Jahar's World: The Article

Rolling Stone has made available online the full article about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Jahar's World. I haven't had time to read it yet, but if you have, here's a place to discuss it.

< Thursday Open Thread | George Zimmerman Trial: Additional Thoughts? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Police respond to cover photo by .... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by magster on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:21:25 PM EST
    releasing photos of Dzhokar being arrested to "deglamorize" him.

    No comment on the cover debate, but the pictures are pretty chilling, with the laser sights glowing off the middle of his forehead as he's climbing out of the boat.

    Chilling... or is there also something else ? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by gbrbsb on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:13:17 AM EST
    I don't think RS meant to "glamorise" him, as Murphy seems to believe, but humanise him as a contrast with his alleged actions, i.e. What did you all expect... green, with horns, a tale, talons and red fiery eyes ?

    Whatever his aim, Murphy failed with me, because imo these images humanise him even more than the RS cover; without condoning anything he may have done, what I see is the human condition, "There but for the grace of God, go I". A visual of life's four conundrums: meaning, freedom, loneliness, and mortality.


    Forgot to link.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    Of course (none / 0) (#3)
    by sj on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    he must be made to look a villain. Can't have him looking like a normal person, doncha know.

    Disgusting. They have no business releasing that.


    Surprised that they released those (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:59:04 PM EST
    pictures since IIRC 2 U.S. officials said that he was unarmed and there was no gun in the boat when police captured him.

    ? Don't understand your comment. (none / 0) (#5)
    by magster on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    Can you restate?

    The initial official reports said (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:23:03 PM EST
    they had exchanged gunfire with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for more than one hour Friday evening before they were able to subdue him. I take that to mean that they were firing on the boat.

    Later 2 U.S. officials stated that Dzhokhar was unarmed. No gun was found in or around the boat. Based on accuracy of that report (which I have not found anyone disputing this claim), it IMO leads to the question of how much of the damage shown in the photos was the result of the police firing on an unarmed man. If I were the police, I would not want to open that door.

    Also as an afterthought, I'm not sure of how a Massachusetts State Police employee releasing those photos before a trial will impact the trial.


    Got it. Thanks. (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:27:26 PM EST
    Didn't Look (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:04:10 PM EST
    But I am sure it the release is brought to you by the corporations that care, and will not carry Rolling Stone on their shelves.

    Police =>> Boston Magazine (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:08:14 PM EST
    Police (3.50 / 2) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:11:09 PM EST
    it also could be an incentive to those who may be unstable to do something

    yes, I am much more afraid of the police than terrorists.


    Release of photos apparently not authorized (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:05:58 PM EST
    State police spokesman David Procopio said in a statement Thursday that the agency did not authorize the release of the photos to Boston Magazine and will not release them to other media. "The State Police will have no further comment on this matter tonight," he added.

    Boston Magazine editor John Wolfson, who wrote the story accompanied by Murphy's photos, later tweeted and reported on the magazine website that Murphy was "relieved of duty" and had a hearing next week. Asked by The Associated Press about Murphy's job status, Procopio said in an email: "All I can say is that he is subject to an internal investigation." link

    I read the RS article. It is mainly his fiends (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:48:37 PM EST
    from school trying to understand how the person they knew could have done such a horrible thing. Speculation centers around the changes that happened when the parents left the US and his life was more centered around his brother. None of it is said in a way to excuse, glamorize, or justify anything, just an attempt to understand. You know, journalism.

    Regarding the cover, colbert points out they have had Charles Manson on the cover, among others.  I foundthe police photos more eerily visually interesting and not a gross-out, atleast not the three I saw. Not sure releasing them willl have the desired affect.

    "his fiends from school" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:54:47 PM EST

    ha - ipad typing fail (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:10:28 AM EST
    I started reading the article and got bored.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    frankly. I'll try to finish it later.

    I confess to not reading every word once (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:11:45 AM EST
    I got the gist. Did not seem to be much I had not already read.

