Militants give blow-by-blow account of Saudi massacre

From
The Observer

How can someone who commits a "massacre" of 22 innocent people be a militant? It would seem the Observer chooses to use this definition of a militant.

militant is often used in newspapers, magazines and other information sources in place of terrorist. militant is deemed to be a neutral term, whereas terrorist clearly indicates that the behavior of the individual or organization is reprehensible regardless of the motivations for such behavior.

Unless of course The Observer doesn't consider the massacre and the way it was carried out as reprehensible.

Here is a bit of the story I had not seen before.

The account gives astonishing details of the attack, describing how the killers hunted down their victims, then slept and prayed after decapitating Westerners. It also challenges the Saudi Arabian government's version of events, claiming that pictures of Saudi troops storming a building from the air were stage-managed.

I'd call that reprehensible and them terrorists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------