So, they’re dead. So what?

November 9, 2008 | By | 2 Replies More

[rant warning!]
Wait, who’s dead? Three of the bastards who carried out the Sari club bombing in Bali in 2002. They’ve been sitting on death row since then and within the last 24 hours were shot dead by an Indonesian state death squad. Their coffins, predictably, were paraded through the streets like trophies, held aloft by screaming family members and bellowing supporters who have made it very clear that their jihad against “the West” will continue. Naturally, a governmental advisory against travelling to Indonesia has been issued and some of our airlines are allowing people to change their plans without penalty. Fair enough: who knows who’ll take up the jihadi cause now and decide that killing white tourists, enjoying the exchange rate and out for a surf, a beer, some cheap weed on the sly perhaps or just those infernal hair beads, will make Allah happy.

OK, so some people might be rejoicing. These animals killed over 200 people in cold blood, 88 of them Aussies on holiday. They were mindless apes, jumping on the ol’ jihad bandwagon at the urging of some bloviating, hatemongering imam somewhere (these mental children do need to be told what to do after all; independent thought is not a hallmark of your average jihadi) and striking at soft targets with homemade bombs – with obviously no regard at all for the lives of fellow Indonesians, let alone fellow humans. But hey, that’s what fundamentalism does to you: makes anyone who’s not on your team fair game, even if they’re a neighbour. It splits the world into enemies and friends, and all enemies deserve a gruesome death, followed by hell. The most infuriating thing was that footage of these – people – from their jail cells and from the courtroom showed them grinning like idiots and raising their fists in triumph, like they’d won gold medals. That grinning halfwit Amrozi, nicknamed “The Smiling Assassin” was the one everyone down here wanted to damn well smash in the face with a pint glass, me included. I wouldn’t even have finished my beer first. He’s killed 200 people and he’s grinning like the cat who got the cream. Smug bastard. Smash!

But do I want him dead? Hell no! Why? Because he believes when the Indonesian government murder him, he’s going to Heaven to screw his brains out for eternity. He’s getting exactly what he wants. He’s fulfilled the orders of his bizarre & barbaric corruption of a god (head of the alleged “religion of peace”) and is about to score bigtime. Which, to me, is the complete opposite of what punishment should entail. It’s no punishment to kill a man when all he wants is to die and be martyred, a hero to his polluted herd, and achieve paradise. You commit a crime against society, you should be deprived of the privileges of being a member of that society. Take lives and your quality of life should be forfeit – but not your life itself. I’d much prefer if they kept the little shit alive, in the squalid filth of a Indonesian jail, until his lifeless flesh can be fed to sharks. Don’t let him wear his jihadi hat. Don’t let him read his precious goddamned scripture. Don’t give him a prayer mat. Let him have a skylight, not a window – don’t let him know which direction Mecca is. It’s his religion (his twisted version of it anyway) that turned him into a murderous, easily-led automaton – deprive him of all the comfort it gives him. It’s his comrades that conspired with him to kill all those people – deprive him of their company & any comfort that they may give him. Let him befriend the guards (who should be under strict orders of complete silence) if he wants company. Even better, let him have a TV behind a grille that plays nothing but evangelical Christian shows with the volume way up and don’t give him the remote. Don’t let him have any control over his life, starting with the damn TV. Don’t let him have anything he’d have on the outside, save food & water & light. But give him a nice cold hosing every month. Hey, it’s a hot country. He’ll be fine.

But, no. Indonesia, having a backward & reactionary justice system (which I define as “any system which includes death as punishment”), follows the law … and lets these bastards have exactly what they want. Then their bloated corpses get treated like rock stars, crowd-surfing to the grave, held aloft by adoring groupies.

Now, apart from wanting that haunted meat-bag Amrozi to suffer properly and apart from the fact that he & his chums wanted martyrdom and therefore should have been deprived of it, I don’t believe the death penalty makes any sense as either a punishment or a deterrent. It didn’t deter these primates. It didn’t deter fellow mindless shaven ape Tim McVeigh, the dim-as-a-two-watt-bulb Australian smack-smugglers known as the Bali Nine (for whom I have little sympathy and who still rot, awaiting their own Indonesian murder squad) or anyone else who’s been executed lately. Anyone currently on Death Row, anywhere in the world, had to know the possible penalty for what they were doing yet they went ahead anyway (provided they were convicted fairly – another giant problem with death penalties is that you can’t be sure 100% of the time that you even convicted the right person). If the death sentence is meant to be a deterrent, news flash: it isn’t damn well working.

The state, whether it straps someone to a table and injects lethal poison, ties them to a chair or electrocutes them, suffocates them in a gas chamber, breaks their neck on the gallows, kills them with robot lions or just lines them up and has soldiers shoot them, is no better than the criminal they’re ostensibly punishing. It’s the 21st century for crying out loud. We’re better than this. We have to be if we want to progress.

