David Draiman Blasts Rolling Stone: 'I Condemn This Worthless Piece Of S--t F--king Rag of a Magazine'

Singer enraged by the magazine's decision to place Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the front cover. Other rockers also react.

Ultimate Guitar

Recent decision of the Rolling Stone magazine to place the accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the front cover of its latest edition sparked a furious backlash from Disturbed frontman David Draiman.

In a statement on Twitlonger, the singer bashed the magazine in one of his most intense outbursts the public got to see.

"How far the mighty have fallen," Draiman started, "I used to dream of making the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, as it used to be the ultimate statement of legitimacy for an aspiring musician and it meant that you had really made it. Over the past 5 years, Rolling Stone has become less and less about music, and has become more and more about bullshit pop-culture nonsense. Even though many of us may not care for it, we were able to live with it ... until this.

"You... dare... to... put... the... image... of... the... Boston... bomber... on... the... f--king... cover... of... your... magazine!!!!???? Are you out of your ultra-liberal, sympathetic-to-a-fault f--king minds???

"You have not only succeeded in blatantly insulting and dishonoring the victims and families whose lives were forever affected by this rabid animal, but you have now glorified his cowardly and unforgivable act. Why? Because it will sell magazines? Because it will create controversy? Because you actually do sympathize with this abhorrent, cowardly, piece of sh-t?

"You have made it attractive and validated the act to a whole new generation of wannabe terrorists seeking martyrdom and infamy. You, and your kind, are the reason why people think that they can go out 'in a blaze of glory' while murdering innocents.

"Honestly, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart... go... f--k... yourselves. The next terrorist/murdering incident, be it another bomber, or a madman with an assault rifle, unleashing fire upon a school full of children, is on you.

"May your consciences (if you even have them) weigh immeasurable heavy on you for the rest of your lives. I condemn this act, this notion, and this worthless piece-of-sh-t f--king rag of a magazine. May the powers that be have mercy upon your souls, because the next time something like this happens, I assure you, the world won't.

"Go to hell."

Draiman wasn't the only prominent rock figure to publicly unleash his anger over the controversial cover, as the likes of Anthrax guitarist Scott Ian, Testament's Alex Skolnick and Motley Crue drummer Tommy Lee have also condemned the magazine, supporting Draiman and even calling for a Rolling Stone boycott.

The magazine's senior editor Christian Hoard initially tweeted a response saying "I guess we should have drawn a d-ck on Dzhokhar's face or something?" but had it soon deleted.

FUCK RS!!!!! RT @EttyLauFarrell: No we are GLORIFYING the Terrorist?!?!?!? I am ASHAMED for them #BoycottRollingStone

Dave Navarro (@DaveNavarro) July 17, 2013

RS Bieber cover = Bad Taste. This? SICK @cnnbrk Rolling Stone puts Boston bombing suspect on cover, ignites firestorm http://t.co/lDCpYXrZIm

Alex Skolnick (@AlexSkolnick) July 17, 2013

I've devoted 30 yrs to being the best I can be & will likely NEVER be on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine...but a teenage terrorist can

Mike Portnoy (@MikePortnoy) July 18, 2013

Really @RollingStone ? Wtff!!! pic.twitter.com/kpAPZKt3Oc

T O M M Y L E E (@MrTommyLand) July 17, 2013

Who's on the cover next issue Charles Manson? Oh wait... http://t.co/JNgWcmSbyv

Scott Ian (@Scott_Ian) July 17, 2013

Rolling Stone. So irrelevant they put the least influential terrorist in recent history on the cover. A 19 y/o... http://t.co/3b0Ntdhb5s

