Burial for Killers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

fucktoyprincess -> Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:12:36 AM)

I am a little surprised at the brouhaha over the burial of the Boston bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. When people commit crimes in this country aren't they generally allowed a burial (if that's what their religion calls for?). I'm trying to think of other people who have caused mass harm (say, Adam Lanza) who were presumably allowed to be buried despite their terrible actions.

And what troubles me deeply is that people are calling for his body to be sent overseas. Why? So that foreign Muslim radicals can create a monument out of his burial site that can be visited regularly by people who dislike us. In all honesty, I feel his burial here in the U.S. actually minimizes the chance of his body being used for martyr purposes. The very fact of making such an issue of his burial is increasing his status as a martyr. Just bury him and let's move on with the investigation. Honestly. This whole thing is distracting from more important things and making him seem much, much more important politically than he really is. [sm=2cents.gif]



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:29:43 AM)

Got a better solution...A Romanian here in CO announced he would be happy to burry him on his land....

Here's the catch, he offered his septic tank! [sm=banana.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=fingers.gif][sm=rofl.gif]


Proper Burial



subrob1967 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:43:43 AM)

I say the family charter's a boat and pulls a Bin Laden and drops him in the crab infested Atlantic.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:44:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I am a little surprised at the brouhaha over the burial of the Boston bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. When people commit crimes in this country aren't they generally allowed a burial (if that's what their religion calls for?). I'm trying to think of other people who have caused mass harm (say, Adam Lanza) who were presumably allowed to be buried despite their terrible actions.
And what troubles me deeply is that people are calling for his body to be sent overseas. Why? So that foreign Muslim radicals can create a monument out of his burial site that can be visited regularly by people who dislike us. In all honesty, I feel his burial here in the U.S. actually minimizes the chance of his body being used for martyr purposes. The very fact of making such an issue of his burial is increasing his status as a martyr. Just bury him and let's move on with the investigation. Honestly. This whole thing is distracting from more important things and making him seem much, much more important politically than he really is. [sm=2cents.gif]


No one is saying that the body isn't allowed to be buried. I can think of two reasons a cemetery might not want to allow Tsarnaev to be buried here.
    1. The owner may be making a statement against Tsarnaev's actions
    2. The owner may be concerned about the security of the cemetery, Tsarnaev's plot and/or the security of the rest of the plots in the cemetery.


If you think there is a high risk of people desecrating the grave, wouldn't you have to think hard about allowing the burial? Cremation may be a better option, and/or transporting the body back to the parents in Chechnya for them to do with it what they choose.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 1:40:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
I am a little surprised at the brouhaha over the burial of the Boston bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. When people commit crimes in this country aren't they generally allowed a burial (if that's what their religion calls for?). I'm trying to think of other people who have caused mass harm (say, Adam Lanza) who were presumably allowed to be buried despite their terrible actions.
And what troubles me deeply is that people are calling for his body to be sent overseas. Why? So that foreign Muslim radicals can create a monument out of his burial site that can be visited regularly by people who dislike us. In all honesty, I feel his burial here in the U.S. actually minimizes the chance of his body being used for martyr purposes. The very fact of making such an issue of his burial is increasing his status as a martyr. Just bury him and let's move on with the investigation. Honestly. This whole thing is distracting from more important things and making him seem much, much more important politically than he really is. [sm=2cents.gif]


No one is saying that the body isn't allowed to be buried. I can think of two reasons a cemetery might not want to allow Tsarnaev to be buried here.
    1. The owner may be making a statement against Tsarnaev's actions
    2. The owner may be concerned about the security of the cemetery, Tsarnaev's plot and/or the security of the rest of the plots in the cemetery.


If you think there is a high risk of people desecrating the grave, wouldn't you have to think hard about allowing the burial? Cremation may be a better option, and/or transporting the body back to the parents in Chechnya for them to do with it what they choose.


So what about mass killers like Tim McVeigh or Adam Lanza? Is it not a security issue in those cases, too.

I'm not disputing the concerns. I just find it interesting that they don't seem to apply uniformly to all mass killers. Are people really saying that Adam Lanza is better than Tamerlan Tsarnaev? At the end of the day, taking innocent lives is still taking innocent lives. Let's either have a rule that says no burial in the U.S. for a mass killer, period, or just leave families to do what they need to do. Just seriously seems weird to me that people would be okay with having Adam Lanza's grave next to their loved ones but not Tamerlan's. Are we really going to make these sorts of "better evil", "worse evil" sorts of distinctions when it comes to mass murder??



tj444 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 1:42:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I am a little surprised at the brouhaha over the burial of the Boston bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

I dont think his parents are reality based when they claim their angel boys were "set-up", and the (extremist) mother going on and on (saying things like why did she ever go to America, why did they have to kill her son, etc etc).. the fact that they were all on welfare and she was caught stealing ($1,600+ not a small amount either), etc etc.. heck, I am not American (some posters even say I am anti-American! [sm=hewah.gif] ), and I think they should send the body (C.O.D.) back to Russia and his parents too.. I think the brouhaha is about biting the hand that fed you and helped you.. it just rubs people (especially tax payers) the wrong way.. to me, that feeling is understandable..



