A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 17, 2013 1:07 pm

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

by pravalika nanda Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:09 pm

oh, I was just about to post this. I think it's messed up. what were they thinking? to shock us, really? I think americans are beyond shock and awe and it's disgusting to put this guy on the cover. celebrate your heroes not the bombers....nice message to future bombers too: here's how to make it to the cover of RS.

by confuzzled dude Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:43 pm

In their defense, wasn't Osama Bin Laden on several cover pages? I guess nobody would've any objections if Boston bomber was wearing a turban & beard. It's appalling because he poses like a Hollywood hero on that cover.

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:51 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:In their defense, wasn't Osama Bin Laden on several cover pages? I guess nobody would've any objections if Boston bomber was wearing a turban & beard. It's appalling because he poses like a Hollywood hero on that cover.

Wow! You are an apologist, aren't you? Osama was on many cover pages after he was killed to say he was dead. Not glorified like this.

by confuzzled dude Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:56 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:In their defense, wasn't Osama Bin Laden on several cover pages? I guess nobody would've any objections if Boston bomber was wearing a turban & beard. It's appalling because he poses like a Hollywood hero on that cover.

Wow! You are an apologist, aren't you? Osama was on many cover pages after he was killed to say he was dead. Not glorified like this.

RollingStone's apologist Rolling Eyes

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:03 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:In their defense, wasn't Osama Bin Laden on several cover pages? I guess nobody would've any objections if Boston bomber was wearing a turban & beard. It's appalling because he poses like a Hollywood hero on that cover.

Wow! You are an apologist, aren't you? Osama was on many cover pages after he was killed to say he was dead. Not glorified like this.

RollingStone's apologist

Ha ha ! Someone who can't even say ' terrorist' and instead says 'aggressor'. I guess the Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen are aggressors for you.

by bw Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:17 pm

boycott NYT too?

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone? Dzhokhar

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 17, 2013 11:21 pm

Look at the headlines between the two. Rolling Stone almost always has glamour shots on its cover pages. That is what people are protesting, that RS is glamorizing Tsarnaev.

by confuzzled dude Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:17 am

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:In their defense, wasn't Osama Bin Laden on several cover pages? I guess nobody would've any objections if Boston bomber was wearing a turban & beard. It's appalling because he poses like a Hollywood hero on that cover.

Wow! You are an apologist, aren't you? Osama was on many cover pages after he was killed to say he was dead. Not glorified like this.

RollingStone's apologist

Ha ha ! Someone who can't even say ' terrorist' and instead says 'aggressor'. I guess the Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen are aggressors for you.

Either you're clutching at straws or trying to impress Propa. Here is a history lesson for you. "Defining Terrorism" Razz

A few excerpts from that article:

"The word `terrorism' was first popularized during the French Revolution. In contrast to its contemporary usage, at that time terrorism had a decidedly positive connotation."

Ironically, perhaps, terrorism in its original context Was also closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy.

Brazilian revolutionary Carlos Marighela displayed few compunctions about openly advocating the use of `terrorist' tactics, he still insisted on depicting himself and his disciples as `urban guerrillas' rather than `urban terrorists'. Indeed, it is clear from Marighela's writings that he was well aware of the word's undesirable connotations, and strove to displace them with positive resonances. `The words "aggressor" and "terrorist"', Marighela wrote in his famous Handbook of Urban Guerrilla War (also known as the `Mini-Manual'), `no longer mean what they did. Instead of arousing fear or censure, they are a call to action. To be called an aggressor or a terrorist in Brazil is now an honour to any citizen, for it means that he is fighting, with a gun in his hand, against the monstrosity of the present dictatorship and the suffering it causes.'

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:23 am

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:In their defense, wasn't Osama Bin Laden on several cover pages? I guess nobody would've any objections if Boston bomber was wearing a turban & beard. It's appalling because he poses like a Hollywood hero on that cover.

Wow! You are an apologist, aren't you? Osama was on many cover pages after he was killed to say he was dead. Not glorified like this.

Not true. Time cover from 2001:

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone? A207918129f65db24cf19_m

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:31 am

Was their similar outrage in the US over these covers?

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone? 1101010521_400

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone? 1101970616_400

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone? 1101950501_400

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone? 1101021125_400

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:58 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:In their defense, wasn't Osama Bin Laden on several cover pages? I guess nobody would've any objections if Boston bomber was wearing a turban & beard. It's appalling because he poses like a Hollywood hero on that cover.

Wow! You are an apologist, aren't you? Osama was on many cover pages after he was killed to say he was dead. Not glorified like this.