Philip Labonte (@philthatremains) July 17, 2013

131 comments sorted by best / new / date

    I can't say that I care for his music, but I have always admired Draiman's point of views. Smart guy.
    I think Mike Portnoy's twitter comment really did more justice than David's rant...but I do agree with David, just thought Mike's held more of a statement than David's.
    Yes. David was on to something but put it somewhat immaturely. Mike Portnoy made a genius statement
    Journalism, whether you write about the good or bad of the world is not wrong, it's how you portray what you write. Long article but after reading it, I think people are angry because being on the cover of Rolling Stone enhances social status. Glamorizing a killer - that is wrong imo, even if it is trough infamy. Writing the article was not. On another note, the fact that his appearance did not resemble a monster also disturbed most people. He didn't look like and old ugly man like Bin Laden, but a normal looking American kid. Either way, this is a sad story fitted to a tragic reality.
    He used the word terrorist and liberal but in his last comment he said something about not making it about race or politics. I think he's full of shit.
    Yes, because the words "terrorist" and "liberal" cannot be used without being political...
    Swap "smart guy" for "blowhard" and you'll have it right.
    Just bc he has a different point of view than yours, does not make him a "blowhard". Cant you see the guy means well?
    He's a blowhard because he likes ranting on things he got no idea about on Twitter, only to be hailed by common sense as a smartass. He's been doing it a lot this week.
    David Draiman "blasts" Rolling Stone? UG, throw us a bone, David Draiman SLAMS Rolling Stone, no?
    Spot on rant. Just spot on. To hell with Rolling Stone.
    Rolling Stone=Successful Troll.
    Rolling stone equals nothing anymore, and hasn't for quite awhile. I'd much rather the cover of revolver, as a rock musician. The last time I really would've view rolling stone as anything would have been the 90s. Maybe early 2000s
    Exactly...Blender is more of a music magazine than RS. And that is saying something.
    They should have put a pic of his brothers' corpse on the cover, or a pic of him after he got effed up by the SWAT team.
    Doesn't surprise me. This sorry excuse for a magazine can't even cover music with class so it's lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to politics/world issues makes sense.
    He shouldn't be getting any publicity. We should forget his name and face while remembering what happened in Boston that day and let the guy rot in a cell.
    Why can no-one see this? There's so much of a focus on terrorists etc. that they're becoming celebrities. People want terrorism to stop but plaster the Boston Bomber's face all over the news months after the actual events! To stop terrorism you must IGNORE those that carry such acts out. Mourn the losses, document the events, by all means, but don't give the attacker a face. I've actually heard quite a few people say "I might as well just bomb , I'll finally be famous". It's f ucking sickening that people seem to celebrate such atrocities.
    Sorry, there was supposed to be a (insert prominent figure) thing after bomb, but I think the site took it as formatting commands, oops.
    never liked disturbed but ill be damned if he didnt make me wanna boycott rolling stones magazine lol
    I... Agree... With... Him... 100%... But... This... Is... Annoying... Seriously though, what could possibly have been going through the minds of the publishers at Rolling Stone to make them think that this was alright?
    A desire to inform the public on how and why this man came to commit such a horrific tragedy? And it's only natural for the biggest story of a magazine issue to be on the cover.
    It's only natural to glorify a homicidal psychopath by putting his face on the cover? I don't think so. Put that dude that lost his legs on the cover, or maybe that small kid that this POS murdered. Don't put him on the damned cover though.
    Rolling stone in most cases is a bland corporate rag that continually shun the very institutions that made it a household name in the first place. It's bad...it's been bad for a decade. Nothing new there. I have not read the story. But, at first glance, I see nothing wrong with the cover. If people want to know something about how a terrorist is indoctrinated and ultimately created, we need journalist to dig deep and give us this kind of information. And, These days a RS cover is not a form of flattery or glorification. After Snooki graces your cover all of your bona fides...gone. RS legacy forever in doubt. For every great Hunter S. Thompson article we get a Brittney Spears interview. Rolling stone died a long, long time ago. What we have know is a ghost of the same name trying to keep up ad revenue by appealing to the least common denominator. If the story is actual journalism, I think that's great. We may learn something. It may very well deserve to be the cover story (has to be more riveting than the Robin Thicke). I honestly think if they had released it closer to the actual bombing, even this minor backlash of mostly forgotten rock stars would not happen. Really, who cares what Scott ian thinks? This country now more than ever needs a free press. If this is real factual (not opinion) reporting of what led to the bombing I want to read it. Dave Draiman is an idiot, who makes shitty music and apparently really enjoys the Limbaughs... most of the things he tweeted he heard on right wing media. Almost verbatim. This is his audition for fox and friends. I think what really needs to be discussed is the fact that David Draiman thought that there was a possibility of he being on the cover of a rolling stone.
