Exclusive: Holder fears 'lone wolf' attack

Holder had a chat with CNN & fears more lone gunman attacks but doesn't think arming the TSA is the solution.

I'm actually shocked he made that statesment because I figured they'd take complete advantage of these situations & arm the TSA while increasing their reach. Well, they are increasing their reach but will they be armed? Is Holder just spewing more lies like Obama & just about every other politician in DC?

www.cnn.com...

Philadelphia (CNN) - Attorney General Eric Holder is most afraid of a terrorist attack on the United States from a so-called "lone wolf," such as the attackers involved in the Washington Navy Yard and Los Angeles International Airport shootings.

"I'm very concerned about individuals who get radicalized in a variety of ways, sometimes self-radicalized," the nation's top law enforcement officer told CNN's Justice reporter Evan Perez in an exclusive interview.

Just days after a shooter entered LAX airport and killed one Transportation Security Administration worker, Holder rejected the idea to arm those officers.

"Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't review the measures that are in place to keep people safe from the time that they get out of their cars and go into the terminals," he said.

It's the year of the "lone white male" terrorist. They're putting feelers out there. Testing public opinion. Watch the f*** out...

reply to post by Swills


Sounds like a very logical and reasoned response to me.

Would you prefer that he say something outrageous?

reply to post by Swills


Well, to put things in perspective Eric Holder is a lying snake and nothing that spews from his mouth can be trusted. Anything he says just turn 180 degrees to get an approximation of truth.

The guy should be in prison.

edit - If EH says he is worried about lone wolf attacks it means he wants more of them. No better way to continue the police state agenda.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Outrageous? Like Operation Fast & Furious or how about saying Big Banks are too big to jail so they get a pass for laundering money for both Mexican cartels & known terrorists groups?

reply to post by SomeoneWatching


I hear ya, it's definitely a true statement that these lone gunman/mass shootings are on the rise. Thank god last nights episode spilled no innoncent blood.

reply to post by Bassago


I don trust this man at all and like so many others in DC I wish he'd be investigated but for now Id take his resignation.

Holder would never let a good crisis go to waste.

reply to post by Swills


You seem disappointed that he is saying something logical.

He has said obvious lies in the past but does that mean that everything he says should be that way?

I thought this thread was about this statement only, not about the entirety of statements over his whole political career.

Spookybelle
reply to post by Swills

 

You seem disappointed that he is saying something logical.

He has said obvious lies in the past but does that mean that everything he says should be that way?

I thought this thread was about this statement only, not about the entirety of statements over his whole political career.

I seem disappointed? Funny how some people comprehend things. Just to set you straight I'm not at all disappointed he's not supporting arming TSA, for now, but I am surprised (as I've made clear in my OP).

And this thread is about Holder recent statements but I was responding to your post showing you he's not always logical, as you like to put it.

Swills

Spookybelle
reply to post by Swills

 

You seem disappointed that he is saying something logical.

He has said obvious lies in the past but does that mean that everything he says should be that way?

I thought this thread was about this statement only, not about the entirety of statements over his whole political career.

I seem disappointed? Funny how some people comprehend things. Just to set you straight I'm not at all disappointed he's not supporting arming TSA, for now, but I am surprised (as I've made clear in my OP).

And this thread is about Holder recent statements but I was responding to your post showing you he's not always logical, as you like to put it.

I never said nor implied that he has always been logical but his statement in regards to this issue is right on point I believe.

It may vary from his statements in the past but you are not explaining what importance this is to you. Are you saying we shouldn't believe him now or shouldn't believe what he's said in the past? Are you saying he is unreliable? Are you saying he has finally seen the light?

Your kind of meandering all over the place so I answered your post the best way I could with the relative lack of information you gave us.

Yeah. We've hundreds of thousands of gang-bangers dealing heroin and crack and shooting up neighborhoods full of small children. We've got millions of illegal immigrants all over the country. And we have corruption in the highest offices of the country.

But the nation's top law enforcement official is most worried about lone wolf attacks.

Spookybelle
reply to post by Swills

 

Sounds like a very logical and reasoned response to me.

Would you prefer that he say something outrageous?

Actually, I'd prefer he were in a jail cell, for his crimes and his treason against this Republic.

Helious

Spookybelle
reply to post by Swills

 

Sounds like a very logical and reasoned response to me.

Would you prefer that he say something outrageous?

