Sen. Lindsey Graham added his voice Tuesday to those calling for the Department of Defense to formally classify the Fort Hood shooting as terrorism, saying that classifying it "workplace violence" is "not fair" to the victims or their families.

The Republican senator was responding to a push by victims for the U.S. government to change its description of the rampage that left 13 dead. Such a change would make those who sustained injuries eligible for certain benefits and awards, like the Purple Heart.

A group called the Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes recently released a 14-minute Web video making their case -- those behind the video called on viewers to engage Congress in pressuring the Obama administration.

"Based upon what we already know, this episode fits squarely into the realm of an act of terrorism," Graham said in a written statement Tuesday. "I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate to challenge this characterization by the Pentagon and push for an accurate description of the tragic incident that took place at Fort Hood. It was terrorism and it should be described that way.

"The difference in characterization between workplace violence and an act of terrorism is meaningful, in a variety of ways, to the victims and their families," he said.

The Defense Department so far has resisted the push to designate it as terrorism, apparently reluctant to make any changes while suspect Nidal Hasan faces court martial.

"The Department of Defense is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of (Hasan) and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident that occurred at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, 2009," Pentagon spokesman George Little said. "Major Hassan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder. As with all pending (court martial) matters, the accused is innocent until proven guilty."

Little went on to say that "survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as any service member. The Department of Defense is committed to the highest care of those in our military family."

But survivor Kimberly Munley, a former federal police officer who was shot three times at Fort Hood and who appeared in the latest Web video, said that's not true. She said her group has heard "nothing" in response to its appeals.

"It's hard to fathom the fact that these are considered lone wolves or the act of workplace violence," she told Fox News.

The reference to "workplace violence" refers to an earlier Defense Department letter that depicted the 2009 shooting that way.

Those who claim it should be classified as terrorism point to the repeated contact Hasan had with radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was later killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen.

In the Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes video, one of those injured in the attack said fellow victims "were fighting a domestic enemy" who wanted to prevent soldiers from deploying. "If that's not an act of war or an act of terrorism, then I don't know what is," he said.

 Jihadin wrote:
Pentagon not going to do it. If they declare it was a terroist attack on the home soil then they need to acknowledge it was AQ that influence the attack.. Which would not be good. This is a slippery slope to be screwing with.

 Jihadin wrote:
The Republican senator was responding to a push by victims for the U.S. government to change its description of the rampage that left 13 dead. Such a change would make those who sustained injuries eligible for certain benefits and awards, like the Purple Heart.

a. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.

(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.

(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.

(5) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.

(6) After 28 March 1973, as a result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of the Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed Services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack.

(7) After 28 March 1973, as a result of military operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part of a peacekeeping force.

b. While clearly an individual decoration, the Purple Heart differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not "recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.

(1) A Purple Heart is authorized for the first wound suffered under conditions indicated above, but for each subsequent award an Oak Leaf Cluster will be awarded to be worn on the medal or ribbon. Not more than one award will be made for more than one wound or injury received at the same instant or from the same missile, force, explosion, or agent.

(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above. A physical lesion is not required, however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.

(3) When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.

(4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action.

(b) Injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap.

(c) Injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agent.

(d) Injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire.

(e) Concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ideology is a valid motive for terrorism.

 Testify wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ideology is a valid motive for terrorism.

I just think that by elevating the actions of individual lunatics to that of "terrorism" you are justifying them with more power than they are worth.

I could go out in the street and attack people with a claw hammer (or gun if I was american) and my political beliefs, no matter how obscure and weird they were, would instantly be venerated by the media and broadcast worldwide.

For example, this dude has probably (cba looking up the actual stats) killed more people than the IRA in the past 10 years. Does that mean that whatever he was banging on about is a bigger issue than Irish nationalism?

 Testify wrote:
Muslim extremism is a classic example of this. There are so few Islamic extremists in the world it's laughable.

But if an individual dill weed does something stupid, obviously that makes it a huge issue

 Jihadin wrote:
Yes there are still AQ operating in Afghanistan.

 Mannahnin wrote:
AQ and the Taliban aren't the same thing, though. And as big of bastards as the Taliban are, fighting an invader isn't the same thing as what we usually define as terrorism.

Of course, many of them do commit terrorist acts too.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

We're talking about muslim extremism right now though. which regularly inspires acts of terror, and did inspire Major Fethhead in his attack on his fellow soldiers. The Taliban certainly does count towards the Extremist category.

 dogma wrote:
Right, so "Muslim extremist" is a convenient label rather than something that's meant to be descriptive.

It's a bit gak that serving soldiers who are wounded will receive reduced care if it was workplace violence rather than terrorism

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Yes there are still AQ operating in Afghanistan.

You may have also heard of a small time group called the Taliban...

 dogma wrote:
Right, so "Muslim extremist" is a convenient label rather than something that's meant to be descriptive.

 Testify wrote:

The Taliban are Islamic extremists the way that the IRA are Catholic extremists, i.e. they're not.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Testify wrote:

The Taliban are Islamic extremists the way that the IRA are Catholic extremists, i.e. they're not.

So shooting little girls for going to school, banning music, forcing all males to grow beards, forcing all women to completely cover themselves in public, and the countless other tings that they've done in the "Prophets name", doesn't count as Islamic extremism to you?

 Testify wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Yes there are still AQ operating in Afghanistan.

You may have also heard of a small time group called the Taliban...

The Taliban are Islamic extremists the way that the IRA are Catholic extremists, i.e. they're not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Right, so "Muslim extremist" is a convenient label rather than something that's meant to be descriptive.

Yes. A handful of guys in 2001 got very, very lucky and managed to hijak a passanger plane. Since then we've been fed all sorts of crap by the media, who don't know or understand what they're trying to report.

 LordofHats wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Testify wrote:

The Taliban are Islamic extremists the way that the IRA are Catholic extremists, i.e. they're not.

So shooting little girls for going to school, banning music, forcing all males to grow beards, forcing all women to completely cover themselves in public, and the countless other tings that they've done in the "Prophets name", doesn't count as Islamic extremism to you?

It is but there's also another level to it that needs to be understood. A lot of these behaviors stem more from cultural traditions native to the region than they do the religious doctrines of Islam. Like many cultures in a similar stage of development, religion becomes a world defining construct for people and things get interpreted through the religious lens, regardless of their original source.

Now that we have that out of the way, yes it is Islamic extremism. Just be sure not to forget its not that simple