    "How a Popular, Promising Student Was Failed by His Family, Fell Into Radical Islam and Became a Monster " Yeah, totally got "glorified" right there. Just shows how in America (and the whole world influenced by America) any publicity is considered good publicity. "The next terrorist/murdering incident, be it another bomber, or a madman with an assault rifle, unleashing fire upon a school full of children, is on you." So much stupidity unleashed upon the world in just one sentence. Tell me, how many terrorist/murdering incidents do you have in your country every goddamn year without any "help" like this? And how much do you think this is going to change? Do you still think things like this are the main cause, that there's no deeper problem behind it? Ah f**k, I give up. Also: "Are you out of your ultra-liberal, sympathetic-to-a-fault f--king minds???" Is this what doing just one album with Dave Mustaine turns you into? OK, I'm done. You may begin downvoting now.
    Not to be a prick, but I don't get why David Draiman is hailed as a reaaaally smart guy sometimes, since all he does 99% of the time is spit out common sense and swear on Twitter. Not really the wise guy if you ask me...
    "The next terrorist/murdering incident, be it another bomber, or a madman with an assault rifle, unleashing fire upon a school full of children, is on you." That's the part where I just gave up. For someone to really think this shows a complete lack of awareness about what's going on in the world.
    did you people get this upset and threaten to boycott rolling stone time or life magazines in the past when their covers featured Ayatollah, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, OJ Simpson, or Charles Manson? How is this kid any worse than them?
    His rant and the title quote totally fit with the mid part of Down With the Sickness.
    I don't know... I really don't get why people are making SUCH a big deal out of this (which is exactly what Rolling Stone wants by the way). If you don't like it, don't buy it. Just reacting to it this much is doing even more to boost Tsarnaev's "celebrity".
    Big deal? Why couldnt they put a music-related person on the cover then? This bomber has no relevance with RS.
    yes, and now all of our comments, and this entire thread is about the bomber too, which everyone here seems to be morally against. notaconotaco is right, if you're so concerned about this loser getting the spotlight than SHUTUP about him, the more you talk about it the worse you make it...
    It is not a RS hate thread, but giving no credit to such a person, just what RS achieves worldwide with any of its covers.
    I don't get it. Can you not put bad people on the cover of a magazine in which they're the main story? I haven't read the story yet, obviously, but what about calling him a monster is sympathetic or glorifying? What about that cover makes people automatically assume RS is taking Tsarnaev's side? Is not showing his picture going to magically make people forget he existed, ending all terrorism forever? You have a better chance at that by running a story that helps people understand.
    Because, for him, being on a magazine cover as a "monster" IS glorification.
    I disagree, he didn't want glory. He was advancing a political agenda, which I say is different from desiring personal fame/infamy. Considering he doesn't even have much of an outlet for his ideology the attack was more so a retaliation for percieved crimes committed by the U.S.
    So the next terrorist attack is on Rolling Stone? This guy is a ****ing moron.
    OK, I feel I'm about to be massacrated by negative votes here, but here's my 2 cents: I'm not too fond of RS either, but it was never solely a music magazine. It always had room to discuss what's going on in politics and popular topics overall (yes, in a tabloidish way, but it's not a new thing). Now it happened that one of the subjects of one of these sections made it to the cover and people are all freaking out and losing their shit. By that logic, aren't people supposed to freak out and feel offended every time this guy makes it to the front page of the daily newspapers too? That happened about 8492834982394 times in the last months. Besides, the cover is not glorifying the terrorist in any way, neither is encouraging other people to do the same like Draiman suggests. The cover says "how [...] and turned into a monster". It's paranoid to see any glorifying in this, actually. PS: really, Draiman? If you don't see things where there aren't things, then you are an ultra-liberal, sympathetic to a fault? Nice going...
    Of course is not glorifying, but its kind of "do this and you will get this" message.
    in a way it is glorifying him in the sense that it's showing people that if you follow in the same ways you can end up with your face on the cover, which many people associate with "fame". there are so many people who will murder just for their five minutes of fame, John Lennon's killer being just one example that im sure all the musicians on this site can relate to, and putting this guy on the cover, whether they call him a "monster" or not, is just showing the sick twisted people in the world who think that way that murder and violence is a viable and successful way of achieving that "fame" they are looking for
