Pro Logica

March 7, 2012

EXTORTION–a Criminal Activity

Filed under: Sociology — Tags: , , — Ron Toczek @ 2:49 pm

Extortion  —  An illegal or oppressive action designed to extract compensation which cannot be obtained in a normally acceptable manner.

The definition, as stated, is fairly ambiguous since 1) there is criminal extortion where it is defined in a more precise way and has penalties set upon those convicted of this particular wrongdoing and 2) there is a much milder form which people are apt to use when it will gain them an advantage of sorts.  Extortion in this latter sense is different from haggling because it generally uses an item of interest which can be damaging in some sense to the party being extorted.  This latter form, while not being criminal is generally viewed as unacceptable human behavior, although one can find many novels and probably some real-life situations where an extortion can lead to good actions by individuals with no invasion of privacy.  Christians would relegate this mild form to being a minor sin especially if some good resulted.  I find it very hard to believe that a human would not eke out some small personal advantage in a situation where extortion would be used, certainly, personal satisfaction counts.

Extortion is deemed to be criminal when the threat of illegal, damaging action is used in order to collect the compensation.  The classical protection racket provides a good example:  A small business owner is roughed up and his business is damaged. A nearby business owner is approached and offered protection from the same thing that happened to his fellow businessman while usually intimating that the same will happen to him unless he pays his ‘insurance’.  A down side to the extortion laws is that if a gang is involved it becomes near impossible to convict the leaders.

Let’s examine the workings of Islam.  It claims to be a religion and its practitioners are called muslims; anyone not a muslim is an infidel.  There are four or five major tenets and one can become a muslim by simply declaring these tenets publicly.  I presume one must have a witness to these declarations before one will be accepted as a true muslim.  There is a book called the Koran which consists of all the revelations made to Mohamed by Allah and these revelations describe all the duties of a devout muslim.  Unfortunately, the Koran does not cover all situations and some situations gave rise to conflicting duties so the religion has turned to other sources such as Mohamed’s sayings and actions while on earth.  Presumably, there is a body of papers, certainly not all from the seventh century, which records this knowledge and the keepers of this knowledge will all swear to Allah that this knowledge has been faithfully recorded from that early period when Mohamed was alive.  Today, Islam has preachers and scholars called imams who give advice to the uma (the people of Islam), I know neither their beginning nor their justification for existence and am quite sure they are not mentioned in the Koran, though it would appear that these features are an outgrowth of the tribal view of politics basic to the original believers of Mohamed; hence, the intertwining of politics and Islam.  Islam also consists of many different sects with different beliefs although they, more or less, all agree on the basic tenets,  This is definitely a bare bones description.

The expansion of Islamic territory has been accomplished through conquest by military means and then using the tools of intimidation, mainly killing infidels, so as to assimilate the conquered people into the religion of Islam.  This process of assimilation amounted to wholesale extortion but could be chalked up to the ‘way of the world’ in that era of humankind.  Although we now live in a world where freedom of religion is expressed as a universal right of all people, muslims interpret freedom of religion as the freedom to be a muslim giving them the right to convert or kill all infidels, thus leading to extortion as the main conversion tool.  Of all the willing converts to Islam, practically all are male and probably due to its glorification of patriarchal dominance.  I know of only one female who has expressed a liking for Islam but whose writings give the impression that her beliefs about religion would definitely clash with the male view dominant in Islam.

Turning our attention to modern times. let’s list some actions by muslims:

  • Fatwahs against Salmon Rushdie  saying that it is the duty of any muslim to kill him.
  • Honor killings and threats of honor killing by muslims who believe that Islamic laws (sharia) take precedent over our criminal laws.
  • Riots by muslims protesting cartoons about Mohamed–a historical pederast.
  • A killing of a Dutch movie-maker who had the audacity to make a movie showing the Islamic subjugation of women.
  • Muslims praying in the streets of Paris interrupting traffic even though its against the law.
  • Riots in Afghanistan protesting the burning of Korans and leading to the deaths of two Americans soldiers.
  • Assassinations by guards in Pakistan of civil servants not toting a strict Islamic line.

These and many more actions of the same type can be found by reading the sites of concerned people in America about the arrogance of muslims who believe their religion is more important than the state in which they live (thereligionofpeace.com lists Americans killed by muslims in our own country since 9/11).  I should point out that not all immigrant muslims are of this mindset, except that these people are so brainwashed that they can be easily misled by screeching imams, probably for fear of their own lives.   The Koran also touts the desirability and duty of individual muslims to deceive infidels for the express purpose of putting themselves into a position of eliminating as many of them as they can.  Witness the human bomb in Afghanistan killing top American and NATO personnel.  There should be only one rule when dealing with muslims, “Don’t fully trust any muslim.”

I am especially incensed over this latest Afghanistan incident.  There was nothing wrong with letting the Afghani police attempt to quell the riot.  All of our soldiers and personnel should have been way in the background watching.   Every  Afghani policeman with a gun should have had at least one American soldier training a rifle on that policeman ready to kill him if he dared to raise his gun toward any of our personnel.  Our commanders blew it.

Our leaders have been so intimidated by these barbarians that they have tendered an apology for doing nothing wrong, especially when we should have demanded that these Afghani be  stringently incarcerated and receive the maximum penalty for their act of murder.  Yes, our soldiers did make a mistake when they burned those Korans; they should have used an incinerator making sure that only ashes were left.

The problem with our Western Civilization is that we refuse to believe that muslims are the crudest of barbarians.  We incessantly treat them as civilized human beings not realizing that their civilization has gone steadily downhill since the 14th century or thereabouts.  These muslims have little regard for human life and simply do not consider states that allow for compassion worthy of recognition.  The only thing they really kowtow to is force.  Consider the truck bombing of U.S. troops in Lebanon.  If Reagan would have sent in a division of troops, found the leaders and strung up about 100 Hezbollah before we left, there might have been second thoughts about the twin towers plan.  The weakness of the U.S. was further demonstrated by Clinton pulling troops from Somalia without exacting a good measure of revenge.  How many smaller ways have we demonstrated a lack of willpower to make other people pay for their transgressions against us?  How many times have we forgotten the number one rule of war, “There are no civilians in a war zone.”?

Advertisements

Blog at WordPress.com.