where's martin's? Boston bomber on the cover of the Rolling Stones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Probably because I used your single post as an entry point to address many issues raised over several posts by several people. I wasn't singling you out but I didn't make that clear either. Apologies.

---

No problem. I thought you were reading into some of the things I said. Mutual fault, apology accepted and extended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

As an active participant in a democracy aren't you interested in fulfilling your obligations as a voter?

If he was behind an attack in my country I would be very interested to see if there was some societal or cultural failing that pushed him towards terrorism. I would then be inclined to think about whether a particular party was interested in addressing that issue when thinking of who to vote for, although obviously this would be one factor among very many.

As for not being trained or educated in this field I find that rather facile. I am no engineer, that does not stop me from reading magazines in that field regarding racecars and bikes to see how they work. Surely curiosity comes into play here no?

You've just stated that you have no interest in finding out what makes these people tick, so on what basis do you believe that seeking fame is what motivates these people? In the Boston bombings case I would have thought it was hatred and a desire to inflict as much physical damage on as many Americans as possible that was the motivation.

---

My point is that the public doesn't need to know names, faces, background specifics, etc for this to take place. Let the experts deal with the facts and draw their conclusions as to motivations, cultural influence, etc IMO. While certainly the public should be informed if there were specifics within those motivations that they (the public) have influence over, does it really serve any purpose if we know who the terrorists girlfriend was, or what his grades were?

Personally I'm really not curious to many of the motivations or background story surrounding a low level isolated event, especially when the obvious escape was so poorly executed. Nor am I really concerned with the larger organizations, other than what we can do to stop it.

I don't accept terrorism in any form as a valid means of attempting to gain influence, and would prefer our government not tolerate it in any form. As for cultural influence and such, I hope the country I live in never caves to a very small minority of people wishing to change the will of the majority. It would be different if we still had countries all over the globe invading and occupying other countries. But we don't, and virtually every country exerts political, trade, and military influence as they see appropriate.

Caving in to a very, very small minority that uses terrorist tactics would IMO only escalate the use of such tactics. It promotes the taking of innocent life as a means of obtaining political influence over the majority. If the thoughts of people taking such actions were in the majority, they would already have more power and control through the voting process.


As for seeking fame I see it this way.... if Tsarnaev was not seeking fame then his entire plan was poorly executed. For someone with a decent education, it was a severe underestimation of the police and responding federal agencies abilities. This would lead me to believe his thought process was very flawed, which to me gives less credibility to anything he might have to say regarding motivations, etc. In short, if he didn't expect to be captured or killed, he is more or less a complete idiot. And I don't want a complete idiot or whack job having political influence over our government or people. We get enough of that through the election process. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I believe that with all likelihood at least a certain number of RS readers might have extended the association with a celebrity status to to the poor Mr. Tsarnaev. This is as misleading and irresponsible as it gets in my book.

---

Irresponsible, perhaps, but so what? The likelihood of anyone reading it and wanting as a result to commit similar crimes is miniscule. Not every eventuality can be legislated for, nor acted against. And misleading? In what way, exactly? I fail to see from your description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As for the coverage, the issue can be covered, analysis by appropriate experts done and any lessons learned passed on without any recognition of the people involved. We don't need a name, a specific nationality, or a photo IMO.

---

I'm afraid I find this point of view pretty ridiculous. To what end? Would you seek also to prevent publication of images of, say, Hitler?

Allowing some notorious people what amounts to anonymity is to go down a dangerous path. Where would it end? Think about how such things could be misused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Personally I'm really not curious to many of the motivations or background story surrounding a low level isolated event, especially when the obvious escape was so poorly executed. Nor am I really concerned with the larger organizations, other than what we can do to stop it.

---

I simply cannot understand why one would not want to seek to understand a little more, not out of prurience, but out of a desire to consider a little more deeply the issues in hand. To my mind, phrases like 'whack-job' and 'idiot' are indicative of a lack of curiosity and a wish not to understand. How do you — how does anyone — know that these people are 'whack-jobs' or 'idiots'. Answer: you don't. The indications may be there, but they do not paint a full picture. It is very easy to dismiss such people in this manner, possibly because the notion of a suspected terrorist actually being an individual of sane mind and reasoning is very hard to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I don't accept terrorism in any form as a valid means of attempting to gain influence, and would prefer our government not tolerate it in any form. As for cultural influence and such, I hope the country I live in never caves to a very small minority of people wishing to change the will of the majority. It would be different if we still had countries all over the globe invading and occupying other countries. But we don't, and virtually every country exerts political, trade, and military influence as they see appropriate.