    I think that what the examples show is that if you follow in the same ways, you can either end up in jail forever or dead. It's also pointless to rant on how RS is wrong for doing this, since it is not the only kind of press that puts criminals' mugs on the front page. Why isn't he saying the same about the newspapers then? He just looks like he's feeling deceived because he just found out that Rolling Stone isn't only about music. In fact, since the 70's, RS had its hits on popular trends. It's nothing new like he suggests. If someone is willing to pull out a terrorist attack or freak out like Mark Chapman, he'll do it because he's a fundamentalist nutjob, or sick in the head, or both. Being in the front page won't make him more inclined about doing something wrong. To blame the "next terrorist attack/shooting" on RS because they've made an article about the case is blatantly asinine. See, Mark Chapman actually killed Lennon because "a book told him to do so". He used to stalk Lennon. etc etc... I thought RS had made themselves clear by calling the guy a "monster", but it wasn't enough for Draiman's paranoia it seems.
    The point is, why publish him of all people on the cover? Is it really that worth it? Why does he need the attention? It's a music magazine, and I dont want to see a bloody rotten bomber on my magazine.
    Agreed. At first I thought Scott Ian was actually making a point with the Manson comment as in saying "this is just news, they report it, they have done so in the past"... But I guess that's not his idea exactly. Manson was on the cover of the Rolling Stone, and not because he was a swell guy. His story was relevant at the time, and so is this one. People seeing the cover of the Rolling Stone as an 'accomplishment' or 'encouragement' is in their own minds, and not RS's responsibility.
    Of course it is. RS knows that they have the power to make this encouraging so they are, not legally, but morally responsible.
    Very true, especially the last sentence of your comment. I think Draiman's comment reinforces your point even more: "I used to dream of making the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, as it used to be the ultimate statement of legitimacy for an aspiring musician and it meant that you had really made it. [...]"
    In a way I understand what your saying and I agree to an extent. Newspapers and news sites have gone overboard with posting this guys picture on the cover, and I think they should be held responsible too. I don't think the point being made here is that they had nothing positive to say on the cover, about him. It's more along the lines of an old music saying...there is no such thing as bad publicity. You think any terrorist or any other killer expected to have positive headlines. Doubtful. Having their face remembered is still a form of fame and that is the point I think is being made. Not to mention, how about the people who lived it and are trying to move on with their lives? Do you think it fair to them to keep having this crammed down their throats?
    But many people view RS as an entertainment magazine. Not news coverage. RS is a cultural cornerstone and it's influence is far greater than any newspaper really.
    good point! that guy's face has been all over news papers too much. But still i can understand Draiman's ranting. the fact that this guys gets on the cover of the once most universally respected music magazine gives this guy what he wanted. since usually these kinds of acts start from a feeling that you want your voice to be heard, and you just feel that you don't have any options except going overkill at downtown.
    hang on a second, the magazine is doing a story about the boston bomber, so isnt it logical that they'd put a photo on the cover? I'm genuinely baffled by the extreme levels of outrage
    I know, how dare they promote the interview inside the issue right? And how dare they make money. You are only legit if you are a struggling magazine making nothing out of it. Not like they are saying "We condone his actions".
    My guess is they did this because now tons of people are tweeting about it and giving it tons of attention that now more people are gonna go to there website and read the article then any article they have probably had in a while.
    This right here...Rolling Stone is probably getting some of its largest traffic volume ever right now, I think their plan worked.
    I believe he hasn't actually been convicted of anything yet, so what happened to the great American value of innocent until proven guilty. I mean, it was almost definitely him, but surely this cover accusing him of killing all these people is still out of order for the simple fact that he hasn't yet been charged with anything?
    Maybe it was a mistake, I mean, he does LOOK like a 60s rock star! Joking aside, yeah, I agree completely, out of all the talented rockers dreaming of being on the front of this (once upon a time) legendary rock n' roll magazine, they just get spat in the face by the editors slapping this guy's mug on the front. I get it, Rolling Stone, it's probably an interesting story about how a man can bring himself to do monstrous things, but don't glorify him by shoving him at the front page! A corner photo? Fine, but not the front page!
