Monthly Survey: Ft. Hood Shootings a Terrorist Act?

Most of you are aware of the Ft. Hood shootings that occurred on November 5th, 2009.

Some call it a massacre. Some, a terrorist act.

A recent initiative is to treat the Ft. Hood victims as combatant casualties. In dispute is whether the attack on the Army post was, in fact, a terrorist act.

So based on what you have read or watched on the news, do you consider the Ft. Hood shootings a terrorist act?

Whether you choose yes, or no, I’d be interested in your rational in the comments.

13 thoughts on “Monthly Survey: Ft. Hood Shootings a Terrorist Act?”

  1. The question that needs to be answered is what was the intention of the act? If your beliefs include the idea that killing who you percieve as the enemy is good, irrespective of the reason, then that isn’t terrorism.

    Terrorism is not something carried out by individuals, but something carried out in a clear and organised way with the the intent to pressurise politically through terror.

    In my opinion labelling extremists as terrorists is a damaging label because on the whole they really believe their actions are good. It isn’t a politically minded action.

  2. I agree with the previous poster in terms of terrorism not being an individual act. From what I have read this guy was being investigated before because of communications he was having, so this leads me to believe that this wasn’t just something he did for personal reasons.. therefore terrorism. I don’t, however, agree with the combatant designation. The people on the base were not (at the time) knowingly putting themselves in harms way…

  3. If the attach occurred in Afghanastan we would all be calling it a terrorist attack. But why not here in the States? Possibly because out current President knows that a terrorist attack on his watch would be damaging to his agenda?

  4. any violent act can be a terorist act not just the once that happen by people out side the united states. … would you say that the oklahoma bombing was an act of terrorism .. yes and it was carried out by an american. would i say the ft hood shootings was an act of violence was a terrorist act or act of terrorism … hell yea i would … it was an act that the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

  5. I don’t believe the Fort Hood shootings were an act of terrorism, because by definition the intention of a terrorist act is to spread fear among a people for holding a certain belief, or to pressure them into acting in a certain way or stopping some action.

    Every actual terrorist act, whether it’s Al Qaeda or the IRA, is accompanied by a declaration from the organisation or individuals who committed it, to spread that fear.

    As this guy hasn’t declared anything like this I think it was just the actions of one madman.

    1. So, just to clarify your position, are you saying that terrorism is:

      “Any act of violence that scares people?”


      “Any act of violence carried out by people who share different beliefs to you?”

  6. We have this idea that terrorism always come from others.

    There is a saying about psychiatrists going into psychiatry because they have a problem or a vulnerability of some kind.

    True? False? I don’t know.

    But this guy who did the shooting was hearing day in day out the atrocities his patients with PTSD were witness of, in Afghanistan and maybe in Irak.

    Probably he heard a lot and could not bear the fact that he had to go and to be an actor in what he heard from his patients.

  7. Regardless of how you look at it and how he was motivated, he went on a rampage based on his religion and this shooting was a terrorist attack. This was no different from a extremist strapping on a bomb in Iraq

  8. Having been a former Police Officer in Ohio, and gone through all of the OPOTA training that that involves this was not a civilian crime.

    – It was an attack that involved against a national system or body.

    – Idealist motivation.

    – Non-specific victim(s) involved.

    These 3 factors COMBINED (not one of and each it’s one) would require a civilian (non-military) officer in Ohio to treat the suspect, evidence, and investigation as terrorism and not murder.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top