Caving in to a very, very small minority that uses terrorist tactics would IMO only escalate the use of such tactics. It promotes the taking of innocent life as a means of obtaining political influence over the majority. If the thoughts of people taking such actions were in the majority, they would already have more power and control through the voting process.

---

No-one is suggesting 'caving in', are they? Understanding does not mean 'caving in', as much as George W. Bush and his acolytes would have had you believe, with their simplistic views of people as 'good' and 'evil'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As for seeking fame I see it this way.... if Tsarnaev was not seeking fame then his entire plan was poorly executed. For someone with a decent education, it was a severe underestimation of the police and responding federal agencies abilities. This would lead me to believe his thought process was very flawed, which to me gives less credibility to anything he might have to say regarding motivations, etc. In short, if he didn't expect to be captured or killed, he is more or less a complete idiot. And I don't want a complete idiot or whack job having political influence over our government or people. We get enough of that through the election process. :)

---

And from where have you gained this impression of Tsarnaev as 'more or less a complete idiot'? From, I presume, the same media reports that you claim deeply to mistrust. It would appear that, so long as they allow you and others to form a view of him you find comfortable, namely as a man of less than sound mind, such reports are fine. Beyond that, you don't seem to wish to be challenged. As I've said, I don't understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I simply cannot understand why one would not want to seek to understand a little more, not out of prurience, but out of a desire to consider a little more deeply the issues in hand. To my mind, phrases like 'whack-job' and 'idiot' are indicative of a lack of curiosity and a wish not to understand. How do you — how does anyone — know that these people are 'whack-jobs' or 'idiots'. Answer: you don't. The indications may be there, but they do not paint a full picture. It is very easy to dismiss such people in this manner, possibly because the notion of a suspected terrorist actually being an individual of sane mind and reasoning is very hard to accept.

---

Rather than once again address all the points made let me clarify. Your understanding or lack of understanding of my view does not concern me in the slightest, and I haven't suggested anyone should share my views. Yet the fact that you find some of my views ridiculous or black and white shows that you have made no attempt to step outside your box and accept them. I accept that your view is different than mine, yet don't insult your view. You claim to be all behind freedom of press, but it seems you are unwilling to even hear an opinion on an internet forum unless it is an opinion you agree with?

I accept that some terrorists may have had a logical train of thought... right up to the point where they decided random terrorism was a logical choice. If you wish to better understand a killer of innocents and accept their views as reasonable, that is your choice. I choose not to bother with humans that have become indiscriminate killers and attempt to pass it on as a reasonable and logical choice. I will gladly accept the labels "whack job", "idiot", "killer", "morons", "haters" and many others as they are given to such people... I think most of them deserve many such labels. Even within the criminal element they are very, very few and far between and as I said.... obviously not of great mental capacity and means if they are captured. A "normal" person is not a terrorist, and a terrorist is not a "normal" person.

Great try with the Bush thing. Despite the boxes you like to place people in and broad brush strokes you paint them with, normal people are much more complex than the stereotypes you wish to attach them to. As such, I have no desire to continue discussion with someone that has made clear they don't practice what they preach. As an interesting side, this is a characteristic common in many terrorists. Maybe I should stereotype you and assume you would have enjoyed watching porn with Osama... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If you wish to better understand a killer of innocents and accept their views as reasonable, that is your choice.

---

Hey! I don't think any of us accepted their views as reasonable.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I choose not to bother with humans that have become indiscriminate killers and attempt to pass it on as a reasonable and logical choice. .. :)

---

That's good but unfortunately these ""humans'' live among us and most of the time we don't have suspicions they could do such things. Haven't read the ''incriminated article'' but I think that was the point as until the Boston incident Tsarnaev looked like a guy who was nicely integrated in the american way of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Hey! I don't think any of us accepted their views as reasonable.....

