Respondents to the latest FedSmith.com survey overwhelmingly said they believe that the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting was an act of terrorism rather than workplace violence.
90% of the over 1,000 responses received said they believed it was a terrorist act with just 7% saying it was workplace violence. Another 3% weren’t sure.
Comments from respondents indicated some strong opinions about the event. A random sampling of some of the comments is included below:
- There is no question that this was terrorism and the soldiers should be treated and counted as part of the casualties of operation enduring freedom.
- Shouting allah akbars while murdering innocent civilians is terrorism by definition
- give him the death penalty and make it a quick one.
- I have never understood why we really need to draw a distinction in labeling a violent act. I mean, if someone shoots and kills 20 people the tragic effect is the same regardless of whether we call it terrorism or workplace violence. The penalty should be tied to the severity of an act, not what adjective we use to labe the act.
- It was a terrorist act; however; because there is no military crime of terrorism, he couldn’t be tried as a terrorist. But they should have classified the shooting event as a terrorist act to give the victims access to federal/military programs and then tried him as they did. Separate issues: a military officer, the perpetrator, murdered people and is tried for murder: the act of murder was conducted as a terrorist act – so the victims get the benefit of federal programs.
- To me, this is a classic case of terrorism based on Hasan’s comments alone. Workplace Voilence should have NEVER been considered as those acts typically are against one person with others becoming victims as a result of association or location at the time of the incident.
- Regardless of his religious beliefs, it is just another distressed coworker who goes “postal” and takes out those at work for whom were considered by him, to be a threat or a nuissance. The fact that this was the military does not automatically mean workplace shootings are terroristic in nature.
- Was 9/11 workplace violence, since the majority of the victims were killed in the workplace? Did he not scream “Allah Akbar” as he was shooting his victims? We as a nation still do not understand our enemy. Or worse, we do, and continue to ignore the obvious. I don’t know that it really matters what this instance is labled- so long as the Major gets to room temperature as soon as possible…
- Due to his reason behind the shooting based on what he said, this was terrorism on American soil. His reason was motivated by jihad beliefs.
- How can someone who served in the US military blatently kill fellow soldiers with malice and the act itself, not be considered a terrorist act. Sad for the people and their families.
- Instead of the politicians worrying about their record concerning terrorism they should call it what it is. The families involved deserve that respect and benefits.
Maj. Nidal Hasan was sentenced to death by a military jury for the 2009 shooting rampage.