17/2013

[quote]Evil people are on magazine covers all the time.

Case in point:

by Anonymousreply 7407/17/2013

Let's try that again:

by Anonymousreply 7507/17/2013

And R57, Rolling Stone will NOT dedicate a cover to any of those important stories.

by Anonymousreply 7607/17/2013

Wanna see our pictures on the cover

Wanna buy five copies for our mothers

Wanna see my smilin' face

On the cover of the Rolling Stone

by Anonymousreply 7707/17/2013

boycott rolling stone

by Anonymousreply 7807/17/2013

That picture is that kid's best picture on his best day. Hello, people, he doesn't look like that anymore. He was already looking pretty rough the day of the bombing (with his Bea Arthur haircut) and now he is all injured and fucked up. The Feds should just release a current pic of him to break this "Jahar" mystique.

by Anonymousreply 7907/17/2013

[quote]Bea Arthur haircut

Hehe!

by Anonymousreply 8007/17/2013

Hate this Russian!

by Anonymousreply 8107/17/2013

Jahar does have a squalling claque of "Jahar is innocent!!!" fangurls, so I can see why some people think this sort of exposure looks like teen-idol treatment.

I am going to read the article. This story has disappeared from the news and needs a followup. I am fascinated by the family narrative -- how they got to the US and basically went nuckfuggets crazy.

by Anonymousreply 8207/17/2013

His brother was way hotter.

by Anonymousreply 8307/17/2013

I think that if Rolling Stone had placed the same picture as the cover page of the story, and had someone else's picture on the front cover, people would not be so upset.

It's all because he's on the front cover. The front cover of a music/pop-culture/politics magazine that occasionally writes news stories. Rolling Stone is not Time Magazine. And, yes, it used to be a sign that you "made it" when you got the cover of the Rolling Stone.

by Anonymousreply 8407/17/2013

Here's the article.

by Anonymousreply 8507/17/2013

R49 Your article linked sys avg age is college educated 31 which is not that old.

My teenage son actually loves both Pitchfork and rolling stones so they do still have some young people looking at their mag especially if they're into music.

With that cover they're bound to get all the Jahar fangirls as well.

But haven't magazines put mass murderers on their covers before like Saddam Hussein or Hitler? I don't think this is anything new.

by Anonymousreply 8607/17/2013

Reading it now. Headline is "He was a charming kid with a bright future. But no one saw the pain he was hiding or the monster he would become." Justin Bieber, is this you? I can see why this softcore approach could rub people the wrong way. He caused DEATH, did not have a pop-culture, drug or career crisis.

by Anonymousreply 8707/17/2013

r87 So? Matthew Broderick caused death and he continued to star in motion pictures for years to come.

What's the difference? at least Jahar is going away for a long long time.

by Anonymousreply 8807/17/2013

r88 Broderick had an unplanned road accident that accidentally killed two other people. He did not plan to go out and kill anyone that day. This loon and his brother meticulously PLANNED a terrorist attack designed to kill and maim as many people as deliberately possible. Jeez.

by Anonymousreply 8907/17/2013

r89 He was drunk you idiot.

by Anonymousreply 9007/17/2013

r90 he still didn't PLAN anything and didn't try to kill 100s of people on purpose, moron. Big difference.

by Anonymousreply 9107/17/2013

Your opinion is meaningless. You're a celebrity apologist.

by Anonymousreply 9207/17/2013

[quote]Your opinion is meaningless. You're a celebrity apologist.

Absolutely not. No way, but believe what you want. I just don't like specious arguments.

by Anonymousreply 9307/17/2013

They're congratulating themselves over at Rolling Stone for the overwhelming success of their cover.

Most of America is talking about Rolling Stone today, and no doubt this will result in increased newsstand sales.

They accomplished what they wanted.

by Anonymousreply 9407/17/2013

They sure did. They did not underestimate the knee-jerk reactionists that people in this society have become.

by Anonymousreply 9507/17/2013

In the history of selfies, Jahar's is possibly the best one ever taken. Did Rolling Stone give him a photography credit? Putting the terrorist part aside for just a moment, he was remarkably good and effortless at "marketing" himself & creating a likeable presence online. He was smart about it and conscious of what he was doing (not that he knew the whole time he'd end up a notorious terrorist). Online Jahar is just peachy and I think that's what's confusing to his fangirls. His Twitter feed is charming and funny and he appears to be strikingly photogenic in every random picture that has leaked out even though he isn't that great looking. He looks worse when smiling and somehow the kid realized that years ago and isn't showing teeth in 99% of the pics of him floating around out there. He's definitely an interesting character.

by Anonymousreply 9607/17/2013

Nick Stadler: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev landed the cover of Rolling Stone by riding the coattails of his dead brother. He's like the Jim Belushi of terrorism.

by Anonymousreply 9707/17/2013

[quote]What's the difference?

