The New York Times has a reasonably well researched article on the life and death of top Hezbollah figure Imad Mugniya, abruptly deceased yesterday in Damascus. What is notable about the article, however, is the way the poor NYT folks twist their tongues (or their keyboards) around the dead man's profession. Was he a Militant, which is of course the only polite word? Or a Terrorist, because he killed lots of people including hundreds of Americans?
The problem with the terminology starts at the very top: the article bears the hardly helpful title Bomb in Syria Kills Militant Sought as Terrorist.