    I absolutely have to agree with David... don't blame it all on us liberals though, we're just as outraged by it as everyone else.
    His outrage is not only stupid, it's so over the top it's irrelevant. RS are in no way glorifying the bomber (see the caption calling him am onster), they are however doing something pretty cool which is making people think. I think we overlook the aesthetic part of this : in our minds a terrorist is a repugnant monster with a beard and a face you want to punch. In this case we see a seemingly cool guy with nice features, someone you could meet and be friends with. It's really kind of scary when you realise the monster within does not always show up on the outside and it's pretty cool of RS to explicit that. And one more thing, time magazine put several killers (including the colombine ones) on the cover, why no hate there? ps: portnoy deserve a major facepalm
    People often just want to judge someone without thinking about how they came to be so 'evil' or 'wrong', and they're are entirely within their rights to do so. However, some people are capable of looking beyond just what they are given and seeking out the reasons something occurred. The same applies to people such as murders, pedophiles etc. most people can only hate or judge them without thinking hey someone in my family or even i could have made similar choices if i was raised in a totally different environment, abused as a child, suffered from mental illness etc. We don't want to admit we sympathise with these people as that is somehow seen by others as supporting them or justifying their actions when it's not. There's a big difference between trying/wanting to understand why someone did something or sympathising with the reasons why they did so (such as someone who was abused as a child then going on to abuse others) and justifying or supporting their actions.
    Time magazine is supposed to have people like that on their cover but RS used to be mostly about music. I think that is the point.
    Well, considering RS is supposed to deal in music, unlike Time, I think it's quite obvious why there's no hate when they do it. Yes, it's an interesting portrayal, but it's hard to look past the likelihood of RS doing this to sell copies out of the controversy they know they'll generate. As far as I'm concerned, it's not the glorification of a murderer. They obviously don't condone his actions. It's the use of his image to sell copies, and THAT bugs the hell out of me.
    Way Cool JR.
    I'l tell ya....People will bitch about anything nowadays. It's not like RS dolled this dirt bag up for a photo shoot and is praising him or anything. And since when has it been considered wrong for a journalist/writer to report on a tragedy that affected so many people. People seriously need to pull their heads out of their asses. There's way more things to worry about in this world than who's on a cover of a fricken magazine.
    Lee Makky
    So instead of all those hard working musicians that dedicate their lives to music, they put a terrorist on the cover. Good job guys.
    Way Cool JR.
    They put out 26 issues a year (IRC), this is only one issue without a musician on the cover. They give plenty of attention to "all those hard working musicians" in the other 25 issues.
    Diony x
    Even though Rolling Stone has become more and more Kerrang-ish over the years, but this is just too much.
    The outrage will only have a lasting impact if the industry (both musicians and their labels) refuse to grant and interviews/access to bands and stop buying ads in RS.... for that matter any of the companies that buy ad space. This is an idiotic choice by RS - a desperate move by an increasingly insignificant publication.
    Why do people read Rolling Stone when Classic Rock magazine has been around for awhile now?
    Rolling Stone was first published in 1967 Classic Rock magazine was first published in 1998 Rolling Stone has 31 years on them, that probably has something to do with it.
    ...um yeah I know that, your not really suppose to take my comment that literal, but to each their own.
    Has anyone actually read the article? Personally I haven't but it might put some things into context. It's hard to condone this kind of thing, especially because kids can be impressionable and emotional and act wrecklessly. RS has it's responsibilities to their readers, but we ourselves also have to be responsible for our own actions and not shift blame on others. Its a funny world we live in. It is a tragedy though, no matter what angel you approach it from.
    for everyone saying hey it says hes a monster and its not glorifying him, this is what these mass killers dream about they want to be on covers of magazines they want to be known for being monsters its there goal to be remembered for there crimes! so this may not seem like glorification to ordinary ppl but sick ppl who commit these crimes will be inspired by this!
    All of this obviously based on many years of studying psychology and looking deeply into dozens of mass-murder cases, analyzing their motives/surroundings/influences, right? Oh, no? ... Then please don't state this as a fact.
    I think this was taken out of context. I'm probably gonna get slammed for this, but every story -no matter how harsh- deserves for both sides to be shared.