RollingStone's apologist

Ha ha ! Someone who can't even say ' terrorist' and instead says 'aggressor'. I guess the Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen are aggressors for you.

Either you're clutching at straws or trying to impress Propa. Here is a history lesson for you. "Defining Terrorism"

A few excerpts from that article:

"The word `terrorism' was first popularized during the French Revolution. In contrast to its contemporary usage, at that time terrorism had a decidedly positive connotation."

Ironically, perhaps, terrorism in its original context Was also closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy.

Brazilian revolutionary Carlos Marighela displayed few compunctions about openly advocating the use of `terrorist' tactics, he still insisted on depicting himself and his disciples as `urban guerrillas' rather than `urban terrorists'. Indeed, it is clear from Marighela's writings that he was well aware of the word's undesirable connotations, and strove to displace them with positive resonances. `The words "aggressor" and "terrorist"', Marighela wrote in his famous Handbook of Urban Guerrilla War (also known as the `Mini-Manual'), `no longer mean what they did. Instead of arousing fear or censure, they are a call to action. To be called an aggressor or a terrorist in Brazil is now an honour to any citizen, for it means that he is fighting, with a gun in his hand, against the monstrosity of the present dictatorship and the suffering it causes.'

What next? Quote from Fidel Castro and Che Guevara?

by Propagandhi711 Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:29 am

All these Islamic solidarity types like to quote Noam Chomsky like he were the pinnacle of something. That douche is like an unquestioned god for them. Ireelevant, lateral questions raising cd decided to break tradition and quote Hoffman, which must be what came up on google search

by Maria S Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:58 am

I think it's absolutely disgraceful- no matter what the "intention" of Rolling Stone was- publicity and to sell magazines, raise awareness about the "terrible cute(ness) of a killer". Do most younger people or older people these days really "read, digest, analyze, understand"..the content of any long article?

It's about "images"..quick visceral reactions..

For all my professed admiration of Fidel or even Che in regards to some of their economic fairness-quality principles..they did not come to another country..actively/deliberately seek to kill innocent Americans..and there is no need for Rolling Stone to "glorify them-give them so much importance" with some sexy-starry images either.

Don't know or care, what others will do..I will not buy this issue..too bad, Rolling Stone- got their wish..we are spending so much time reacting to what they did.

by Maria S Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:23 am

*fairness-equality.

by goodcitizn Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:38 pm

Maria S wrote: *fairness-equality.

Rolling Stones perhaps sold more copies on this issue less for its cover picture and more for the controversy surrounding it. Much ado about nothing. All newspapers, periodicals and magazines are guilty of sensationalizing bad guys so this is nothing new. It's not the steak but the sizzle that sells.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:07 pm

Maria S wrote:I think it's absolutely disgraceful- no matter what the "intention" of Rolling Stone was- publicity and to sell magazines, raise awareness about the "terrible cute(ness) of a killer". Do most younger people or older people these days really "read, digest, analyze, understand"..the content of any long article?

is there any special reason why you've used quotation marks around the words above in bold text? perhaps i don't understood the profundity that the quotes add to the words. i shall greatly appreciate an explanantion.

by Guest Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:28 pm

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
Maria S wrote:I think it's absolutely disgraceful- no matter what the "intention" of Rolling Stone was- publicity and to sell magazines, raise awareness about the "terrible cute(ness) of a killer". Do most younger people or older people these days really "read, digest, analyze, understand"..the content of any long article?
is there any special reason why you've used quotation marks around the words above in bold text? perhaps i don't understood the profundity that the quotes add to the words. i shall greatly appreciate an explanantion.

no explanation or access for you!

by confuzzled dude Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:19 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:All these Islamic solidarity types like to quote Noam Chomsky like he were the pinnacle of something. That douche is like an unquestioned god for them. Ireelevant, lateral questions raising cd decided to break tradition and quote Hoffman, which must be what came up on google search

I know you guys like to pat each other in the back but don't flatter yourself too much. I never drank the WMD kool-aid nor fell for Dubya & Cos Operation Iraqi Freedom crap. I did mention that I voted for Obama for kicking Pak's a$$ bcz that's what I consider war on terror not the right wing propaganda.

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:27 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:All these Islamic solidarity types like to quote Noam Chomsky like he were the pinnacle of something. That douche is like an unquestioned god for them. Ireelevant, lateral questions raising cd decided to break tradition and quote Hoffman, which must be what came up on google search

I know you guys like to pat each other in the back but don't flatter yourself too much. I never drank the WMD kool-aid nor fell for Dubya & Cos Operation Iraqi Freedom crap. I did mention that I voted for Obama for kicking Pak's a$$ bcz that's what I consider war on terror not the right wing propaganda.