    It was nicely done (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    but little new in that nearly all the same info from his friends was in the Boston papers last May.

    I do understand people that get all their news from the Internet having a hard time making their way through the article. The younger Internet group wants their news in 140 characters or less and those a little older tend to max out at about 3 or 4 paragraphs nowadays.

    Interestingly, I've found those with no affiliation to the Boston area are somewhat bothered by the cover, but those with an affiliation to the Boston Marathon not bothered much at all. I'll get a better handle on how the average runner feels about it on tomorrow morning's group long run. My guess is a shrug because right after the event most placed the blame on his brother.

    I'm thinking if the identical picture and story showed up in the Sunday Times, no one would have said a word.


    The NYT had the same photo (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:24:41 AM EST
    on the front page on May 5, 2013 per Jeralyn's link in her post above. Not sure what was said in their column but as you have already stated much of the information contained in the RS article has previously been reported elsewhere.

    My problem was definitley attention span (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:29:35 AM EST
    in that case. I was multitasking, and not very well. Basically I read the first 2 pages all the way through, skipped to the last 2 pages and read them, then skimmed the middle!

    If the first 2 pages had really grabbed me though, i would have stuck with it better...I am not that far gone yet!  It was well written, just not enough new information to keep me interested. Basically the life of a boy in high school.


    The Last Pages... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    ...while I agree are hard to read, are really the most important and show how he slid from the high school kid to terrorist.

    Yes (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:08:07 AM EST
    Here's the cover with Manson.

    Except in this case, Manson looks like what he is - not like the 4th Jonas brother.


    Part of the story is that Tsarnaev does not (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:17:57 AM EST
    come across as a deranged murderer or 'radicalized' terrorist. I have not seen any picture of him that looked scary in the least.

    I read most of the article (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:30:57 AM EST
    But like you and others have said - it was hard to get through, and I got the gist.

    The money line (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:21:18 PM EST
    "And poor Jahar was the silent survivor of all that dysfunction."

    The legacies of war, abuse, alienation, some genuine mental illness, neglect, the lure of soothing absolutism...all just collide and destroy a lot of lives in the process.

    No easy answers, just many difficult realities.

    Yes. I don't understand how parents (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:55:16 AM EST
    can just abandon their kids. I don't understand marrying off your daughters at a young age either. One of my former bosses was from India and he tried to explain it to me (they were arranging for their soon to be a college graduate pre-med daughter to get married), but I just couldn't.

    I don't understand Section 8 housing. Do you lose it when there's a baby living there? I guess so. It seems odd they kept it all those years and then lost it while a baby was there.


    I don't think it has anything to do with the (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:31:40 AM EST
    baby. There are a number of reasons one might lose a Section 8 voucher. Here is a list of some of them.

    We don't know what Tamerlan's situation was. Maybe they owed back rent or he was threatening to other tenants or any of a number of things.

    But they would not have lost the voucher because they had a baby.


    Thank you, Casey (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    That's not the only thing I took from the article, but it was one of the little things that bugged me.

    I would hope the bar is set very high for someone with a baby losing it. I wondered if it was Tamerlan not working, even though the mother was.


    My dad took off when I was four (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    Left my mom and I to live on welfare and food stamps in inner city L.A..  Having a child myself now, I have no clue how he let us live like this, while he was living in a nice middle class tract house in the burbs. I love my dad, but the older I get, the harder time I have understanding the past. It would take an army to drag me away from my child. Some people, tho, it just doesn't register. Hard to explain. Extreme self-absorption, that takes many forms.

    Your comment makes me sad (none / 0) (#50)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:29:50 PM EST
    Dadler. But I also thought what a lucky child you have. Much respect to you.

