Workplace Violence or Terrorism

  • Uncategorized

WorkplaceViolence or Terrorism

WorkplaceViolence or Terrorism

Workplaceviolence comprises acts or threats of physical aggression,intimidation, harassment and any other form of disruptive behaviorthat occurs in various occupations. Whether verbal abuse, physicalassault or homicide, it may affect employees, customers, clients andvisitors. Terrorism, on the other hand, involves the use ofdeliberately unsystematic acts of violence to achieve ideological,religious or political aims. Acts of terrorism take place in an arrayof locations ranging from office buildings, eateries, hotels, trainstations and airplanes among others (Johnson, 2016).

Controversyhas risen in regards to the Texas Fort Hood Army base that saw MajorNidal Malik Hasan, U.S. Army, kill thirteen Americans in a massshooting. Owing to the fact that he was a soldier who committed theviolence at his place of work, is this considered an act of terrorismact or workplace violence? In line with the motives behind theshootings, Fort Hood incident is an act of terrorism, and not an actof workplace violence.

Priorto November 5, 2009, the material day of the shootings, there was aconstant flow of communication between Major Hassan and Anwaral-Awlaki, an American-born radical cleric. The individual has beendescribed as a leader of the Al Qaeda’s external operations.Besides, the authorities were able to establish that the motivationbehind the shootings was killing as many soldiers as he could. Thiswould be his way of waging jihad against the American army. Jihad,being an Islamic war, means that the shootings were religiously andideologically motivated. To further prove this, Major Hassanjustified his actions before a health panel by stating that the deadsoldiers were all going against to the Islamic Empire (Martinez,2015).

Hassan`schants further augment the ideological and religious motivations ofthe shootings at the time of the shooting. Similar to many otherIslamic related terrorist attacks, witnesses told authorities that atthe time of the attack, they heard him shout “Allahu Akbar”before indiscriminately opening fire at the Fort Hood SoldierReadiness Center. This clearly depicts the force behind the attack.

Inconclusion, the attack Fort Hood attack cannot be categorized asworkplace violence considering that motive of the aggressor was tokill as many soldiers as possible. Also, the communication with aradical cleric exhibited that his intention lay beyond the confinesof the facility. The government, therefore, erred in terming theordeal as a form of workplace violence.


Johnson,D. (2016). Planning for the worst: Terrorism and workplace violence.TheClaims Journal.

Martinez,L. (2015). ArmyRules that Fort Hood Shooting victims will receive the Purple Heart.Retrieved10thOctober 2016 from

Close Menu