Much was made about the recent cover story by Rolling Stone magazine on Jahar, the Boston Bomber. There was public outrage from just about everyone, because of the 'rock star' cover photo. Social and mainstream media was abuzz over the controversy and like that it was over. The real reason the outrage ended so abruptly was because when viewing the cover in reality (not via cell or computer), the photo was nothing more than a grainy reissued photo seen in many magazine and newspapers previously. I didn't find fault for the petty reasons others did, feeling the victims should have been on the cover, because i thought that would have been true exploitation. I was bothered because it gives a voice, maybe even a motive to others, who might want to don the cover and receive their 15 minutes. The real issue(s) should have been with the article.
The article is basically two parts. The beginning, which makes Jahar out to be the greatest guy on the planet. The American dream, unrealized, but full of potential. The second part, is a dissection of his decent and gives every reason it can think of why we shouldn't fully blame him. A turbulent background, dissolving family structure, a manipulative older brother and a confused religious ideology. This is where the uproar should have been targeted. Let us not forget that this "child," as he is represented, was of age to know better. He knew quite well from right and wrong. One could dissect this article and possibly point to drug use, social stereotype and religious confusion, but the reality is, he knew what he was doing was wrong and he followed through on what was a premeditated act. To feel sorrow for him is impossible. This was not a suicide mission and he was in no way a martyr. Regardless of your religious beliefs, he didn't die for the cause, like those in 9/11 and therefore this wasn't jihad in terms of him sacrificing himself for the greater good. The article fails miserably in it's attempt to paint a picture of a confused, lost little boy, because that's not what he is.
The article is basically two parts. The beginning, which makes Jahar out to be the greatest guy on the planet. The American dream, unrealized, but full of potential. The second part, is a dissection of his decent and gives every reason it can think of why we shouldn't fully blame him. A turbulent background, dissolving family structure, a manipulative older brother and a confused religious ideology. This is where the uproar should have been targeted. Let us not forget that this "child," as he is represented, was of age to know better. He knew quite well from right and wrong. One could dissect this article and possibly point to drug use, social stereotype and religious confusion, but the reality is, he knew what he was doing was wrong and he followed through on what was a premeditated act. To feel sorrow for him is impossible. This was not a suicide mission and he was in no way a martyr. Regardless of your religious beliefs, he didn't die for the cause, like those in 9/11 and therefore this wasn't jihad in terms of him sacrificing himself for the greater good. The article fails miserably in it's attempt to paint a picture of a confused, lost little boy, because that's not what he is.
Comments
Post a Comment