---

I certainly don't think that you or most ever did. Most were simply stating that the photo/article was reasonable, as the public will see both sides of the coin. I take no issue with that, even though it's not something I have an interest in. My statement was made towards and individual who seems to want to accept the actions as reasonable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is very easy to dismiss such people in this manner, possibly because the notion of a suspected terrorist actually being an individual of sane mind and reasoning is very hard to accept.

---

And I don't claim that such people have never been intelligent, reasonable, compassionate, etc.... right up to the point they snap and start plotting and taking actions to plan such attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

That's good but unfortunately these ""humans'' live among us and most of the time we don't have suspicions they could do such things. Haven't read the ''incriminated article'' but I think that was the point as until the Boston incident Tsarnaev looked like a guy who was nicely integrated in the american way of life.

---

True enough, and I agree. But then again people even within a country often seem "normal" until they snap and do something violent. Maybe over time they will figure out what the real deep rooted triggers are, as I don't think most normal people would ever consider such things, much less act on them.

As for the magazine cover, it apparently was disturbing to quite a few people. In this area most major retailers chose not to sell the issue but instead to return them all. I guess that is a risk running such a controversial cover creates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As for the magazine cover, it apparently was disturbing to quite a few people.

---

Yes — quite a few people in a country where the fact of a female singer showing a bit of breast during a TV broadcast was considered such an appalling breach of taste as to cause years of recriminations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

That's good but unfortunately these ""humans'' live among us and most of the time we don't have suspicions they could do such things. Haven't read the ''incriminated article'' but I think that was the point as until the Boston incident Tsarnaev looked like a guy who was nicely integrated in the american way of life.

---

Until he, according to some here, suddenly ceased to be an individual worth understanding. I would consider it quite valuable to understand such people after the event, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Rather than once again address all the points made let me clarify. Your understanding or lack of understanding of my view does not concern me in the slightest, and I haven't suggested anyone should share my views. Yet the fact that you find some of my views ridiculous or black and white shows that you have made no attempt to step outside your box and accept them. I accept that your view is different than mine, yet don't insult your view. You claim to be all behind freedom of press, but it seems you are unwilling to even hear an opinion on an internet forum unless it is an opinion you agree with?

---

What utter rot. Where have I said I am unwilling to hear your views? I have read all of them and formed the view that I disagree with them. A very different thing.

Unlike you in relation to Tsarnaev, I am at least trying to understand your viewpoint. So far I have failed, because I cannot understand why someone would ever actively choose to be ignorant about something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

If you wish to better understand a killer of innocents and accept their views as reasonable, that is your choice.

---

You are putting simplistic words into my mouth. Understanding someone's motivation and accepting their views as reasonable do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Do you accept this? In your country, it would appear that Bush's view, 'You're either with us or against us', has become deeply ingrained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Great try with the Bush thing. Despite the boxes you like to place people in and broad brush strokes you paint them with, normal people are much more complex than the stereotypes you wish to attach them to. As such, I have no desire to continue discussion with someone that has made clear they don't practice what they preach.

---

Why the problem with the Bush analogy? You, like him, seem to have a very clear notion of 'good and evil', do you not? And, as I said, you veer very close to the 'with us or against us' end of the spectrum when it comes to people voicing views that aren't automatically condemnatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I have no desire to continue discussion with someone that has made clear they don't practice what they preach. As an interesting side, this is a characteristic common in many terrorists.

---

How do you know? After all, you choose not to understand them and their motivation. Given that, on what grounds can you assign 'common characteristics' to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

But then again people even within a country often seem "normal" until they snap and do something violent.

---

I'm afraid I'm this kind of person and I kid you not.
However now I have hope that at least BDunnell would try to understand my motivation. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

I'm afraid I'm this kind of person and I kid you not.
However now I have hope that at least BDunnell would try to understand my motivation. :p

---

BDunnell advances a clear concise argument. The fact that people live within our communities leading a secret life but outwardly appear normal is and should be of interest to everyone with the intelligence that causes curiosity for one to investigate why these things happen.

