[seppin]

You're right:

"Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

It implies that the protector has the absolute ability to control if an attack occurs or not. So if the CIA had a little more budget, they would have stopped 9/11. Because they had the ability to, they just didn't.

Is that what you are saying?

[krageon]

Part of a protection racket is staging attacks when you think you're not going to get paid (or you're not getting paid yet). You could just as easily make a case along those lines, but both cases would be disingenuous because real life is complicated. Just because it's a protection racket doesn't mean that it needs to at all times 100% conform to a sentence that you found on wikipedia.

As in a real life protection racket, there will always be events that occur in spite of the protection offered. The core of a racket is to respond with disproportionate violence. For example, sending your army to harass the entire country that some of your attackers were part of. Drone strikes on schools that are known to be full of children. There are more salient examples to be found, but I think we don't need them.

[seppin]

> Part of a protection racket is staging attacks when you think you're not going to get paid

Are you implying this has happened or does happen? Please cite your source if so.

> Just because it's a protection racket doesn't mean that it needs to at all times 100% conform to a sentence that you found on wikipedia.

No but going off an existing definition is better than throwing around a concept with any real connection to reality.

> The core of a racket is to respond with disproportionate violence. For example, sending your army to harass the entire country that some of your attackers were part of.

What does that have to do with CIA?

> Drone strikes on schools that are known to be full of children.

So a drone strike on country B is payback for them not ponying up protection money to the intel agency of country A. Did I get that right?

That is nonsensical.

[colonelanguz]

Can't tell if you're trolling/deliberately obtuse or what

Here's what I meant: Your wrong conception of how a protection racket works undermines your argument that the person who said "That's like supporting a protection racket" is wrong.

No idea what you're talking about with "implies that the protector has the absolute ability to control if an attack occurs or not." Have you ever seen a gangster film? Anyways every time you invoke a new concept you're getting it wrong so maybe take a step back and think about what people are talking about instead of just randomly generating provocative hypos because you disagree with someone

[seppin]

> Have you ever seen a gangster film?

I'm sorry i'm not basing my arguments on movies i've seen.

Combine that with you arrogance in implying i'm getting concepts wrong (i'm citing them, you are not), I think this conversation has run its course. Your entire response amounts to "you are wrong but i'm not going to say how".

[colonelanguz]

You cited a source which proves you were wrong in exactly the way I pointed out. Your entire original comment hinged on a bizarre metaphor you created out of your false premise that in protection rackets, the "threat" is fake or choreographed. It isn't, so your comment isn't an intelligible critique of the comment it was intended to respond to. Yes, that's my point: your critique is wrong. I told you how: it is based on a false premise.

> (i'm citing them, you are not)

You cited Wikipedia, and you haven't cited a single source for any proposition other than the one you were specifically wrong about.

> I'm sorry i'm not basing my arguments on movies i've seen.

Deliberate obtuseness. The obvious implication of the reference to gangster films is that anyone who has even a passing familiarity with protection rackets knows that harm from the racketeer is not the only threatened harm. The third sentence of the Wikipedia entry you mentioned confirms this: "Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients." That means that the analogy between the CIA and a protection racket is perfectly tenable—in the parlance of your Wikipedia entry, a "broader protection racket" rather than a "pure extortion racket."

Not sure how to spell it out any clearer than that. I'm not implying you're getting concepts wrong. You got them both wrong.

[seppin]

No, I admitted my original comment didn't cover everything it needed to, hoping such a concession would lead to a more civilized discussion. I was wrong, you are more interested in attacking people and defending yourself than discussing anything.

> "Through the credible threat of violence, the racketeers deter people from swindling, robbing, injuring, sabotaging or otherwise harming their clients."

Ok, so the CIA approaches their mark, in this case their own government. They say we will threaten other actors that threaten you, in exchange for money. You've just described the Pentagon, DoD, and every standing army on earth. A "broader protection racket" can literally mean any security service, from mall guard to 4-star general.

Besides, you are being disingenuous. When people think of a "protection racket" they think of extortion and the mob, not the broad security guarantees of an army or intel service.

Or as clearly stated on wikipedia:

> "Protection rackets are indistinguishable in practice from extortion rackets"

You a deflecting from the accepted definition of a term you used in order to make your original claim less fantastical and attention seeking. I don't blame you for making such a claim, social media and websites that allow for upvoting are made for such actions.

Doesn't mean you are anywhere near correct.