Wow. There are idiots, and then there's R88 R90 R92

by Anonymousreply 9807/17/2013

R67, Tamerlan murdered the three victims in Waltham with a guy called Todashev. The cops have DNA from the scene. Todashev was mysteriously shot dead while making a full confession. The whole case is bizarre. Jahar may have assisted his brother in the clean up, he may have been forced to watch the killings or Tamerlan may have boasted of them but the cops do not believe he actively participated in them.

If he was forced to watch the killings or even if he knew about them, one would think that would feature as part of the defence. Tamerlan was a bad ass psycho who was already exhibiting paranoic traits as early as 2008. Jahar was exposed to this lunatic virtually alone in the aftermath of the Waltham murders. The kid deserves serious, serious punishment but mitigation should factor into that punishment IMO.

Apparently he cried for two days after regaining consciousness so was he interviewed by the feds while hysterical from the week's events? Did he write the boat confession after 18 hours of blood loss while suffering extreme emotional trauma? Hopefully this gets to trial and the full story emerges.

by Anonymousreply 10007/18/2013

Any thoughts on the article?

by Anonymousreply 10107/18/2013

What article, R101?

by Anonymousreply 10207/18/2013

Rolling Stone is a whore, darlin'

by Anonymousreply 10307/18/2013

WW for R102. The cover clearly labels him a monster. But since that requires one to read, the pussies, drama queens and cry babies cant be bothered.

by Anonymousreply 10407/18/2013

If Rolling Stone had featured some music personality on the cover with a sub headline listing the bomber story nobody would have been upset.

The "flattering" photo on the cover is the issue. It sends the message "all you have to do is kill some people to become a famous celebrity".

The ONLY reason he's on the cover it to provoke "outrage" and lengthy discussion (like this thread)

Rolling Stone hasn't had this much attention in years. They're getting exactly what they want.

by Anonymousreply 10507/18/2013

OP has the moral compass of Squeaky Fromme.

by Anonymousreply 10607/18/2013

You can think whatever you what about what he did but, that doesn't change the fact that he is hot!

by Anonymousreply 10707/18/2013

There was a weird detail about Tamerlan's American wife in that article. Not only did she convert to Islam, change her name to Karima and start wearing the hijab, she also started speaking in a Russian accent!! WTF?! That is so odd.

by Anonymousreply 10807/18/2013

I'd hit that.

by Anonymousreply 10907/18/2013

Can't help thinking he is on the cover of Rolling Stone because they see him as "cute".

It is very fortunate for Ariel Castro's three victims he is oldish, chubby and rather ugly, otherwise he would be on the cover as well, with the same hypocrite excuse of "What cause this man to go astray, OMG!." With no respcet for the people he raped and abused.

This is really a Society that validates "Beauty" over anything else.

by Anonymousreply 11007/18/2013

Photos of his surrender have been released.

[quote]Sgt. Sean Murphy, a tactical photographer with the Massachusetts State Police who has photographed the funerals of many officers killed in the line of duty, is furious with the magazine. Murphy, who also acts a liaison to the families of fallen officers, is so angered by the cover—which he says is both dangerous and insulting to the victims of the bombings—that he feels the need to counter the message that it conveys.

by Anonymousreply 11107/18/2013

He's hawt.

by Anonymousreply 11207/18/2013

Jahar was good at hiding how religious he was. The family thought they'd get away with it. Mom and Dad were waiting for them back in Dagestan. The boys planned to join them a few weeks after the bombings.

I think someone offered them a lot of money to do the bombings and arrive back in Dagestan. Years ago a Palestinian man opened fire on top of the empire state building. Police claimed it wasn't terrorism. The man had gone bankrupt, they were told, and he was despondent. But someone had deposited 50,000 in his bank account. Nice sum for a bankrupt individual in 1997.

His daughter later confessed that it was a terrorist act.

by Anonymousreply 11307/18/2013

Jesus, he even looks cute bloody and injured. What a photogenic boy. And admitting that doesn't mean anyone "likes" him. His good looks are an objective fact.

by Anonymousreply 11407/18/2013

If those Boston photos were released to counter the effects of the Rolling Stones cover and to make him less sympathetic to his supporters, I don't think it worked.

Here's some Twitter comments from his supporters:

"still speechless. my heart is broken i mean these photos i just i can't even right now. poor Jahar"

"God, Jahar is strong &really brave. His facial expression just looks just so...hopeless and sad. It just breaks my heart..."

"They said Jahar didn't comply when they told him to lift up his shirt, when the pictures completely showed his lifted up his shirt."

by Anonymousreply 11507/18/2013

Being on the cover of Rolling Stones is a kind of validation.

The message you send to kids is not : " Kill someone and you'll be a star!"

