RE: Burial for Killers

RE: Burial for Killers (Full Version)

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

Message

vincentML -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 9:38:27 PM)
~FR~ FWIW Was there a more infamous killer than Lee Harvey Oswald? Well, he was right up there with the worst, I think. Anyway, no cemetary would take him until Rosehill Cemetary in East Fort Worth. "Lee Harvey Oswald is buried at Rose Hill Cemetery in east Fort Worth. When Oswald’s family was searching for a place to bury him, several cemeteries refused to accept the casket. Rose Hill was the only one that would take it. People in the cemetery office won’t tell visitors where Oswald is buried. Oswald’s grave is on the western side of the cemetery. There are no other grave markers within several feet of it—except one, just a few inches away. It’s marked “Nick Beef.” But who was Nick Beef, and why is his grave the only one near Oswald’s? One story is that Nick Beef was the stage name of an old Vaudeville comedian. He knew the cemetery staff wouldn’t reveal the location of Oswald’s grave. So in an effort to get around it, he bought the plot right next to Oswald’s. Then he would tell his audiences to ask for the location of Nick Beef’s grave, and that way they could find Oswald’s. Apparently the cemetery staff figured out the plan pretty soon, because today they won’t tell you where Nick Beef’s grave is, either. And allegedly, nobody is actually buried in Beef’s grave. It’s just a headstone. There are few clues about Nick Beef’s real identity. There’s little evidence there was actually a comedian by that name. But anybody who knows the truth seems to be keeping it a secret." [image]local://upfiles/897398/4F58E52502F94D489E06C5352E148456.jpg[/image]

jlf1961 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/7/2013 10:54:05 PM)
Rose Hill Cemetery in east Fort Worth covers an area of 84 acres. Directions to the grave can be found here. According to records, the only time the grave was disturbed was when Oswald's body was exhumed in 1981 in response to the second investigation into JFK's assassination, and to prove or disprove the rumors that the man in the grave was not actually Oswald but a Russian agent sent back to the US in his place. The rumors stemmed from the autopsy reports that seemed to not describe the same man as was described in Marine medical records. Flash to the present and the current controversy, the body of the dead bomber deserves the same treatment as the body of Oswald, or any other man or woman who committed some heinous crime that turned the collective stomachs of the American people who have been executed and buried. There is nothing to be gained by abusing his remains, dumping them unceremoniously into the ocean or any of the other suggestions that I have seen all over the web. I will admit that there are some causes that I would willingly die for, some patriotic, some ancestral, of course I would die to protect my family, and finally, I would gladly die if I thought that it would force the world population to develop the technology to move the earth's tectonic plates around to recreate and maintain the great super continent of Pangaea. Of course the last would mean reversing the present movement and direction of all the tectonic plates, and may or may not result in catastrophic earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and might indirectly lead to the suffering of millions if not billions, but it is my belief that the super continent would force humans to live and work together in peace and harmony or result in the extinction of the human race and the rise of a higher evolutionary creature descending from the prairie dog, or maybe the from one of the canine breeds. By the way, I do have the paper work to prove that I am indeed a little crazy.

Aswad -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 2:20:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Are we really going to make these sorts of "better evil", "worse evil" sorts of distinctions when it comes to mass murder?? It's a more/less hated distinction: despite less serious actions, they're hated more, so they get more demonized and more dehumanized. Nothing is sacred to those with hate in their hearts; not a cemetary, not a marathon, not a fallen enemy. Disgusting, but- sadly- true. IWYW, — Aswad.

littleclip -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 3:39:03 AM)
it is up the the cemetery to accept or reject the body . as far as donating to medical reasearch if it has been embalmed it cant be used . im sure there is some plot in a remote location in the us that would take the body . unmarked grave would be good to prevent it becoming a site for controversy. creamation is always a good option if the family will allow it. as far as desacrating the body and insulting the religon of the family that is just wrong it was a person not a religion that did the act.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 3:59:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig 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 Cremation is a green option? How so?