Actually, I'd prefer he were in a jail cell, for his crimes and his treason against this Republic.

That's a fair assessment but his statement in this example is a very good response I thought.

Just because you agree with something he says does not imply that you agree with everything he has always stated in the past.

Spookybelle

Swills

Spookybelle
reply to post by Swills

 

You seem disappointed that he is saying something logical.

He has said obvious lies in the past but does that mean that everything he says should be that way?

I thought this thread was about this statement only, not about the entirety of statements over his whole political career.

I seem disappointed? Funny how some people comprehend things. Just to set you straight I'm not at all disappointed he's not supporting arming TSA, for now, but I am surprised (as I've made clear in my OP).

And this thread is about Holder recent statements but I was responding to your post showing you he's not always logical, as you like to put it.

I never said nor implied that he has always been logical but his statement in regards to this issue is right on point I believe.

It may vary from his statements in the past but you are not explaining what importance this is to you. Are you saying we shouldn't believe him now or shouldn't believe what he's said in the past? Are you saying he is unreliable? Are you saying he has finally seen the light?

Your kind of meandering all over the place so I answered your post the best way I could with the relative lack of information you gave us.

Stop assuming & you'll see I'm not disappointed. This is important to me because these mass shootings are on the rise & so is TSA's reach so for Holder to come out & say this does indeed surprise. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

If you have anymore questions just re-read every single post in this thread because I'm not going to continue repeating myself.

Just days after a shooter entered LAX airport and killed one Transportation Security Administration worker, Holder rejected the idea to arm those officers.

"Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't review the measures that are in place to keep people safe from the time that they get out of their cars and go into the terminals," he said.

This is Holder simply addressing a select audience.

The hidden message is that he may in fact be suggesting that a different 'agency' provide the *Armed* "security".

Holder is a very slippery salamander and people need to understand his true agenda.

He is very much a part of the Obama LLC

"Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't review the measures that are in place to keep people safe from the time that they get out of their cars and go into the terminals," he said.

Ah, so armed TSA "porters" to escort passengers to the TSA Screening Area would be a good measure. And think of all the jobs it will create for the newly amnestied immigrants.

Spookybelle

Helious

Spookybelle
reply to post by Swills

 

Sounds like a very logical and reasoned response to me.

Would you prefer that he say something outrageous?

Actually, I'd prefer he were in a jail cell, for his crimes and his treason against this Republic.

That's a fair assessment but his statement in this example is a very good response I thought.

Just because you agree with something he says does not imply that you agree with everything he has always stated in the past.

I agree that his assessment is a reasonable one. With that said, the fact that he is free to make it at all is a huge part of the problem with this country right now. The government in the most important areas of governance is operating with absolutely no rule of law illegitimately.

Praising this criminal for a reasonable statement is akin to admiring Jeffrey Dahmers restraint for only eating the hands while leaving the face. Pretending this government is legitimate is only encouraging them and emboldening them to continue on the reckless, immoral and illegal tirade they have engaged in.

With congress at an approval rating of 10% and Obama falling under 45% for the first time it's infuriating for them to keep parading speeches and White House rallies that portray anyone who thinks what they are doing is completely wrong as crazy.

Realize, I am in no way attacking you or do I blame you for any of what I mentioned, I am just simply saying, mostly from my own need to vent and for my benefit perhaps lol.

It's too expensive to arm the TSA ... for now. When those ObamaramaCare dollars develop the gubment will be able to fund anything it wants. Nahhh ... You didn't really think that money was going into your healthcare didja?

Arming the TSA ain't a simple thing. Can you imagine the details? They'd have to hire hundreds of people just to coordinate and keep up with the training requirement.

reply to post by Snarl

It's too expensive to arm the TSA

Not when you're using taxpayers money, printing fiat currency out of thin air and running at a 16 trillion dollar national debt with no sign of slowing down.

If they can afford to purchase billions of military grade rounds of ammunition, thousands of assault rifles and armored vehicles for an agency that holds no war powers and give AR-15s to IRS agents, they can arm the TSA.

Their budget is already 8.1 billion dollars a year and they have caught 0 terrorists, what makes you think they won't arm them and what makes you think their job is to actually catch terrorists?

reply to post by Snarl


Too expensive maybe but DHS & other federal agencies have been stock piling weapons & ammo for a few years now so it might not be as expensive as you'd think. That and the Federal Reserve can & will print money till Hell freezes over.