There was a time when it was deemed that every person with a psychopathic personality was a murderer. Nothing farther from the truth. Being inquisitive means learning. There are few and they are becoming less and less frequent of ideas that are absolutely black and white. For instance Global Warming or if you prefer, climate change. There were some not to long ago that could not grasp the fact that Helium is created by Hydrogen. How could a gas such as Hydrogen create an inert gas? Simple answer. It can.
Rolling Stone did the correct thing and it is made abundantly clear in the article. Airshifter should read it and then would understand why it was sanctioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

I'm afraid I'm this kind of person and I kid you not.
However now I have hope that at least BDunnell would try to understand my motivation. :p

---

Everyone can at some point snap and do something not usually in their nature. But if you were to snap and reduce yourself to taking random life, I'll gladly admit I won't try to justify is a a rational decision. But if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't try to justify such actions if a family member did such things either.

So really I'm treating you just like family. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Everyone can at some point snap and do something not usually in their nature. But if you were to snap and reduce yourself to taking random life, I'll gladly admit I won't try to justify is a a rational decision. But if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't try to justify such actions if a family member did such things either.

---

But that's a rather different argument from the one you were putting forward before, isn't it? Now you seem to be saying that not all actions can be rationalised — which I believe is correct — rather than contending that there is no point trying to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Not every eventuality can be legislated for, nor acted against.

---

The first part of your statement is very true. The second one is questionable. You may choose to be that careless, but I'd rather take precautions if I knew that my or somebody else's actions might eventually harm anybody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And misleading? In what way, exactly? I fail to see from your description.

---

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Celebrities are cool.

---

Are they? :confused:


I can name a few who aren't.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

So really I'm treating you just like family. :)

---

Ohhhh....That's really sweet..... :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

Are they? :confused:

I can name a few who aren't.....

---

I'm just trying to logically parse what media feed us.

You may want to watch "Almost Famous", a nice and light-hearted story about rock stars, journalists and the Rolling Stone, to better understand how the cult of celebrities emerges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I'm just trying to logically parse what media feed us.

You may want to watch "Almost Famous", a nice and light-hearted story about rock stars, journalists and the Rolling Stone, to better understand how the cult of celebrities emerges.

---

To be a celebrity means to have some kind of notoriety. A notorious guy like let's say Kim Jong Un is hardly perceived like cool.

I'm mostly talking about the celebrities of the Rolling Stone bunch, i.e. movie actors, musicians, artists, socialites etc. Oh yeah, and now terrorists...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

A notorious guy like let's say Kim Jong Un is hardly perceived like cool.

---

Most rappers are former drug dealers and criminals, yet they are often perceived as "cool" by today's gullible youth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garry Walker

Most rappers are former drug dealers and criminals, yet they are often perceived as "cool" by today's gullible youth.

---

I'd contest 'most', unless you have any statistical proof, but I would tend to agree with your sentiment. In a free society, you can't go around trying to prevent people you don't like from being in the public eye. Who is to have the final word on whether someone is 'suitable'? It's a slippery slope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

---

But based on its actual content?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But based on its actual content?

---

Content as well. The article is very ambivalent. It is a decent try to outline facts, but the overall "we-don't-know-how-that-happened-he-was-such-a-nice-guy" tone allows this article to be placed in any context. And that's exactly what the cover photo does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Content as well. The article is very ambivalent. It is a decent try to outline facts, but the overall "we-don't-know-how-that-happened-he-was-such-a-nice-guy" tone allows this article to be placed in any context. And that's exactly what the cover photo does.

---

Only if one lets it do so, surely? I'll ask again: why seek to legislate on the basis of concerns regarding the most easily-led, or most prudish, in society?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Only if one lets it do so, surely? I'll ask again: why seek to legislate on the basis of concerns regarding the most easily-led, or most prudish, in society?

---

For the sake of clarity (although I believe I've said it before), I'm not calling on anybody to legislate anything based on this case. All I'm saying is RS should have known better than putting the guy on the cover. It is just my personal opinion and nothing more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

For the sake of clarity (although I believe I've said it before), I'm not calling on anybody to legislate anything based on this case. All I'm saying is RS should have known better than putting the guy on the cover. It is just my personal opinion and nothing more than that.

---

Fair enough, but seeking to impose censorship through whatever means is equally undesirable. The end result is the same. So is my question: why should such judgements have to be made with the most sensitive or easily-led individuals in mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Celebrities are cool. A terrorist is a celebrity. Being a terrorist is cool. That's the message of the article in question based on direct Aristotelian logic.

