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

comments policy
    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.