DesideriScuri -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 1:59:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
So what about mass killers like Tim McVeigh or Adam Lanza? Is it not a security issue in those cases, too.
I'm not disputing the concerns. I just find it interesting that they don't seem to apply uniformly to all mass killers. Are people really saying that Adam Lanza is better than Tamerlan Tsarnaev? At the end of the day, taking innocent lives is still taking innocent lives. Let's either have a rule that says no burial in the U.S. for a mass killer, period, or just leave families to do what they need to do. Just seriously seems weird to me that people would be okay with having Adam Lanza's grave next to their loved ones but not Tamerlan's. Are we really going to make these sorts of "better evil", "worse evil" sorts of distinctions when it comes to mass murder??


Rumor is McVeigh and Lanza were both cremated. Significantly less opportunity, depending on where the ashes are.

I can't say for sure exactly why they aren't jumping at burying him. I can only give potential answers. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter which is worse, better, the same, either. Unless you are going to put out a government mandate that a funeral director has to bury any dead body someone is willing to pay to have buried. I'm sure that couldn't ever be abused. [8|]



LafayetteLady -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 2:28:18 PM)

First of all, funeral directors don't do the burial. They arrange it, but the cemetery handles the burial. It seems there wasn't a great deal of trouble finding a funeral home to handle the preparations (embalming, etc.)

People don't want him here because at no time in his sorry life was he ever one of us. He isn't an American Citizen. His own parents can't be bothered to come here to claim the body. Why do we have to provide a burial for someone that killed our own?

Let's be clear, there is a difference between Adam Lanza and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Tsarnaev is a terrorist, and Lanza was a mentally ill murderer.

Frankly, I would prefer if all convicted murderers were cremated and their ashes used for fertilizer.



jlf1961 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 3:48:05 PM)

McVeigh was cremated and his ashes scattered in an unknown location.

Now, if I may make a few points.

Refusing the body of the bomber a decent burial in the US or suggesting that the body be desecrated in some fashion puts us on the same level as the Somali warlords and militiamen that drug the dead bodies of American service men in the dirt and filth filled streets of Mogadishu.

Now, we as Americans, with few exceptions, have given decent burials to enemy combatants, serial killers, mass murderers, rapist/killers, child molester/killers, not to mention the Japaneses soldiers we fought in WW2 who did not fight war under the same rules we did. Granted those combat deaths were most likely placed in mass graves, but there was some intent to provide some sort of respect of the dead.

As I said, there were exceptions.

Now, since we gave decent burials to some of the most heinous criminals in the 20th century, this individual deserves no less.

All that said, if it were up to me, he would be buried in an unmarked grave in such a manner as to be against all principles of his personal religious beliefs, avoiding of course burying him in a pet cemetery, as we know what would happen to the corpse and we seem to have a problem with zombies, who are actually just misunderstood undead creatures in need of some sort of guidance.



tj444 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 3:56:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Granted those combat deaths were most likely placed in mass graves, but there was some intent to provide some sort of respect of the dead.


I thought that was to keep the rats and diseases at bay.. [&:]



jlf1961 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 4:32:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Granted those combat deaths were most likely placed in mass graves, but there was some intent to provide some sort of respect of the dead.


I thought that was to keep the rats and diseases at bay.. [&:]



The mass graves were for that reason, as for the form of respect for the dead, chaplains routinely said a few words over the graves. Might not have been of their religious beliefs, but the thought was in the right place, wouldnt you agree?



tj444 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 4:53:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Granted those combat deaths were most likely placed in mass graves, but there was some intent to provide some sort of respect of the dead.


I thought that was to keep the rats and diseases at bay.. [&:]


The mass graves were for that reason, as for the form of respect for the dead, chaplains routinely said a few words over the graves. Might not have been of their religious beliefs, but the thought was in the right place, wouldnt you agree?

I suppose, if some were religious it might be for them.. I wonder if that (the respect part) is done in war today.. drone attacks dont seem to, thats for sure.. WW2 was a long time ago.. a lot has changed since then..



calamitysandra -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 5:08:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
...
All that said, if it were up to me, he would be buried in an unmarked grave in such a manner as to be against all principles of his personal religious beliefs, avoiding of course burying him in a pet cemetery, as we know what would happen to the corpse and we seem to have a problem with zombies, who are actually just misunderstood undead creatures in need of some sort of guidance.

(emphasis added by me)


Why? What would you hope to achieve or express with this?



OsideGirl -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 5:10:06 PM)

I'm not against having him buried in the US.

What I'm against is his grave becoming a monument for other extremists. I'm also against everyone else who has a loved one/family member buried in that cemetery having to to tolerate the disruption.

I think he should be buried in an unmarked grave.

