The main problem here is that the article in the National Post stated that the article was written by a Reuters reporter. The Reuters reporter didn't use the word "terrorist" (for whatever reason).
The National Post has every right to call whomever they please a "terrorist", but they don't have the right to put that word in someone else (a Reuters journalist)'s mouth.
You should be the first one to agree with me, Tiger... on AO, you'd get bitch-slapped for doing something like that.

CanWest Global (publisher of the National Post and a dozen of other newspapers) already got in trouble with Associated Press (another big player) for doing the same on an article in the Ottawa Citizen: the article was presented as a AP article, but again wording was changed (the Citizen admitted it shouldn't have done that, btw).

That's like me quoting you but changing your wording: not done.

The same happened with the war in Iraq: some called it an "invasion", some called it a "liberation". Fine with me, but if I write an article in which I call it an "invasion" and you publish my article but change all my "invasion"s to "liberation"s, then I have every right to complain.

That doesn't say anything about whether, when or where the word "terrorist" can be used or not, of course. If Reuters doesn't want to use it for whatever reason, that's their business. Nobody's forcing CanWest to buy (literally) their stories, but if they buy them they either should edit it and say they did so, or keep it like it is.

And I like her more every day, too, Tiger