Obama Snubs Victims of 2009 Fort Hood Terrorist Attack

A mud-pit discussion if ever there was one ...

The victims of the first Fort Hood shooting (terrorist attack) requested a ten minute visit with Obama when he visited the post after this latest attack. Because Obama has labeled that radical Islamic terrorist attack of 2009 'workplace violence', the victims can't receive the benefits they deserve. They wanted to meet with him for just 10 minutes to ask him to change the label so they can get the senate to give them help. Commander in Chief Obama finds enough time to go golfing every week and to fill in his basketball brackets, but he couldn't find 10 minutes to spend with the soldiers who were victims of a terrorist attack ... even though he was on the same military base they were.

The letter sent to the White House requesting a ten minute visit is at the link. The White House says it forwarded the letter to the Department of Justice. Really? What exactly is Eric Holder going to do with it? Record the names of those not in lock step with his buddy Obama?

White House Turned Down Request from Victims of First Ft. Hood Attack for a Meeting with Obama

During last week's memorial service for victims of April 2 Fort Hood shooting, President Barack Obama spoke about the lingering hurt from the previous attack on the base in 2009. "Part of what makes this so painful is that we've been here before," Obama said. "This tragedy tears at wounds still raw from five years ago. Once more soldiers who survived foreign war zones were struck down here at home, where they're supposed to be safe." Yet, when victims of the first Fort Hood shooting invited the president to see those wounds up close, he refused, without explaining why.

The morning of the memorial, retired Staff Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times during the 2009 Fort Hood rampage, requested that the Obama meet briefly with victims and their families while he was on base. Lunsford's letter, which was addressed to the president's Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, also described survivors' disappointment with how they had been treated:

As you may know, the President and high-ranking members of the military promised me, my family and the other Fort Hood terror attack survivors that the federal government would "make them whole." After more than four and one-half years, however, the government has yet to make good on this promise.

We believe that if the President could hear, first-hand, our plight and our mistreatment at the hands of his bureaucracy, that he would take the steps needed to set things right. Therefore, we ask for ten minutes of his time.

its a difficult one the Fort Hood shootings, terrorist attack or act of violence in the work place.

I think for political reasons many in the White house would like to say it was the later.

I personally would call it a act of terrorism.

I would say it was a act of domestic terrorism by a individual radicalized to follow violent Islamic fundamentalism though various mediums who was committing acts of violence for political reasons.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


It was a terrorist attack by a radical Islamic. He mass murdered and mass injured the troops on a military post. The Commander In Chief was on that post just a few weeks ago and the Commander in Chief couldn't find 10 minutes to meet with 'his' troops. He finds time for basketball brackets and golf ... but not ten minutes for 'his' injured troops.

Maybe it wasn't exactly the definition of "terrorism" but was at the least combat. We are at war. They are soldiers. He was hollering the call of the jihadis. He is a traitor and should face the firing squad.

There have been other instances of attacks inside US bases overseas by Afghan soldiers or police and by at least 1 US soldier... I wonder if those are also called workplace violence?

If they stick with workplace violence would that mean that a US army base is just a work place and soldiers are just workers/employees?

Workplace fatality would require OSHA investigation as well.

reply to post by tinner07


Hopefully, at some point in the future, we will look back and collectively--not just us non-supporters of the Prez at this time--and say, "How was this and so many telling actions from this guy and administration not recognized for what they represented?"

reply to post by tinner07

Maybe it wasn't exactly the definition of "terrorism" but was at the least combat.

That is basically the big issue at the heart of this thread, was it terrorism?

According to the US PATRIOT Act terrorism is defined as follows:

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

So the next question is weather or not the actions of Nidal Malik Hasan fit with in this definition.

Firstly it is obvious that his actions were dangerous to human life but then again so is murder, however, I would argue based on Nidal's own statements and his relationship with the radical cleric Al-Awlaki that he was motivated by a disagreement with American government policy regarding what he see's as its meddling in Islamic states. I know there are many terrorism experts who would agree that this was a act of terrorism.

But for me, a guy who has not legal training, when i look at the definition of terrorism under American law and then what Nidal done and why he done it I can start to see parallels. This would lead me to believe that he committed a act of domestic terrorism.

However I do also believe that because this action took place on a US Military base the law becomes somewhat clouded.

But again for my money he is a terrorist and it is disgraceful that he is not being treated like one and the victims families are not getting the recognition the deserve

I find it ironic that anti-abortionists, eco-terrorists, KKK, BLA, the Sikh Temple Shooting can be classified as domestic terrorists/terrorism, but what happened at Hood is "work-place" violence.

Did I read that right, "workplace violence?"

Who are they trying to fool?

They've been shoving the word TERROR down our
throats for over ten years, and finally they have
something substantial the actually could be considered
a terrorist attack and they choke and classify it as
workplace violence...

What's next, orange, red, and yellow Workplace Violence
Alerts?

FlyersFan
The letter sent to the White House requesting a ten minute visit is at the link. The White House says it forwarded the letter to the Department of Justice. Really? What exactly is Eric Holder going to do with it? Record the names of those not in lock step with his buddy Obama?

According to the UCMJ, questioning the orders of your superior officer is forbidden. These people are soldiers not regular civilians, they don't have the same rights and privileges that civilians have. The POTUS is the highest superior officer in all branches of the military. So handing that request over to the DOJ would make a ton of sense if Obama and co were trying to keep track of dissidents. Though reading what I just wrote and considering the implications makes me very depressed.

Yes, I'll be the one to say it. This is about money. This is not about Obama or terrorism......it's about money.

The victims and families of victims tried to get Hassan's wages turned over as "compensation" for their experiences, but the money had been donated to charity. Now they are wanting someone (Obama) to change the term used to describe the event so they can get money.

It bothers me when people use tragedy and sorrow as a tool to get more money. But I could be wrong here and will accept the fallout from that.

sheepslayer247
It bothers me when people use tragedy and sorrow as a tool to get more money.

They don't have a 'frivolous law suit' if that's what you mean. They have ongoing medical and psychological issues that the military isn't taking care of because this is labeled 'workplace violence' instead of a 'terrorist attack' like it should be.

Krazysh0t
According to the UCMJ, questioning the orders of your superior officer is forbidden.

Yep. Thing is ... Obama declaring this 'workplace violence' isn't an 'order'.
An order would be ... 'go guard that tank' or 'go shoot down that plane'.
The label of 'workplace violence' is a paper trail thing...


The injured troops politely requested 10 minutes with their Commander in Chief.
He has time for golf games and basket ball brackets on TV and visits to 'The View' ...
But he doesn't have 10 minutes to spend with injured troops who ask to see him.
That is to me.