| 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. |