The picture itself was the bad choice. Show some dark demented pic so that people will be inclined to think that the article will have a negative tone. This picture does not convey negativity.

The picture itself was the bad choice. Show some dark demented pic so that people will be inclined to think that the article will have a negative tone. This picture does not convey negativity.

 

I get that... but part of what's so fascinating/haunting about the whole thing is that for most of his life he seemed like a fairly normal, well-adjusted kid to everyone around him. What happened in the few years immediately proceeding this horrible act that made him want to do this?

Adolph Hitler - 1938 Time Magazine Man Of The Year

Joseph Stalin - 1939 Time Magazine Man Of The Year

Joseph Stalin - 1942 Time Magazine Man Of The Year

Nikita Khrushchev - 1957 Time Magazine Man Of The Year

Ayatollah Khomeini - 1979 Time Magazine Man Of The Year

Osama Bin Laden was on the cover of Time Magazine...Saddam Hussein was a couple of times as well.

 

I just don't see the issue, so long as they're not glorifying the guy.

 

My thoughts as well.

Really? This is really an issue to some people? Man, people have way too much time on their hands to be worrying about something so harmless.

From the cover teaser it makes him sound like a victim. The picture makes him look like a rock star.

He is a scumbag. Not a victim and not a rock star.

Screw him.

Really? This is really an issue to some people? Man, people have way too much time on their hands to be worrying about something so harmless.

 

So you didn't know anyone who was there I guess. Be careful judging what should be important to people. What is a non-issue to you may be very important to someone else.

So you didn't know anyone who was there I guess. Be careful judging what should be important to people. What is a non-issue to you may be very important to someone else.

 

Like I said, way too much time on their hands. It's a non-issue. It was a huge worldwide news story. A magazine such as Rolling Stones should cover it.

Rolling Stone still publishes a magazine?

Like I said, way too much time on their hands. It's a non-issue. It was a huge worldwide news story. A magazine such as Rolling Stones should cover it.

 

Like I said..... never mind. I don't have enough time on my hands to argue with someone arrogant enough to tell me what I should consider important..

Like I said..... never mind. I don't have enough time on my hands to argue with someone arrogant enough to tell me what I should consider important..

 

I'm being arrogant because I said it's no big deal, and I see no reason for people to make a big deal out of it, but others (in this thread) who have said basically the same thing are okay? :lol2:

So was this in bad taste? Klebold and Harris are both smiling...

 

Tommy Lee, OneRepublic, John Rich slam Rolling Stone?s rock-star treatment of Tsarnaev; Jack Osbourne calls for boycott | Twitchy

So was this in bad taste? Klebold and Harris are both smiling...

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40447[/ATTACH]

 

Yes, especially if the story inside is trying to explain away what made them do it. Victims should have been on the cover and these two little turd bags inside somewhere (if even then)

In defense of Rolling Stone (I'm not sure why; it's been terrible for as long as I can remember), the cover does call him a monster.

 

It is also talking about how he was failed by his family, sounds like they are taking a sympathetic tone to their story. But until the text of the story is presented I can't really tell, may just be a sensationalized headline that does not reflect the meat of the story.

I realize that this won't be a popular point of view, but I can only spit it like I see it. Before you jump my case, ponder for more than 1 second what I am saying. If you can't manage that, then I must question all the objectors and ask them if they are really so naive to believe everything that the media tells them without dissecting it a bit to see if it makes total sense.

 

I understand that most of us were raised to have faith in the messenger and take whatever they tell us as gold. I was too, but after more and more years of their misguided rubbish, I just can't, for if I did I'd just feel like a gullible idiot. I don't know the official story and I'm not saying that I do. I just have serious questions about what we've been made to believe is.

 

Let's see:

 

The FBI was watching these guys for a while before the bombing happened yet when they first showed the surveillance videos to the nation, they acted as if they were unaware of who they were and needed the nations help in identifying them.

 

Does that make any sense? If they've been watching them they would have immediately known their identity.

 

This dude's brother was killed so we never heard his story. This guy had his vocal chords sliced, so we haven't heard his story either.

 

The car jacking story from the asian guy doesn't ad up because why was he even aloud to answer his cell phone, and why would suspected bomber brag to him that he was the one.

 

The FBI on numerous occasions have attempted or successfully played out plots where those set up to perform the duties didn't even realize they were doing "the job" for the FBI and had either money or drugs held up in their faces as rewards.

 

Check out this video:

 

These guys might certainly have done it, but I'm not buying the official story. In no way that I'm saying they're angels. There seems to be more to it than meets they eye. Why were these guys silenced? Perhaps to avoid having them tell the "more to it than meets the eye" part of the story. Perhaps they'd allow the nation see that the FBI are no angels as well.

 

If it isn't already obvious, I don't trust the media, or the FBI for any official story on anything. If there's any chance that they may hide the truth, I'm taking it to the bank that they will.

Edited July 17, 201313 yr by B-Ball-fan