Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This youtube clip is not en pointe. Holder was testifying to Congress about the larger issue of terrorist threats, and not about Times Square.
See my link to what he said about Times Square.
No, he was being asked about the Time Square incident when he started dancing. Didn't you hear him even reference the bombers name? Damn, why are you refusing to see reality here?
No, he was being asked about the Time Square incident when he started dancing. Didn't you hear him even reference the bombers name? Damn, why are you refusing to see reality here?
Remember when liberal commentators from say MSNBC or was it CNN says she was upset that it wasn't a teabagger and that it was a muslim?
Yes, he was.
What does a liberal commentator from MSNBC or CNN have to do with your claim? Absolutely nothing.
Your claim was that Holder denies that islamic terrorism was involved with the Times Square bombing. And that's false. As I proved with my MAY 4TH link. Holder's Congressional testimony was on larger issues, and as a matter of responsibility, we as a nation don't want the people charged with protecting us from terrorism to focus solely on Radical Islam. Not all terrorists are Radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are Radical. If we are to protect ourselves from terrorism in this country, we need to understand that terrorism can come from multiple sources. Holder's Congressional testimony is not about denying that the Times Square bombing was an act of terrorism, or that the bomber was Muslim, or that he had ties to Radical Islamic groups. His testimony is a responsible assessment that Radical Islam isn't the only source of terrorist threats to the United States.
What does a liberal commentator from MSNBC or CNN have to do with your claim? Absolutely nothing.
Your claim was that Holder denies that islamic terrorism was involved with the Times Square bombing. And that's false. As I proved with my MAY 4TH link. Holder's Congressional testimony was on larger issues, and as a matter of responsibility, we as a nation don't want the people charged with protecting us from terrorism to focus solely on Radical Islam. Not all terrorists are Radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are Radical. If we are to protect ourselves from terrorism in this country, we need to understand that terrorism can come from multiple sources. Holder's Congressional testimony is not about denying that the Times Square bombing was an act of terrorism, or that the bomber was Muslim, or that he had ties to Radical Islamic groups. His testimony is a responsible assessment that Radical Islam isn't the only source of terrorist threats to the United States.
It is the BIGGEST threat and by the way, he was being asked if Islamic terrorism could have been behind the TS bombing. Keep spinning it and imagining things that are not there.
What does a liberal commentator from MSNBC or CNN have to do with your claim? Absolutely nothing.
Your claim was that Holder denies that islamic terrorism was involved with the Times Square bombing. And that's false. As I proved with my MAY 4TH link. Holder's Congressional testimony was on larger issues, and as a matter of responsibility, we as a nation don't want the people charged with protecting us from terrorism to focus solely on Radical Islam. Not all terrorists are Radical Muslims. Not all Muslims are Radical. If we are to protect ourselves from terrorism in this country, we need to understand that terrorism can come from multiple sources. Holder's Congressional testimony is not about denying that the Times Square bombing was an act of terrorism, or that the bomber was Muslim, or that he had ties to Radical Islamic groups. His testimony is a responsible assessment that Radical Islam isn't the only source of terrorist threats to the United States.
He refused to state that it was a possibility, and tried to lay down other possibilities. When asked again, whether islamic radicalism might be a motiviation, he still refused to admit that it was a POSSIBILITY.
So what? The guy was processed through the NYC court system and will be behind bars forever. Just can't stand that he wasn't tortured, given a military trial, etc., can you? The system worked the way it was supposed to and instead of being glad that one more stupid wanna-be terrorist is behind bars, people would rather play 'he said, she said.'
Shows you where some peoples' priorities lie.
It is the BIGGEST threat and by the way, he was being asked if Islamic terrorism could have been behind the TS bombing. Keep spinning it and imagining things that are not there.
His testimony was a little more than a ten-second you-tube blurb.
Here's what he said IN HIS TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS about the Times Square Bomber:
Holder: "[P]eople who espouse a radical version of Islam" may influence terrorists. During his May 13 testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Holder told Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) that "I certainly think that it's possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad." Holder also commented: "There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based."
You-tubes can be edited. You might refer to the Congressional Record for better accuracy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