---

Societies are not controlled by logic, they are steered by rules and common sense.
That logic of yours does not apply in a healthy society where common sense and basic rules are its foundations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Societies are not controlled by logic, they are steered by rules and common sense.
That logic of yours does not apply in a healthy society where common sense and basic rules are its foundations.

---

Talk about common sense in the audience brainwashed by pop culture the Rolling Stone is a part of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Fair enough, but seeking to impose censorship through whatever means is equally undesirable. The end result is the same. So is my question: why should such judgements have to be made with the most sensitive or easily-led individuals in mind?

---

You do have a bit of obsession with censorship, don't you? I still don't see how my critical opinion of an article in a magazine constitutes censorship in any form.

Speaking of judgments, they have to be made with everybody who your words and actions can reach in mind. It's like driving. You can go 100 mph and have no problem, but there are moments when you would do that and moments when you wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

You do have a bit of obsession with censorship, don't you? I still don't see how my critical opinion of an article in a magazine constitutes censorship in any form.

---

Because that is the end result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Because that is the end result.

---

I guess I need to convey that to the Rolling Stone. Then I will be on their next cover as Rudy the Censor, the evil enemy of the freedom of press yet somebody who has a bit of human touch left in the dark abysses of his lost soul. "Yes, sometimes he was a nice guy; he would help me with meeting my deadlines, but I noticed he would always get angry whenever somebody talked about the freedom of press and other liberties in his presence."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I guess I need to convey that to the Rolling Stone. Then I will be on their next cover .....

---

Isn't it what you want? :p :devil:

I have read most of the posts and forgive me if I am incorrect when I state that according to many of the posters their gripe is that the photo on the cover of Rolling Stone is their sole reason of contention. The photograph?!

I see philosophical with Aristotle mentioned and then I read that the actual article has not been read. So,in essence it shows a rather sad lack of inquisitiveness and a very direct conclusion to be drawn that this lack of curiosity leads people to make rash judgements and their lack of same(curiosity) can then be exploited by others.
Not learning from history and you are bound to repeat it. Never a truer word spoken.

First it was Trayvon Martin and his death being his own fault and Zimmerman the actual killer walking away totally free. Then the verdict came in and more cheering and more character bashing of the dead kid. Then and now we have Rolling Stone being hit by those that have never even read the article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

I see philosophical with Aristotle mentioned and then I read that the actual article has not been read.

---

That's plainly not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

That's plainly not true.

---

What is not true?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

What is not true?

---

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

---

... and I'm not at all surprised by the statements you made concerning the article. Which is really my point. As people not in the professional fields to help figure out the motives, they won't. So they have a choice in picking what they think might have been the motivations, or stating that they are clueless to the motivations. I could find a kid on the street that could give me those opinions for free.

Even the professionals and experts within the field can't fit a specific profile to terrorism. There are common characteristics, but not much in the way of specifics except those things which are a moving target. Even those characteristics lead to such a large population that finding the people that will act in such a way on those beliefs is very unlikely. Extremist or radical beliefs are becoming more and more common IMO, and often a by product of influence upon the person. It's rare that such things come to life on their own, and media has part in spreading of information or misinformation. As such, media influences the path some go down.

I've found that many people really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public. They want what they think to be public, and attempt to ignore, censor, or state any other thought is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Extremist or radical beliefs are becoming more and more common IMO, and often a by product of influence upon the person. It's rare that such things come to life on their own, and media has part in spreading of information or misinformation. As such, media influences the path some go down.

I've found that many people really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public. They want what they think to be public, and attempt to ignore, censor, or state any other thought is wrong.

---

How do those two viewpoints go together? A media that refuses to take the occasional risk is one that self-censors — now, that's something all media do to some extent, but there are limits. We already see our mainstream media catering increasingly for the most sensitive and prudish in society. I consider this to be a very bad thing indeed.

And given the views expressed earlier about not wishing to understand the motivation of terrorists, it is rather ironic to then read criticism of people who 'really don't want the truth, or for that matter all opinions, to be public'. How does that square with seeking to criticise a portrayal of the Boston suspect for being insufficiently critical? If you really believe in allowing 'all opinions', you should have no problem with what Rolling Stone did whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

Your statement that I haven't read the article. I have.

---

My apologies. I thought you stated that you had not. My fault for presumption and not reading your prior posts thoroughly.