And before anyone jumps down my throat: I have a relative buried in an unmarked grave. He wasn't a terrorist, but he was a contravertial figure. The family decided it was best for the peace of everyone to have his burial handled that way.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 5:11:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
...
All that said, if it were up to me, he would be buried in an unmarked grave in such a manner as to be against all principles of his personal religious beliefs, avoiding of course burying him in a pet cemetery, as we know what would happen to the corpse and we seem to have a problem with zombies, who are actually just misunderstood undead creatures in need of some sort of guidance.

(emphasis added by me)


Why? What would you hope to achieve or express with this?


To show that we're better people than those assholes and not stoop to their level.



Level -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 6:58:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

of course burying him in a pet cemetery, as we know what would happen to the corpse and we seem to have a problem with zombies, who are actually just misunderstood undead creatures in need of some sort of guidance.


LOLing [8D]

FR

I agree with putting him in an unmarked grave. Fuck him and fuck his family.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:00:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
McVeigh was cremated and his ashes scattered in an unknown location.
Now, if I may make a few points.
Refusing the body of the bomber a decent burial in the US or suggesting that the body be desecrated in some fashion puts us on the same level as the Somali warlords and militiamen that drug the dead bodies of American service men in the dirt and filth filled streets of Mogadishu.
Now, we as Americans, with few exceptions, have given decent burials to enemy combatants, serial killers, mass murderers, rapist/killers, child molester/killers, not to mention the Japaneses soldiers we fought in WW2 who did not fight war under the same rules we did. Granted those combat deaths were most likely placed in mass graves, but there was some intent to provide some sort of respect of the dead.
As I said, there were exceptions.
Now, since we gave decent burials to some of the most heinous criminals in the 20th century, this individual deserves no less.
All that said, if it were up to me, he would be buried in an unmarked grave in such a manner as to be against all principles of his personal religious beliefs, avoiding of course burying him in a pet cemetery, as we know what would happen to the corpse and we seem to have a problem with zombies, who are actually just misunderstood undead creatures in need of some sort of guidance.


Then, you go do it.

Does he deserve a "proper" burial? Only if it's paid for. It's a dead body. It doesn't deserve anything. And, once again, if a mortician doesn't want Tsaernaev buried in his/her cemetery and hasn't already taken money for a burial plot for him, then, there is zero responsibility for that mortician to bury him on the property. There simply isn't. Isn't this a "property rights" issue?

I don't support abusing the body, mostly on the same grounds as you laid out. But, is he "owed" a burial? Not if there hasn't been a negotiated exchange for a burial.



servantforuse -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:32:00 PM)

Put the body on the next flight to Russia and let his militant mother bury her son there...



jlf1961 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:32:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
...
All that said, if it were up to me, he would be buried in an unmarked grave in such a manner as to be against all principles of his personal religious beliefs, avoiding of course burying him in a pet cemetery, as we know what would happen to the corpse and we seem to have a problem with zombies, who are actually just misunderstood undead creatures in need of some sort of guidance.

(emphasis added by me)


Why? What would you hope to achieve or express with this?




Uh, basically it goes back to my native American ancestors. You know, mutilate the body in such a manner as to cripple it in the after life, and of course leave it face down so the soul could not go to heaven.

However the civilized part of me says that this is wrong and we, as Americans, hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Although, truth be known, a follower of Islam that actually follows the Q'ran to the letter has to consider this little fact:

Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included:

No killing of women, children or innocents -- these might include hermits, monks or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants;

No wanton killing of livestock or other animals;

No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and

No destruction of wells.


God says in the Qur'an: "Permission (to defend) has been granted to those who are being fought against; that they have been oppressed. Verily, God has the power to help them. Those who were unjustly expelled from their homes for no other reason than their saying: 'God is our Lord.' If God were not to repel some human beings through others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the name of God is mentioned, would have certainly been destroyed. God will definably help those who will help Him. Verily, God is Immensely Strong, Mighty." (Qur'an 22:39-40)

War is the last resort, and is subject to the rigorous conditions laid down by the sacred law. The often misunderstood and overused term jihad literally means "struggle" and not "holy war" (a term not found anywhere in the Qur'an). Jihad, as Islamic concept, can be on a personal level - inner struggle against evil within oneself; struggle for decency and goodness on the social level; and struggle on the battlefield, if and when necessary.
What does Islam say about war?

Of course there is also the fact that Muhammad also said that the people of the book would go to heaven, meaning Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Granted in the writings of later of the Hadiths, there have been writings by apostles of Allah (please note these are apostles and not prophets) which contradicted the word of Muhammad to justify some of the actions of Muslims in the years following his death. Of course there are those wonderful Muslim clerics who call for the wanton slaughter of Christians and Jews, both combatants and non combatants.



BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 8:36:37 PM)

quote:

I think he should be buried in an unmarked grave.
This sounds like a good resolution. It costs more to ship him off, I believe. I think (wonder if) people would put up the pennies for him to be delivered to his momma who wants him.

Someone suggested cremate him, which is a good, green option. Even beter, donate his body to science for research. M



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.2167969