    But I understand the musicians. You can be a guitar legend but you will always dream of being in a cover like Rolling Stone. Then... that happens. They probably feel like "WTF, man! I did way more shit than this guy"
    wowwwww. they're not glamorizing terrorists you ****ing idiots. its a solid piece of journalism. its a symbol that in this day in age anyone can be a terrorist, even someone good looking and as inconspicuous as this kid can kill people
    It's also a symbol of how these days anyone can end up on the cover of a rock/pop culture magazine, even someone as good looking and murderous as this kid. All you have to do is set the explosives.
    It never ceases to amaze me just how you people who take the time to comment on U-G are total fools for the mainstream media. If you care to actually read about it you will find a ton of evidence supporting the inside job claims.
    This is in extremely poor taste, but it's not glorifying anything. It's only glorified if you want to perceive it that way. It clearly says "how he turned into a monster". Glory indeed...
    You've missed the point. Terrorists (especially young punks with no political message whatsoever) should not be given the spotlight, because that's exactly what they wanted anyway. Infamy is still a form of fame, and Rolling Stone made the whole story seem like an epic drama instead of a sick tragedy. It IS glorifying terrorism - not for sane, grounded people like you and me, but for people who are borderline crazy. When they see the attention that Rolling Stone is giving him, they'll make up their minds to become the next big infamous thing
    You don't get it, just by putting his face on the cover at all, they've made him glamorous to other sick minded individuals. People are ****ed up and will do anything to be famous, and it wouldn't be the first time, this is just positive reinforcement for idiots to commit atrocities in order to be infamous. Maybe I should be glad you don't get it, it means you're not one of the psychopaths who will pull this shit just to be famous.
    Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a difference between this same picture being all over the 24 hour news media and on front pages of newspapers like the New York Times for weeks on end. It's no more glorifying him than the coverage he's already gotten, and if informing the public (which is what that story is meant to do) counts as glorification, then I think our definitions of that word differ. The most important stories of an issue always get cover placement, and Rolling Stone is not just a music magazine. They've tackled important political and cultural issues as well in the past. We also don't fully understand what the bombers' motives were. As far as I can tell they were retaliating to some issues of American foreign policy in the Middle East, albeit in the most tragic and fearful of ways. I don't equate terrorism with desire for infamy, the motives are different than those of someone like Mark David Chapman who killed John Lennon.
    Just because there's a fire, doesn't mean it's okay to throw another match on. All the news outlets that even said more than "an armed terrorist" without mentioning names, posting photos, etc should be ashamed and honestly, fined.
    You might not like the content however Rolling Stone is well within their right of Freedom of Speech to print this kind of material. Is it controversial, **** yeah, and that is EXACTLY what Rolling Stone was looking for. Since 1967 when they first started publishing Politics has always been a part of the magazine. If you don't like it don't purchase it and don't read it; however at the same time don't run them down for being brave enough to write a story on something other people are too afraid to talk about. The only way to prevent shit like this from happening again is to find out what caused this kid to go bat shit crazy and try to prevent other people from walking down that path. Saying this glamorizes terrorism is the same as saying the Time cover with the shot of the World Trade Center buildings collapsing and on fire is glamorizing terrorism, its not its showing the ****ing horrors of it. But I mean what more can you expect from a society that renamed french fries to freedom fries...
    I love Draiman's rant, but Portnoy's comment really hit me in a certain way because in one sentence, he summed up our society and everything wrong with it. I know he's not in Dream Theater anymore, but that's where he got his fame from. Dream Theater have been working hard since 1985 to get moderate success. They are the best combined group of musicians in the world and have a great fan base and great song collection. Somehow, they have never been on the cover of Rolling Stone. This 19 year old kid (same age as me) decides to bomb a marathon which was in tribute to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and his face is plastered on the cover in a matter of months. And if you just read the subtitle on the cover, you can tell that the article is gonna be saying how it isn't his fault. Bullshit. He's a ****ing crazy kid without an inch of remorse or compassion (he ran over his own brother to get away from cops) and the media and society is glorifying him and making him famous. Meanwhile, guys are working their asses off like Portnoy did to try and be successful WITHOUT hurting anybody. But they can't get anywhere in life. It's unbelievable, it's disgusting, and everyone responsible should be ashamed.