[AnnaZ]

Link to the author's original story were in the Times article.

And nothing further of any substance was added -- perhaps I should have been more clear. Forgive me. Hundreds of words were attached to the link, yet they brought not one thing -- and in fact much less -- to the conversation.

What else needed to have been said about the matter to raise the hairs on the back of your neck??

Nothing. Which is exactly my point. The Times, once again, is a day (or a week and a half) late to the party, and desperate to remain relevant. They believe it's "not news" until "they" say it is. They're wrong. This is just another example of just how wrong they are.

 

Cheers!

[Minutemen]

I posted this not as a debate about how good or bad the NY Times is. It was posted for the CONTENT, about how our "politically correct" methods of dealing with terrorists( or potential ones) are going to get more of us killed.
BTW.....If it makes you happy, I got my posted link off of conservative World Net Daily. Can you please find a diff. bone to pick?