When did he do that?

by Idéfix Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:17 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I did mention that I voted for Obama for kicking Pak's a$$ bcz that's what I consider war on terror not the right wing propaganda.

When did he do that?

How about when he sent Seals into Abbottabad without letting the Pakis know they were coming?

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:27 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I did mention that I voted for Obama for kicking Pak's a$$ bcz that's what I consider war on terror not the right wing propaganda.

When did he do that?
How about when he sent Seals into Abbottabad without letting the Pakis know they were coming?

Following through on a policy started by the previous administration? Including the Drone attacks.

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:37 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Was their similar outrage in the US over these covers?

Very likely. I'd have to check. Here are some of the controversial covers listed by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/us/gallery/controversial-covers/index.html

http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt_02.htm wrote:On May 1st, a stunned America was introduced to "The Face of Terror." The steely-eyed mug of Timothy James McVeigh, superimposed over the limp, bloody body of a tiny dead child, stared coldly out at us from the cover of Time magazine.

by Idéfix Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:39 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I did mention that I voted for Obama for kicking Pak's a$$ bcz that's what I consider war on terror not the right wing propaganda.

When did he do that?
How about when he sent Seals into Abbottabad without letting the Pakis know they were coming?

Following through on a policy started by the previous administration? Including the Drone attacks.

Previous administration policy -- hahaha! -- was to let bin Laden escape to Pakistan and shift focus to nonexistent WMDs in Iraq.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:53 pm

didn't they also get some other high value al qaeda targets besides bin laden?

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:27 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:I did mention that I voted for Obama for kicking Pak's a$$ bcz that's what I consider war on terror not the right wing propaganda.

When did he do that?
How about when he sent Seals into Abbottabad without letting the Pakis know they were coming?

Following through on a policy started by the previous administration? Including the Drone attacks.
Previous administration policy -- hahaha! -- was to let bin Laden escape to Pakistan and shift focus to nonexistent WMDs in Iraq.

Sorry. A Democratic administration would have sat on its hands after something like 9/11.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:34 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

When did he do that?
How about when he sent Seals into Abbottabad without letting the Pakis know they were coming?

Following through on a policy started by the previous administration? Including the Drone attacks.
Previous administration policy -- hahaha! -- was to let bin Laden escape to Pakistan and shift focus to nonexistent WMDs in Iraq.

Sorry. A Democratic administration would have sat on its hands after something like 9/11.

you mean instead of going after a regime (read saddam hussein) that had nothing to do with it, based on manufactured evidence? the afghanistan and iraq wars were two of the worst managed wars in the history of the US. world war II was managed by the roosevelt administration and the conflagration in cuba was averted by the kennedy administration. what have the chicken hawk republicans done well in the defense of the US ever?

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:39 pm

How quickly we forget Carter and Iran, Clinton and Somalia.

by Hellsangel Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:23 am

When he was arrested:

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone? 130718200639-01-tsarnaev-capture-horizontal-gallery

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/massachusetts-tsarnaev-photos/index.html

Massachusetts State Police photographer who released stark photos to a local magazine of the capture of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces a hearing to determine if he will be suspended until an internal investigation is complete.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/19/police-photographer-releases-behind-scenes-photos-boston-bombing-suspect/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ZVPbjZRr

by confuzzled dude Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:41 pm

It appears that these photos have opposite effect than they were intended for. If RS's picture incited furor would this engender sympathy given he was near death when those pictures were taken.

by Hellsangel Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:46 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:It appears that these photos have opposite effect than they were intended for. If RS's picture incited furor would this engender sympathy given he was near death when those pictures were taken.

I don't think it would engender sympathy. It probably makes people wish that he were actually killed in a horrible way especially with the laser scope trained on him.

by Merlot Daruwala Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:57 am

Takeaway from this furore: Thou shall not publish on thy cover page, pictures of individuals who terrorize us, or we shall huff and puff and become very angry.

Come to think of it, it's not very different from those backward folks who get their beards in a twist every time their Prophet's picturized.

by Hellsangel Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:56 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Takeaway from this furore: Thou shall not publish on thy cover page, pictures of individuals who terrorize us, or we shall huff and puff and become very angry.

Come to think of it, it's not very different from those backward folks who get their beards in a twist every time their Prophet's picturized.

Apples and Oranges. People are selling and reselling magazines with that cover without any fear for their lives from any fatwa issued. The people who disagree are boycotting it; not swarming down the magazine headquarters with pitch forks.

by Sponsored content

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?

Re: A Boston boycott of Rolling Stone?