UK media are informing us that the nine climbers murdered in Gilgit-Baltistan were killed by Islamic militants. What a relief it must be for their families to know that they weren't the victims of terrorists.
It turns out that 'militants' were Taliban, who are about to engage in negotiations with the Frankish invaders of Afghanistan. Well no, these were Pakistani Taliban, not those gentlefolk of the Afghan Taliban.
No negotiations with terrorists, but they can talk with militants.
The Taliban know that the Franks are going to scuttle off anyway, but being gentlemen (as we've just learned) they're giving them a chance to save face.
So what of al-Qa'ida? Now that they are allies of the Frankish infidels in Syria, do we stop calling them terrorists? At the moment, it seems, the "accepted terminology", Dude, is "units of the Free Syrian Army".

Correction, 25.6.13: I've done it again, misquoting. Walter Sobchak's phrase was "preferred nomenclature", not "accepted terminology". I should take my deteriorating memory into account and check before "quoting".