For all those who regularly write condescendingly to me, or leave comments, saying I don't know the definition of terrorism and I mix things up when I refer to massacres like 1984 or 2002 as terrorism -- for all those folks, I have some questions.
In this report, a woman speaks of the murder of her father in 1984. (This is only one such: There must have been plenty of other incidents like this then).
So I wonder: As this father he was hunted down and set on fire, as he escaped the mob and ran for his life and was hunted down again, as he was tied up and set on fire again, as he was beaten with rods -- through all this as he died, did the man not feel terror? Did his family not feel terror?
By what convoluted logic or intricate definition does this not qualify as terrorism?