[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.