Fort Hood, TX: Shooting

[Levant]

For a workplace violence incident there sure is a lot of concern about this guy becoming a religious martyr.

We're at war with terrorism and a terrorist infiltrates the United States Army and intentionally brings the war home by shooting and killing a bunch of American Soldiers and it's a workplace violence incident?  And the car attack on the pier at Venice Beach was a car accident?

This was an attack by an enemy combatant against our troops.  It was an act of war.  It was combat.  Just because our troops are disarmed on base does not mean it wasn't war.  Calling it workplace violence is strictly a political and financial decision by the federal government.

[Hawkmoon]

This was an attack by an enemy combatant against our troops.  It was an act of war.  It was combat.  Just because our troops are disarmed on base does not mean it wasn't war.  Calling it workplace violence is strictly a political and financial decision by the federal government.

I disagree almost completely.

First, we are not at war. There has been no declaration of war by the Congress, and that is the ONLY legitimate way for this country to be "at war."

Major Nidal's was not and is not an "enemy combatant." He was a member of the United States Army, and he was wearing the uniform of the United States Army when he carried out his attack. He was and is a traitor, but he was not and is not an "enemy combatant."

There was no combat involved. The location was not a battlefield. The other American soldiers were not armed and could not fight back. His attack was not an act of war. It was an act of terrorism. Why can't we call it what it is?

[Levant]

Well, we say we're not at war but the same President and DOD that says we are at war says this act wasn't war.  I think those who were there would disagree about it being a battlefield.  I know that the families of those killed and those surviving soldiers who are still suffering the effects of injuries would disagree and say it was a battlefield.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/fort-hood-purple-heart/2013/07/10/id/514371

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/263643-graham-label-fort-hood-shooting-an-act-of-terror

Nidal was an enemy combatant.  He attacked our soldiers in defense of the Taliban.  He was an infiltrator.  He was never a US Army officer at heart; it was a fraud.  His allegiance was never to the United States or the United States Army.  That makes him an infiltrator.  And there are a lot more like him.

Just because they were not armed and could not fight back does not mean it wasn't an act of war - in the mind of Nidal.  Just because the Army does not trust its men to carry their arms at all times does not mean any time you kill a soldier and he's unarmed it's workplace violence.

Were all of these workplace violence?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-interviews-afghan-man-who-killed-u-s-soldiers-because-americans-were-oppressing-people-in-my-country/

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/insider-attack-kills-us-troops-afghanistan-19357049

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/08/17/two-more-us-troops-killed-by-afghan-trainees/

Here's some Afghanistan workplace violence: http://www.aim.org/newswire/taliban-infiltrators-kill-7-afghan-policemen-while-they-sleep/

When German infiltrators in US uniforms cut phone lines before the Battle of the Bulge, was that just a case of vandalism?