Here's a writer for RS (that had nothing to do with RS's choice in the matter) giving his take on the controversial cover... posted today on RS OnlineMatt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

Here's a writer for RS (that had nothing to do with RS's choice in the matter) giving his take on the controversial cover... posted today on RS OnlineMatt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

 

Taibbi is my favorite RS writer and explains this perfectly.

 

When I saw the cover my first thought was that they were trying to show that all terrorists do not fit a mold.

 

Nice job by Taibbi.

Taibbi is my favorite RS writer and explains this perfectly.

 

When I saw the cover my first thought was that they were trying to show that all terrorists do not fit a mold.

 

Nice job by Taibbi.

 

Agreed... and I follow his line of thinking about it as well. His comment on the "New York Times" is also a very good point.

Really? They put the Boston bomber on the cover? smh

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40441[/ATTACH]

 

They were thinking if we start a controversy will we sell more mags? I haven't bought one since the early 90's. Hardcopy has taken a brutal hit in the last 10 years due to internet growth. Yes it was in poor taste...tell their shareholders that if they end up selling more mags. In the meantime, I will continue to not buy RS.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Judge Jeanine its the nails on the head.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM6aSBrYgs8

Judge Jeanine its the nails on the head.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM6aSBrYgs8

 

This.

Judge Jeanine its the nails on the head.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM6aSBrYgs8

 

I'm not sure she read the article based on her comments. She comes off as the old out-of-touch adult who assumes that WEED is evil and the equivalent of hard narcotics.

 

How does anyone watch her?

I'm not sure she read the article based on her comments. She comes off as the old out-of-touch adult who assumes that WEED is evil and the equivalent of hard narcotics.

 

How does anyone watch her?

 

 

She states she read it twice.

 

The issue with weed is it is what he was known for for and successful at.

She states she read it twice.

 

The issue with weed is it is what he was known for for and successful at.

 

Weed had nothing to do with his actions. It was just one of many facts used to describe him and his day-to-day life in high school.

A few problems with her narrative:

 

First she says she doesn't care why he became a radical. Well, that's the reason for the story. Give an insight into his life. Did he grow up in an anti-American home? Did he espouse terrorist views while in high school? What was his family life like? This lady immediately discredits her own opinion by saying she doesn't care.

 

Because it's Fox News she takes the age-old path of "drug dealer" as if that is an explanation. Again, it's not. He sold weed. She says she read the story twice and said he sold the "best post around." It never mentioned anything about the quality. But, hey, she read it twice...

 

What does the fact this ONE of his friends SPECULATED that he may be feeling financial pressure have to do with this? Nothing. Just another chance for her to play the "quit whining card."

 

And what does she roll into next? Yes, another "their brains are fried because they're smoking pot." Come on.

 

Next decries the "failed by his family." Her argument? She knows kids that were failed by their family that didn't go onto bombing America. Again, asinine logic.

 

Instead of exploring the "fell into Islam" line she cracks a bunch of jokes. There was plenty of discussion in the article stating that the kid never grew up political. None of his friends even knew he was Islamic. Why? He never talked about it.

 

She then decries RS for not giving the victims a voice. In her words, REALLY? The story wasn't about the victims. We've seen the horrors many of them have gone through.

 

It's obvious she either didn't really read the article OR she couldn't find any real substance that she could get her viewers riled up with.

 

She completely ignored or missed the key point of the story which was the older brother's growing influence on the younger brother. She completely ignored the cultural aspect of how the older brother is viewed in Chechnyan(?) families.

 

This lady wasted airtime trying to show how badass she was. Instead she came across as a mental midget. She completely missed the story.

Weed had nothing to do with his actions. It was just one of many facts used to describe him and his day-to-day life in high school.

Selling illegal drugs to high school classmates places a kid on a slippery slope of criminality. Some manage to escape from that slope and lead respectable lives as law-abiding citizens but many do not. The point is, peddling pot is an intentional criminal act and it is not equivalent to jaywalking. Committing one serious crime makes it more likely that a person will commit a more serious crime, such as killing a deadbeat customer or two.

 

Are you aware that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's older brother - dead terrorist Tamarlan, is now suspected to have killed at least three people before the Boston bombings? Their throats were slit and guess what had been sprinkled on their bodies? Marijuana. Drug dealing, even if it is limited to "weed," is not just a part of a normal high school student's daily life.

 

If the police had connected the dots from the three possibly "weed"-related murders, there is a good chance that the Boston bombing plot would never had been hatched. If the Obama administration had heeded the Russians' warning about the Tsarnaev terror clan, the bombings might also have been prevented. Why were the dots not connected until after the terrorists struck? That is the kind of probing question that reporters routinely asked prior to January, 2009. Homeland Security's budget has tripled since 2002 but it is not apparent to me that its effectiveness has kept pace with its spending.

Rolling Stone Cover, June 1970

 

Selling illegal drugs to high school classmates places a kid on a slippery slope of criminality. Some manage to escape from that slope and lead respectable lives as law-abiding citizens but many do not. The point is, peddling pot is an intentional criminal act and it is not equivalent to jaywalking. Committing one serious crime makes it more likely that a person will commit a more serious crime, such as killing a deadbeat customer or two.

 

Are you aware that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's older brother - dead terrorist Tamarlan, is now suspected to have killed at least three people before the Boston bombings? Their throats were slit and guess what had been sprinkled on their bodies? Marijuana. Drug dealing, even if it is limited to "weed," is not just a part of a normal high school student's daily life.

 

If the police had connected the dots from the three possibly "weed"-related murders, there is a good chance that the Boston bombing plot would never had been hatched. If the Obama administration had heeded the Russians' warning about the Tsarnaev terror clan, the bombings might also have been prevented. Why were the dots not connected until after the terrorists struck? That is the kind of probing question that reporters routinely asked prior to January, 2009. Homeland Security's budget has tripled since 2002 but it is not apparent to me that its effectiveness has kept pace with its spending.

 

1. Weed has nothing to do with this story. Weed did NOT cause him down the "slippery slope."

2. Yes, I am aware. Weed has nothing to do with a guy becoming a terrorist.

3. Zero chance you're right on the "connect the dots." I will agree that MAYBE had the govt paid attention to the warnings this MAYBE would not have happened. Again, weed has nothing to do with this.

1. Weed has nothing to do with this story. Weed did NOT cause him down the "slippery slope."

Every law that one breaks lowers the barrier to breaking a more serious law. It's a variation on the broken window theory. Most who smoke "weed" do not become terrorists, but in this country, many terrorists have taken advantage of the license that Islam grants to jihadists to smoke weed to fit in with Americans, who like you, seem to dismiss such activity as easily as jay walking.

2. Yes, I am aware. Weed has nothing to do with a guy becoming a terrorist.

As in item one above, the willingness to commit mass murder over what may have been a "weed" deal gone bad makes it much easier for one to take murder and mayhem to the next level. The truth is, neither of us can know for sure, but neither of us can say authoritatively that drug dealing was not a gateway into terrorism for the brothers.

3. Zero chance you're right on the "connect the dots." I will agree that MAYBE had the govt paid attention to the warnings this MAYBE would not have happened. Again, weed has nothing to do with this.

I love how strongly liberals state their case in the absence of any factual basis. Again, there is no way for you to know what role weed played in the transformation of these immigrants into Muslim terrorists, and had the older brother been convicted and placed in a prison cell, there is zero chance that he would have been free to have masterminded the Boston bombing.