This particular picture was on the cover of New York times I believe.

 

i don't know, the outrage of him being on the cover brought him more attention than the cover itself, so to me the outrage is self defeating. And I may probably only be the only person that feels this way, but I sort of feel bad for the kid. Not saying he doesn't deserve to spend his life in jail, but its pretty clear his brother was the mastermind and twisted the little kid's brain. The article is interesting to me for that reason, it gets it to the psychology of what the kid did.

 

I was actually kind of surprised how quickly after his arrest this faded from spotlight, although I think that had mostly to do with current events. If I mad to put money on it, America is still extremely frustrated with how events turned out (him surviving and pleading not guilty) and this is a way to express frustration.

 

That or its my two glasses of wine talking. I get all armchair shrinky when I am drinking.

Lilac, I get what you say about feeling bad for the kid. Such a young life ruined by such an incomprehensible act... I felt sorry for him at first, sorry that he was so young and acting under the guidance of his older brother. But then I thought: how many people have risked their life to escape from their country and come live in America? Thousands upon thousands... They are grateful when they arrive in your country. This young man had a chance at a life of greater freedom and comfort. He was going to school, preparing his future in the country that had welcomed him, and he had a social life, from what I understood. He was not an outcast. He made the decision to turn his back on all of this and hurt innocent people. He also seems to have no regrets over what he did. Maybe he was brainwashed, yes, but so was his brother in a way and so are most terrorists. They still have to be held responsible for their actions. Being young and with a future should have made this boy less likely to do something like that...

Lily, that's an interesting observation about being young and having a future making you less likely to engage in an act of terrorism.  In reality, it seems that only those who are young with a future do so.

 

At one point, I thought that education could serve as a counterpoint to extremism but I am no longer sure.  The very fact that you have enough money and time to contemplate the world around you means that you aren't suffering in poverty.  Those who are trying to stay alive are too busy trying to, well, stay alive, than to worry about geopolitical injustices.  If you look at terrorists in general, they are more likely to have college educations and come from middle to upper middle class backgrounds than to be poor and uneducated.

Yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of that... Then, is it all only about "belonging"? You belong to your culture, your religion, your home country, your clan, tribe, political party, etc... Are we all so weak that we can't even think as individuals? We must think as a group, always? If that's the case, it's sad and scary...

That family came to the US to escape a civil war, and got various government handouts. I haven't read anything that explains the hate other than the older brother wasn't able to be a US citizen for some reason when he was trying to make the boxing team. The uncle pretty much said that he was a POS. The younger brother may have been involved in the triple murder when he was 17. It seems weird that none of his friends had any hints that something was wrong.

When I heard about that I felt personally violated on top of the bombing. The United States gave these guys a refuge from war and benefits, and they bomb us. I work as an administrative contractor for US Citizenship and Immigration Service. I'm aware that politics by upper management can sometimes over ride an adjudicator decision. I think the reason this family got asylum was due to the political situation of the time.

What gets me is that in immigration I know that the applications of so many deserving peaceful people get rejected, but these two violent thugs get end. I know they were children at the time, but still.

Brad, as a foreigner in this group, I agree with you in part with the fact that the rest of the world doesn't look at the US in an entirely positive way. But I would say that it is still the #1 desired place of refuge for most of the oppressed in the world. And Canada is #2. There are good reasons for this. You know them better than I do, I'm sure.

Also, I agree with you that we are group animals. Just look at our group, here. And look at how we behave when we feel an intruder is amongst us (I won't name names ). Communities, groups of all kinds give us protection, support and a feeling of belonging, a reason for being, yes. But we are still intelligent enough to think for ourselves when necessary. Not all Muslims are terrorists and they don't all look down on the West, whatever their leaders say about it. And I (and you) have often voiced opinions here that were against the majority of this group and I (and you) was sort of gently mocked for them. That didn't stop me (and you) in going against the current again and again. We don't always have to follow the flock, even though we were born sheep...

Update. I would offer an opinion here but since I did not when this story first broke it would seem like Monday morning quarterbacking. Suffice to say I predicted this in real life discussions with people at work when asked what I thought.

Click here for article

Rolling Stone's Boston Bomber Issue Sells Big On Newsstands

"It looks like all that drama over Rolling Stone's recent issue featuring alleged Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover really paid off for the magazine.

The cover, which critics said "glamorized" Tsarnaev, was banned from pharmacies and supermarkets, denounced by Boston's mayor, defended and trashed in the media, and even targeted in a proposed public burning campaign.

But, according to AdWeek, the issue sold more than double Rolling Stone's usual average newsstand sales. Apparently, people wanted to see what all the fuss was about."

 

Did anyone, whether they were for or against the cover/article, NOT think the magazine would be a huge seller? I wasn't a fan of the cover photo, just the tone of it seemed wrong to me, giving him the rock star treatment. Not outraged by it, but not a fan. I thought it was too obvious and desperate. But I had no doubt it would sell. Especially once people started banning it. This is the society where any time a Kardashian or Honey boo Boo takes a dump it's big news... RS decided to test the theory there's no such thing as bad publicity and it looks like it worked out.

 

I love the USA and wouldn't want to live anywhere else but judging the merits of anything based on popularity here will not go well. Never overestimate the tastes of the American consumer (of which I am one, so I'm part of the problem)

+1

And just because the issue sold well doesn't mean people should have been quiet about it, even though they didn't like the way the cover was. If I don't like something, I voice my opinion. I didn't run to the store to buy my own copy, but it also didn't upset me enough to start a petition or write a letter of disapproval to RS. It's a free market, they can do what they want.

Also, I wouldn't trust any claim that says something like that did well. It could be RS itself that provided the numbers and fudged them up in order to not lose face... Anyway, even if it's true, it doesn't change my opinion that it was wrong to air brush his picture to make him look glamorous on the cover of what used to be a rock magazine, back in my days...