Anyway, Amrozi (and your fellow murderous intellectual cripples), now that you’re dead … I hope you go straight to hell. Which I suppose, to a randy, stunted animal looking forward to deflowering children for the rest of eternity – and considering I don’t believe in hell – would be not existing at all (which would be unpleasant as long as you knew you didn’t exist anymore, which implies that you’d have to exist to know you didn’t exist – quite a paradox I know, but I’m annoyed, so give me some latitude). To me, non-existence is no substitute for being treated like the sack of manure you are for the rest of your sad little life, but I guess it has to be good enough for me. You might not be suffering, as the victims of your righteousness and their families still suffer, but it’s at least nice to know that you’re not getting your perverted little slice(s) of heaven.

OK, rant over. Nothing to see here. Return to your homes!

PS: I noticed a certain senator from Illinois was elected last week.

America, thank you.

Barack Obama’s not Jesus, Batman or even Buzz Lightyear, I know, but with a level-headed, educated, well-spoken, caring individual like Barry O at the helm I have high, even audacious hopes that, come January 2009, America can start to drag itself out of the hole that Team Bush have been digging for the last 8 years.

Good luck!


Tags: , , , ,

Category: Current Events, Law, Religion

About the Author ()

Hank was born of bird-watching bushwalking music-loving parents from whom he gained his love of nature, the universe & bicycles. Today he’s a musician, non-profit aid worker, beagle keeper and fair & balanced internet commentator – but that just means he has a chip on each shoulder.

Comments (2)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erich Vieth says:

    Fascinating rant.

    I assume that it was those post-murder smirks that brought you to this level of frustration, and I could well imagine that I would react similarly, had I known. I knew of the 2002 bombing, but there hasn't been much media follow-up here in the states.

    Back to the smirk. All of those who commandeered the 9/11 airplanes were killed, so Americans didn't have to deal with the smirks and the raised fists. Nor did we have to deal with fanfare of traditional funerals, since no bodies were preserved. Thank goodness. If Americans would have been exposed to such displays, John McCain would easily won the election and the senseless Manichean battle would still be full throttle here in America. At least that's my take on it.

    Perhaps the smirking of George W. Bush is why I so abhor the man. He has enacted dozens of policies that pollute the planet, deny health care, prohibit critically necessary research and instigate needless wars, all of these resulting in lives lost. More lives than multiple 9/11s, yet what we got was that shit-eating grin, time and time again, as though nihilism were a plank in the U.S. Constitution.

    But I'll complicate the ubiquitous Bush smirk with one anecdote. Bush was previously the governor of Texas. He was well liked by various members of both major parties. A friend of mine, then a high school teacher, just happened to run into Bush on the streets of Austin. He wanted to know about teaching, how it was for my friend and what needed to be done to make it easier for her to do her job. He was sincere the entire time and spent 20 minutes, most of it listening to my friend's concerns.

    What happened to that man, many people are wondering? Did his mind deteriorate? Was he totally over his head? Was he really the one calling the shots? I suspect yes, yes and no. But I also think of the power of the situation to determine who we think people are. We'd rather ignore the distorting effect of the fundamental attribution error, so that we can pinpoint responsibility, so we can justify our praise and our rage. After all, it's much more difficult to be angry at a set of destructive ideas that are diffused, to greater and lesser extents, throughout millions of people, many of them quite likeable.

    I know I'm meandering, but when you wrote of those smirks, this is what I thought of. I'll finish up . . . You speak (tongue in cheek) of punishing Amrozi by denying him his glorious death. Here's yet another angle. Perhaps he's grinning because he knows that his post-murder grin is a weapon, and that he can bring on searing emotional pain, even when he is hand-cuffed. If he is indeed of that mind set, it would make me want to become as detached as possible, to consider him to be a senseless tragedy of a human life and to thus deny him the reaction he seeks. Not that I would be able to do that in practice.

  2. Hank says:

    If I'd not heard it before, I'd think the term "shit-eating grin" coined especially for Dubya…we saw it on election night in 2000 and it's been a permanent fixture ever since.

    I think that smirk of his has possibly been the most irritating thing about his 8 years in office. I'm sure it's charming coming from under a Stetson at the other end of a pool table, but not when you're talking to the planet Earth and saying cowboy shit like "bring 'em on".

    George may well have been very personable in a former life, but I have trouble believing he ever had anyone's interests but his own at heart and I don't think he called a single shot whilst living at no. 1600. I wish he could have remained a harmless f*ckup in Texas and left us all out of his war – after all, London, Bali & Madrid were all direct responses to Operation Iraqi Freedom…

    Amrozi, however, well … I just think he was a deranged little sociopathic idiot who got snowed into murder for the sake of his faith. People like that are easily swayed by clever, manipulative people like Imam Samudrah (fellow convict) and Abu Bakar Bashir, the leader of Jemaah Islamiah, the group of which they were members. But the fact that he was a halfwit doesn't stop me from wishing he was in a dark hole being subjected to Benny Hinn videos with only bacon to eat.

Leave a Reply