I was wondering when this was going to come up. There was a pic of him on the cover of I think the NY Post that was similarly flattering, right after the bombing occurred, so this is old news IMO. This is RS's desperate attempt to get their name back in the spotlight. Sucking up to Baby Boomers is not as profitable as it used to be. They jumped the shark a long time ago.

Pretty much. I loved the magazine when I was young and now it's gone the way of MTV.

The article serves the public discourse and goes to show the issues between terrorism are pretty complex as are some of the folks who perpetrate those acts.

That whole concept is just old too. Oooh, guess what, pretty people can do really horrible things. I guess no one's ever seen a picture of Ted Bundy circa 1973 and thought "Yeah, I'd hit that."

Not really where the area of domestic terrorism is concerned. It's a weird thing. I know several people in my local legal community who worked on the defense of Terry Nichols or Tim McVeigh from the OKC bombings. While I know nothing about McVeigh, I've heard Nichols is just the nicest, coolest guy around, except he helped pull a Ryder truck up next to a federal building and killed 168 people, including 19 children.

It's important for the public discussion because we tend to think of these terrorist types as "others," and we don't humanize them.

At least to me, that these kids could possibly be so angry with this country or maybe be so just batshit crazy that they'd do what they did. This shouldn't be so controversial. Mein Kamph is still in print, Quotations of Chairman Mao is still in print. Those guys were responsible for millions of deaths, but people want to know about them.

Interesting that you use the words "domestic terrorism." From what I've heard and read, not too many people are using that term to describe what happened in Boston. Don't get me wrong - I know this is a person who grew up here, lived here, and became a terrorist here in the United States, but the fact is, I don't believe most people look at Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the same way that they look at Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

I think many people see Tamerlan and Dzhokhar as outsiders; foreigners who came here and betrayed the very country that took them in. And of course, in a post-9/11 world, this becomes even more relevant and prominent.

I understand that everyone is interested in the Tsarnaev brothers, but I don't think they're interested for the same reasons that they're interested in McVeigh and Nichols.

IMO, the "humanizing" of Dzhokhar isn't necessary. He doesn't deserve to be classified as such. I don't care so much that he's on the cover, but I AM bothered by the fact that they made him look like a rock star. If you want to make people think about, and understand, and recognize the "change" that occurred in him.. or compare the seemingly normal life he led with the one where he killed 3 people and injured hundreds more, I think there are much better ways it could have been done.

My thought: If they used half of the picture that's on the cover, and half of his mug shot, and combined them into one image (showing his two "sides"), Rolling Stone could have shown us both the innocent, charming teenager and the cynical, evil killer that he turned out to be. I don't know that too many people would have taken offense to that. At least, I don't believe it would have blown up like this has over the last day or two.

They hardly even deserve to be put in the same category as terrorists. Their attack was carried out in a pretty incompetent manner, didn't do a huge amount of damage, but was successful only in that it elicited a highly disproportional response--the mark of a successful terrorist attack.

In response to this attack, we saw a city of millions put on lockdown, saw a major hit to the local economy, and witnessed law enforcement's increasing militarization. Having been part of a community which experienced a much more significant attack, we saw nothing remotely close to what happened in Boston with regard to the military-like response and we still got the guys responsible.

These guys shouldn't be held out as horrific serial killer badasses, they should be held out for what they are--incompetent, misled and immature thugs. I haven't and probably won't read the article, but from the headline, I think we'll get an honest depiction.

This has already been a Law & Order Criminal Intent episode. Just saying.

http://www.tv.com/shows/law-order-cr...ilgrim-205535/

I'm not refuting anything you're saying, just refuting the concept that RS is doing anything new and/or shocking and/or essential to public discourse that hasn't been done before.

I'm not saying this is new either. It's just part of the discourse which should happen and it's a different take from what other news outlets are doing.