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 4:13:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 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".. 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. ya might like to reconsider that one bout tha quran bud http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=8 quote: (8:7) And recall when Allah promised you that one of the two hosts would fall to you,5 and you wished that the one without arms should fall into your hands.6 But Allah sought to prove by His words the truth to be true and to annihilate the unbelievers to the last remnant

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 7:45:31 AM)
FR Okay, my thoughts on reading this thread. We live in a country where we respect religious freedom. He is entitled to be buried as his faith prefers - which I believe for Muslims is burial (I don't honestly know). McVeigh and Lanza's familymay have chosen cremation. Cremation has not been chosen by Tamerlan's family who is making decisions on his behalf, and I think it is anti-religion to force a family to cremate someone when that is not part of their faith. For the record, as most of you already know, I'm an atheist. But I still support freedom of religion. Even a sinner, in every religion, is allowed a proper burial. He was a LEGAL immigrant in this country. And LEGAL immigrants are allowed funeral rites in this country. LEGAL immigrants do not get shipped back to where they came from to be buried, that's not how things work. If we send him away - his body, and burial site will ABSOLUTELY become a shrine to a martyr for Jihad. How many of you who just say in knee-jerk fashion "send him home" actually want him made a martyr in that way? Do you really want the people in Dagestan (an already extremist fundamentalist Islamic area) having the body back so they can memorialize him? It will just inspire more in Dagestan to do as he did. How does that help us????? I think an unmarked gravesite in the U.S. does work to allow him a burial in accordance with his religious beliefs, but not create unwanted traffic, etc. It also minimizes the chance of his body being used by Muslims in Dagestan to support their terrorist efforts. Can you imagine all the scenes and footage that will be taken of the mother getting her dead son's body back, of his burial, etc. that will be shown in every Islamic nation in the world and the impact that will have? Those who want to send his body back to Dagestan are simply adding to the problem. As for those who think McVeigh and Lanza are not as bad as Tamerlan, I suggest you go speak directly to the people who lost loved ones in OKC and in CT to see how they feel about that. To say that completely trivializes the VICTIMS of OKC and CT as somehow not being "as important" as the victims of Boston. If my child had died in CT, I would see Lanza as a terrible person. I didn't lose a child in OKC, CT or Boston, but I feel these are more similar incidents than dissimilar (see my thread on Young Men and Violence). When we as Americans start reacting in knee jerk fashion that is actually against self-interest (again sending his body back to Dagestan is against our self-interest as a nation trying to fight terrorism), we are stooping to the terrorists' level.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 7:51:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig 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 Cremation is a green option? How so? 1. Any carbon put into the atmosphere is part of the active cycle and not fossil Carbon with the exception of the natural gas flame. (remember the post on how some idiot politician claimed a cyclist would contribute to global warming and my explanation?) 2. Minerals would be returned to the ground to act as micronutrients for plant life. 3. Embalming chemicals eventually (takes a LONG damn time) seep out and can contaminate groundwater. 4. It doesn't use up land that quite frankly could be used for better things than a "Skull Orchard".

Rule -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:04:05 AM)
Here in Europe we used to hang such criminals and let the crows and ravens have at them. In barbaric times, when dealing with barbaric people, such barbaric measures might be in order?