No. It is "Being good looking will get you passes in a lot of places and situations. Being smart, hard-working, kind-hearted is far from being enough."

by Anonymousreply 11607/18/2013

[quote]No. It is "Being good looking will get you passes in a lot of places and situations. Being smart, hard-working, kind-hearted is far from being enough."

You don't need Rolling Stone for that. That message is everywhere.

by Anonymousreply 11707/18/2013

Despite the thread title fail (it's DZHOKHAR on the cover, not dearly departed Jahar), I present...

DZHOKHAR(?)

Even if it's not, he's a dead ringer. o_O

by Anonymousreply 11807/18/2013

Nice bod!

by Anonymousreply 11907/18/2013

Herro!

by Anonymousreply 12007/18/2013

Sexy undies!

by Anonymousreply 12107/18/2013

The Massachusetts State Police officer who released photos of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has reportedly been relieved of duty, but not been fired.

Boston Magazine editor John Wolfson tweeted that tactical photographer Sgt. Sean Murphy, who gave photos to Boston Magazine on Thursday, has been relieved of duty, but not yet fired, and has been ordered not to speak to media about the Watertown events.

Murphy confirmed to CNN's Anne Clifford Thursday night "that he is on leave and has a hearing next week. Earlier Thursday, a police spokesman said the agency had not authorized the release of photos Murphy took."

by Anonymousreply 12207/18/2013

Sgt Sean Murphy who posted the Boston police photos has been relieved of duty. He's been told not to discuss anymore and he'll be having a hearing next week. I guess he released the photos without permission.

by Anonymousreply 12307/18/2013

He has been relieved of duty, but not yet fired.

by Anonymousreply 12407/18/2013

If I were only attracted to people with good souls, my life would be much easier.

IFHH.

by Anonymousreply 12507/18/2013

All the cop has done is draw more sympathy for DT. He came out of the boat quietly without screaming for Allah or yowling 'death to America'. He came out after being reminded of his friends at his old school and being told that he would not be harmed. He cried for two days after waking in hospital. Hardly sounds like a hard core terrorist to me.

Looks like he lost heaps of blood which should help with his defence regarding the boat confession. I read that you can see him writing the note while under fire via thermal imaging on a PBS report. Blood loss results in paranoia, hallucinations and confusion. He had been losing blood for at least 16 hours or so.

Honestly, the hatred and bloodlust surrounding this case mirrors the hatred and bloodlust of someone like Tamerlan. He hated Americans for killing muslims so he wanted them dead, now so many Americans hate DT for killing Americans, they want him dead too.

Where does this end? There is a story to be told about this kid, it speaks to family breakdown, cultural pressures and life with a mentally ill sibling who may or may not have entrapped him into participation. Every week or so there is another twist and turn. No wonder people are fascinated.

by Anonymousreply 12607/18/2013

[quote]His good looks are an objective fact.

No.

by Anonymousreply 12707/19/2013

R126 I have read the RS article. Aside from the killing part that is about 90% my family history. Where is my RS cover story?

by Anonymousreply 12807/19/2013

FREE JAHAR!!

by Anonymousreply 12907/19/2013

Further to my continuing rant about "viral," this is another one.

by Anonymousreply 13007/19/2013

[quote]It is very fortunate for Ariel Castro's three victims he is oldish, chubby and rather ugly, otherwise he would be on the cover as well, with the same hypocrite excuse of "What caused this man to go astray, OMG!." With no respcet for the people he raped and abused.

Very good point, R110. Why does only a cute, young college student get the rock star treatment and the sympathetic "where did it all go wrong?" headlines.

Maybe Castro had an abusive family or was abandoned as a child. But we don't see any fangurl tweets of..... "poor Ariel, he looked so 'sad' while they were taking him away in handcuffs."

by Anonymousreply 13107/19/2013

That cover is one of Patrick Demarchelier's best! Simply sublime.

by Anonymousreply 13207/19/2013

[quote] Aside from the killing part that is about 90% my family history. Where is my RS cover story?

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on DL. And I include Janbot in this.

by Anonymousreply 13307/19/2013

Yum.

by Anonymousreply 13407/19/2013

I'm with R127. He's not even good looking. Some of you shut-ins will drool over anything except an actual good-looking guy.

by Anonymousreply 13507/19/2013

I have a subscription to Rolling Stone on my iPad, and was shocked to find Jahar Tsarnaev on the cover today in the new issue.. I thought they were going to have Robin Thicke instead?

Haven't read the article yet.

by Anonymousreply 13607/19/2013

I would like to offer Jahar a conjucal visit.

by Anonymousreply 13707/19/2013

America is in a tizzy about this cover.

by Anonymousreply 13807/19/2013

He looks like that guy who played Klinger on MASH.

by Anonymousreply 13907/19/2013

Nobody would object if Obama was on the cover. How about Kissinger or W.?

