Should the Fort Hood shooting be considered an act of terrorism?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:02:15 -0500

Based on the motivations of the shooter I think it should be considered an act of terrorism by a "lone wolf" terrorist with insider access. Would it give the victims and heroes who responded the credit and benefits they deserve? I think yes. But what are the consequences to both the trial and politics if it is no longer considered an act of "workplace violence?"

http://cnn.it/1b5OpFW

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2014 7:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:25:25 -0500

I say YES , didn't this guy turn out to be connected to one of those terrorist groups?

Response by 1SG Eric Rice made Jan 29 at 2014 7:30 PM

1SG Eric Rice — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:30:22 -0500

In my opinion it should be considered as an act of terrorism. The individuals that were injured and killed during this horrific act at Fort Hood deserve better. We owe it to ourselves to do the right thing even if it is difficult. How many times have we as Leaders given advice to the young soldier to "choose the hard right over the easy wrong" and hold hold them to that standard? <div><br></div>

Response by CMC Robert Young made Jan 29 at 2014 7:35 PM

CMC Robert Young — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:35:51 -0500

Yes, it is clearly an act of terrorism and the fact our government has classified it as a crime like any other crime is a disgrace and dishonors the service of those impacted most by it. It is an embarrassment that our elected officials have ignored the facts, and continue to pursue a course of action that denies the appropriate benefits due our fellow service members.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2014 7:35 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:35:56 -0500

Yes and you know they are forever altering their methods of attacks. Politics thrive on diplomacy but then our guys/gals get killed.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jan 29 at 2014 7:36 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:36:02 -0500

Absolutely an act of terrorism. There are a number of definitions of Terrorism, and Major Hassan's actions clearly fit all of them. Give those dead and wounded their rightful due and don't leave American Military personnel as victims, forbidden the right to the means to self defense that most Americans enjoy.

Response by 1SG Eric Rice made Jan 29 at 2014 7:48 PM

1SG Eric Rice — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:48:02 -0500

In addition to the act itself. The Officers that engaged Major Hasan are now out of a job. They were laid off not long after the incident.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 1:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:59:09 -0500

It seems to me that most SMs seem to think that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism. What I don't understand is why it was considered an incident of "workplace violence" in the first place? Is it easier to procecute MAJ Hassan without charges of terrorism? Or is the classification of "workplace violence" political in nature? If it is truly "workplace violence" it would allow politicians to claim that there hadn't been a successful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11...

Response by Lt Col Luis A. Rojas made Jan 30 at 2014 8:40 PM

Lt Col Luis A. Rojas — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:40:07 -0500

I say it was an act of terrorism.

Response by SSG Matt Murphy made Jan 30 at 2014 8:47 PM

SSG Matt Murphy — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 20:47:52 -0500

..why are the joint chiefs not objecting to this politically motivated travesty of "classification" that has NOTHING to do with the truth of the matter? This is a disgrace, and to all in the military, a slap in the face.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
― Walter Scott, Marmion

Response by CPO Rob Schrader made Jan 31 at 2014 8:47 AM

CPO Rob Schrader — Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:47:00 -0500

The reason for the present administration not labeling this as an act <span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><font color="#4d4d4d"><span style="font-size: 12px;">terrorism is to patronize the Muslim radicals.  The injured should be taken care of.  Whether work place violence or an act of </span></font></span><span style="color: rgb(77, 77, 77); font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);">terrorism, these folks were injured on the job.</span>

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2014 9:40 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:40:56 -0500

100% - he used violence and he was politically/religiously motivated. It should be treated as terrorism. I believe they deserve those benefits - they lost their loved ones to a senseless act of violence due to political/religious motives.

I think some are scared to treat this as terrorism because then they have to acknowledge it was an act of terrorism. The biggest reason for not labeling it a terrorism is politically based.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 11 at 2014 12:14 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:14:52 -0500

Terrorism:
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

He had no political purpose, nor was he trying to intimidate or coerce. He already stated his intentions (to protect muslims) and they do not, in any way shape or form, meet the definition of terrorism. I know that's our favorite word to throw around, but it really doesn't apply here.

Terrorism is about the intent behind the action, not the action itself.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 2:31 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:31:19 -0500

It was definitely an act of terrorism, however, they seemed to shy away from that description during the trial because Hassan was attempting to gain status as a lawful combatant. Although I feel he would have failed in this attempt, even if we had used the terrorism label, it would probably have muddied the situation further and extended an open and shut case even longer.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 3:08 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:08:47 -0500

I think so Sir.

Response by Cpl John Davis made Feb 11 at 2014 3:10 PM

Cpl John Davis — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:10:15 -0500

"All enemies foreign and domestic"
I'd say that it was. The only reason that it wasn't is because civilians got involved in it.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2014 11:56 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:56:13 -0500

I agree and I was there. I was going through SRP getting ready to head to Iraq. I got my immunizations and then at the next station there was a long line so I left to go eat lunch and then come back. As I was heading back I heard the shots ringing out. I was trying to get closer but the MPs had already shown up and cordoned off the place. As a result of the attack the SRP site was shut down for two weeks. That affected the deployment of many soldiers into theater. The impact was negligible to overall theater operations, but terrorists try to cause chaos and confusion and delays wherever and however they can.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 3:41 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:41:58 -0500

Yes terrorism, plain and simple.

It doesn't matter (to me) what the political ramifications are of classifying it as an act of terror. That should NOT matter at all.

As for ramifications for the trial? A charge is a charge. He got his trial by jury of his peers. He was found guilty. I just wish he could have been stood up against a wall and shot. He violated not only the UCMJ, but the trust of everyone who wears (or who has worn) the uniform.

The worst part about all of this is that he is still getting paid his O-4 salary.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jul 14 at 2014 9:16 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:16:46 -0400

Absolutely it is an act of terrorism! Because Obama refuses to classify it as a terrorist act, certain benefits are denied to the survivors as well as to the families of the deceased. He puts his politics ahead of the best interests of others and leaves people hanging out to dry. Shameful.

Response by SPC Tom Walsh made Jul 12 at 2016 11:17 PM

SPC Tom Walsh — Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:17:57 -0400

Absolutely.