    I read the article (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by itscookin on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:38:14 PM EST
    I don't know if it's an accurate depiction of Jahar, but they've written an accurate description of the high school he attended. Proud of how many different nationalities attend the school, full of disaffected teachers, and an easy place to score drugs. Most people with money who live in Cambridge send their kids to private school, but their values still affect the experience the kids get at Rindge and Latin. The people in the public eye in Cambridge don't have a very positive attitude about people in the US who live outside their city. The city is referred to as "The People's Republic of Cambridge" by people from surrounding communities. If Jahar was looking for a teacher who would encourage a positive view of the US and our role in the world, he might have had a hard time finding one.  But the picture of a kid who spent most of his time hanging out at the "riv" and getting high could have been a description of a lot of the kids there.

    Is that why there's only one (none / 0) (#18)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:51:13 AM EST
    public high school there? I haven't looked up the population yet, but that surprised me.

    Most people with money who live in Cambridge send their kids to private school

    population of Cambridge (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by itscookin on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:05:59 AM EST
    There are just over 100,000 people in Cambridge. The high school has about 1500 students. West of the city Framingham has a population of about 68,000 people and a single high school with just over 2,000 students. Part of the difference is how many kids go to private school and part of it is the demographics of the city. Just not as many kids per household. My job takes me into a lot of the schools in Eastern MA. Every school has its own culture. Framingham is very ethnically diverse as well, but the school culture is that the US is a great place to live, and we're all lucky to be here where Cambridge is more likely to give an immigrant student the impression the US is responsible for all of the ills of the world. I know this is a bit of an exaggeration, but if we're trying to get a handle on what influenced this young man to, perhaps, become a terrorist, then the culture of his school is one place to look. It's certainly not the only place.

    Just Sad... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    ...how someone, we can all related to, slowly radicalizes because of certain events, economic issues, and a screwed up family dynamic.  Not defending it because loads of kids go through the same thing and don't resort to that kind of violence.

    It's odd to me that both brothers focused in on Chechnyan culture and history, while not actually being Chechen.  It's like they were grasping for some sort of romantic culture, which included 'freedom' fighting, to related and grab onto.

    Not being an expert and only going by this article, it's seems to me like the older brother, Tamerlan was both idolized and feared by Jahar. And while Tamerlan's personality almost seemed built for radicalizing, Jahar was not, yet the older brothers influence clearly played a role in radicalizing Jahar.  And it all really came to a head when their parents more or less deserted them and the financial situation were bleak.

    Tweets like this is in the arena of things we talk about and feel the same way:

    In August, Jahar, acutely aware of the troubles all around him, commented that $15 billion was spent on the Summer Olympics. "Imagine if that money was used to feed those in need all over the world," he wrote. "The value of human life ain't shit nowadays that's #tragic."

    It not hard to understand where he was coming from, what is almost impossible to understand why he turned to killing innocent people.

    I also the think the picture was fitting, the article starts out with things being great for Jahar, and if the back cover could have an image to end the article it would have to be THIS one.  With the article kind of showing the trans formation from THIS to THIS.

    And lastly, I found it very odd, if true, that the nurses seemed almost mad at themselves at the possibility of liking the kid.  Is it really that wrong to like someone who did horrible things ?

    You have to remember (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by itscookin on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    that at the same time Jahar was being treated, Boston hospitals were also treating the victims of the bombing. It's hard to accept you could "like someone" who you believed created that kind of carnage when you're seeing the carnage up close and personal.I deal with so-called "bad kids" all of the time, and I like most of them, but I also don't know the victims of their crimes. It would be harder to like a kid who knocked down a little old lady and broke her hip to steal her purse if the little old lady lived next door to me.

    I Have Never Been in That Situation... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    ...but I am a very compassionate person.

    Seems like I would go with my gut, I can't imagine being made at myself for liking him.  Either hate him, feel nothing, or like him.

    I did forget that they were still treating victims which makes more sense.


    Very well said, thank you (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    The nurses still found some compassion in their hearts, even if it was conflicted. In the end, the perpetrator they wanted to hate was still a sad 19 yr old with wounds of his own.