vincentML -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:05:10 AM)
quote: He was a LEGAL immigrant in this country. And LEGAL immigrants are allowed funeral rites in this country. LEGAL immigrants do not get shipped back to where they came from to be buried, that's not how things work. Good point. I agree. quote: If we send him away - his body, and burial site will ABSOLUTELY become a shrine to a martyr for Jihad. How many of you who just say in knee-jerk fashion "send him home" actually want him made a martyr in that way? Do you really want the people in Dagestan (an already extremist fundamentalist Islamic area) having the body back so they can memorialize him? It will just inspire more in Dagestan to do as he did. How does that help us????? I think your first point makes this moot but I understand and agree that it would be a dumb ass thing to ship the body back. It would make us look foolish and that martyr shrine thing will wear pretty thin in short order cuz there was no ill blood between us and the Dags. A couple days for receiving the body and then burial . . . 15 minutes of fame stuff. Then move along folks. Nothing more to be seen here.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:07:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Here in Europe we used to hang such criminals and let the crows and ravens have at them. In barbaric times, when dealing with barbaric people, such barbaric measures might be in order? Yes, well emphasis on "used to". Surely you're not claiming this is what Europe does TODAY (most countries of which are against the death penalty)? We used to do a lot of crazy stuff back in the day, too. Like burn women at the stake (even when they weren't really guilty of anything legitimate). I'm not really interested in being barbaric. I don't see the point of it.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:08:25 AM)
FR~ There still is a septic tank waiting for him here in CO -----[:D]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:10:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I think your first point makes this moot but I understand and agree that it would be a dumb ass thing to ship the body back. It would make us look foolish and that martyr shrine thing will wear pretty thin in short order cuz there was no ill blood between us and the Dags. A couple days for receiving the body and then burial . . . 15 minutes of fame stuff. Then move along folks. Nothing more to be seen here. I'm not sure I agree with the last comment. The Jihadists are notorious for extremely long memories (sadly for the rest of the world). Also, 15 minutes of that stuff is more that enough to inspire countless other men to do the same. I'm not interested in providing that motivation. He needs a burial. Quickly. And quietly. In the U.S. And agreed, if we allow the Jihadists to create a media spectacle of his burial by sending his body back to his mother then we are truly foolish.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess He was a LEGAL immigrant in this country. And LEGAL immigrants are allowed funeral rites in this country. LEGAL immigrants do not get shipped back to where they came from to be buried, that's not how things work. If we send him away - his body, and burial site will ABSOLUTELY become a shrine to a martyr for Jihad. How many of you who just say in knee-jerk fashion "send him home" actually want him made a martyr in that way? Do you really want the people in Dagestan (an already extremist fundamentalist Islamic area) having the body back so they can memorialize him? It will just inspire more in Dagestan to do as he did. How does that help us????? Here we have a rock and a hard place. No one has been paid to bury him in a cemetery. Does a mortician have to determine who is allowed and who is not allowed to be buried in his/her cemetery? I believe this is the case. I don't think this is about freedom of religion, or anything like that. If a mortician has concerns over the security of the cemetery, isn't it his/her call as to burying Tamerlan? Desecrating Tamerlan's body would also, imo, result in a martyrdom shrine. Wouldn't it be better to not allow the opportunity for the yahoo's in America that would do stupid shit like that? At least sending him back to Chechnya, to his parents, would allow them to tend to his burial as they see fit. Tamerlan is owed nothing by any mortician unless payment has been made for those services. That, btw, applies to you, me, and every other person living within the borders of the USA and it's territories.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:21:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Here in Europe we used to hang such criminals and let the crows and ravens have at them. In barbaric times, when dealing with barbaric people, such barbaric measures might be in order? Absolutely. In barbaric times, barbaric peoples should be treated using barbaric measures. These, however, are no longer barbaric times. At least not in the US. I do accept that it is possible that there are countries that haven't evolved out of barbarism. Within the US, these are not barbaric times, so barbaric peoples should not be treated barbarically.

vincentML -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Here in Europe we used to hang such criminals and let the crows and ravens have at them. In barbaric times, when dealing with barbaric people, such barbaric measures might be in order? You used to hang pigs and other animals for committing crimes, also. Just sayin . . http://www.awesomestories.com/famous-trials/animals/animals-as-defendants---pigs

OsideGirl -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:27:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. Since the cemetery that the Uncle wants the body buried in is city owned, not privately owned, it becomes a matter of government discrimination.

vincentML -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:33:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. Since the cemetery that the Uncle wants the body buried in is city owned, not privately owned, it becomes a matter of government discrimination. Not sure about that. The body is no longer a person and has no constituional rights. Not sure the uncle has much standing in that constitutional question either. But maybe. Interesting point.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 8:36:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. Since the cemetery that the Uncle wants the body buried in is city owned, not privately owned, it becomes a matter of government discrimination. Does it? Is burial free? Is upkeep of the plots in the cemetery free? If there is a cost to be paid, then if no payment has been made, no plot is owed. Does the city charter or the city-owned cemetery program define who is and who is not eligible? Fewer if's, but still enough.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Burial for Killers (5/8/2013 10:01:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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. Since the cemetery that the Uncle wants the body buried in is city owned, not privately owned, it becomes a matter of government discrimination. Does it? Is burial free? Is upkeep of the plots in the cemetery free? If there is a cost to be paid, then if no payment has been made, no plot is owed. Does the city charter or the city-owned cemetery program define who is and who is not eligible? Fewer if's, but still enough. Nowhere have I read that cost is the issue. The only thing I've read in the press is denial of access - which is a different thing. Again, if you go to any cemetery in the country you will likely find criminals buried there. Where do people think the bodies of criminals from religious backgrounds that require burial go? They don't just evaporate away. The hardened criminal who serves his sentence and is released, gets old, dies - gets buried somewhere. I mean that is the reality. Do people honestly think that only law-abiding people are buried in cemeteries?? Do people honestly think that all criminals are buried at sea, or cremated?? I'm just confused about the premises that people are using.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.4628906