They have killed innocent people by the thousands.

What makes it okay? If the dead are foreigners? Black and brown people? Non-Christians?

by Anonymousreply 14007/19/2013

[quote]He looks like that guy who played Klinger on MASH.

LOL Yea, he kind of does. Granted a much younger version, but he will probably be a dead ringer for him in ten years or so, if he lives that long.

by Anonymousreply 14107/19/2013

He doesn't look like Klinger, people.

by Anonymousreply 14207/19/2013

You're right about his resemblance to Klinger. If they had posted a profile pic of Tsarnaev, they would have had to add a fold-out page to get the nose in.

by Anonymousreply 14307/19/2013

I don't think he looks like Klinger at all.

If you look at the Boston Magazine picture which reveals his torso, you can see that he has a raging case of the tragic tinynip. We should cure this condition, so that no other men are driven by self-loathing to commit such horrible acts.

by Anonymousreply 14407/20/2013

Even my Boston relatives whom I'd - up till now - considered quite intelligent and more worldly than most - are having fits about this. If it had happened in Idaho, they wouldn't have cared less. Bostonians are insular, provincial lemmings who can't think for themselves.

by Anonymousreply 14507/20/2013

[quote]If you look at the Boston Magazine picture which reveals his torso, you can see that he has a raging case of the tragic tinynip.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

by Anonymousreply 14607/20/2013

145,I seem to remember that that IRA used to rely on financial support from many in Boston during the 'troubles'. Funny, the cop didn't want to talk about that particular kind of support for terrorism.

Apparently the prosecution is foaming at the mouth over the publication of the capture shots. No wonder, the kid looks like a Caravaggio Christ in the one with his bloody hand in the air.

by Anonymousreply 14707/21/2013

Sales of the mag are up 20%.

by Anonymousreply 14807/25/2013

So much for that boycott. They sold more than double the magazine's average sales last year.

by Anonymousreply 14908/01/2013

[quote] There is a story to be told about this kid, it speaks to family breakdown, cultural pressures and life with a mentally ill sibling who may or may not have entrapped him into participation.

Spare me the soap opera. For all we know,the family could have been sleepers. Mom and Dad were together back in Dagestan when the bombings took place. The boys were scheduled to go back for a "visit" after the bombing.

There's no evidence that Tamerlan was "mentally ill." it seems more like his hajib-wearing, shoplifting American wife was mentally ill. Tamerlan sounds like a typical Muslim husband to me.

[quote] Every week or so there is another twist and turn

Ummmm... no. There isn't.

by Anonymousreply 15008/01/2013

{quote]...the concept of Rolling Stone became in the last decade. It's only 50% music.

You got that wrong! When it hit the scene, Rolling Stone was THE most important counter culture magazine for young people, period. As others have pointed out in this thread, years ago, any type of news wasn't as immediate as it is now, lots of aware intelligent people anticipated Rolling Stones coverage of music as well as politics.

From Rolling Stone's inception, it wasn't only just about music, there were ALWAYS articles on politics, music and film. The problem today is, young people would rather call older people "gramps" and other juvenile invectives rather than learn something from their elders. Listen and learn!

My father and mom, old school NY Socialists, they were commercial artists, used to read Rolling Stone when I was a kid. Besides Rolling Stone there were few other counter culture newspapers and other magazines out at the time, but Rolling Stone was the magazine which became the most widely read of the counter culture mags.

In fact, a few years ago my parents gave me some vintage RS copies from the early 1970s, this was when RS was a fold over large format newspaper.

I have the death issues with Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison on the covers, as well as some other iconic RS issues they saved, the issue with Joe Dallesandro and his baby as well as Led Zeppelin, Ike & Tina, John & Yoko and many others.

Hunter Thompson was a regular contributer to Rolling Stone. RS has always been about much more than just music and rockstars.

by Anonymousreply 15108/01/2013

r16, you are stunningly stupid.

Before the internet and in an age when there were only three major networks supplying information and entertainment, Rolling Stone magazine was considered the superior "cool" of mainstream media. When you made the cover of RS, you made it.

Dr. Hook said as much.

Now it's just another publication in a vast sea of publications struggling to survive. Putting this asshole on the cover with a picture that has echoes of a typical pop/rock star is the lowest of the low this magazine has ever sunk. They want backlash so they can appear as controversial as they used to be. But we know what they are doing and we are not amused.

by Anonymousreply 15208/01/2013

It may have helped if he was butt-ugly and drooled. Then Rolling Stone wouldn't have put him on there.

by Anonymousreply 15308/01/2013

R144:

are you talking about Jahar or his brother with the raging tinynip?

by Anonymousreply 15408/02/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.