    This line (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    $15 billion was spent on the Summer Olympics. "Imagine if that money was used to feed those in need all over the world,"

    definitely sounds like something that originated with Tamerlan since the rule changes in boxing effectively ended his stated goal of making the USA Olympic Boxing Team.


    That line about the cost of the Olympics (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:17:21 PM EST
    sounds like something I might said at 19.  It does not strike me as a crazy terrorist sentiment at all. More like the thoughts of an idealistic kid trying to figure out why the world's priorities are what they are.

    How is Tsarnaev comment about 9/11 (none / 0) (#47)
    by TycheSD on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    different than the stand Ron Paul took during the 2008 Republican presidential campaign, for which he was excoriated by Rudy Giuliani?

    Maybe... (4.50 / 2) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    ...but seriously, you didn't see the Olympic extravagance as insane when there was rioting in the streets of London of their austerity measures ?

    My thoughts never went to feeding the world, just the people in London who flip the bill, how the state couldn't find it in their hearts to help people in need, yet spared no expense for a two week event.

    One doesn't have to be a shattered Olympic hopeful to understand just how ridiculous that view is.

    Side Note.  
    I have always thought the Olympics should be held in one city like Athens, were the costs would benefit more than a single 2 week event, and not force places without the money to find it at the costs of their citizens.  $15B is no joke, not sure if that's even accurate, but that is a chunk of change for any city to absorb when you consider the profiteers are businesses and not the actual people paying the bill.


    In the Guardian today (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    They said the London Summer Olympics cost 9 billion and brought in 9.9 billion with still more income expected since Olympic Park, due to be renamed Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, opens this weekend. London tourism is at an all-time high since the 2012 Summer Olympics.

    In a nutshell, The Olympics were very profitable for London and continue to be profitable.


    I think You Figures... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    ..are in pounds, not dollars.

    THIS states the cost was 8.92M pounds, which is 13.6M dollars.

    Which works out to $216 for every man, woman, and child in the UK.  Or over a grand for a family of 5.  Nearly all of whom received exactly zero benefit.  But I guess NBC scored so it really doesn't matter then...

    However, the actual "Games-time" cost ran close to £3bn when adding on £514m for venue security and £137m for "operational provisions" as well as extra money for more lavish ceremonies, all of which came from the public purse.

    I think your assumption that the increase in tourism is solely due to the Olympics is unfounded at best.

    My point being, they have no pounds for people who need them, only austerity, but they have no limits on public cash used for ceremonial fluff that only benefits a select few, like NBC USA.

    And that is a goddamn shame.


    I'm not assuming anything (none / 0) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    I'm giving you the report from the Guardian. And yes it was in pounds which if you want to translate to dollars actually makes the profit in dollars higher. The Guardian numbers I quoted don't take tourism into account in their figures. Counting tourism they expect the eventual revenue to top 40 billion.

    Missed Point Redux (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    For People Who Own Stuff... (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    ...I am sure NBC made more $$$ than anyone and I am positive the people who actually pay the bills are exactly where they were last year, sucking on the austerity measures, sans the cheap housing they removed for the Olympics.

    And good for NBC if they did (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    They outbid Fox and ABC for the right to show the Olympics in the US, and they placed and won the bid before anyone even knew where the Olympics would be held. It wasn't handed to them on a platter. All the more power to them if they were deemed a financial success by company standards.

    You Missed the Entire Point (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    what? (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    Police officer who released photos relieved of dut (none / 0) (#16)
    by TycheSD on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:08:01 PM EST
    That's duty.

    Yes, his release of those capture photos in retaliation for the Rolling Stone cover were unauthorized.  He had to surrender his badge, his gun and his computer.  He will have a duty hearing next week to decide his fate.

    Deval Patrick's sane reaction (none / 0) (#22)
    by jatkins on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:59:18 AM EST
    "I haven't read it, but I understand the substance of the article is not objectionable. It's apparently pretty good reporting. But the cover is out of taste, I think."

    Thought before opening his mouth, unlike Menino.