Posted on 11/07/2009 9:40:53 AM PST by funblonde
Texas Gov. Rick Perry comments on the Ft. Hood shooting, noting that “there were three shooters”.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Sure he isn’t referring to TX and the other rampages? (the one in Florida and... wasn’t there recently another one?)
This is from the day of the shooting, and initially it was reported there were 3 shooters.
Which was what was reported most of the afternoon.
Didn’t Rick say this on the 5th - before all the facts were known ..?? Several other people said the same thing .. primarily because 2 other people were seen running away from the scene.
I don’t know if those people were ever caught up with and interviewed to try to determine if they were also involved.
Why are you posting this. Perry’s initial news briefing was issued while he didn’t have more facts. At the time the theory was that there were 3, but two of them(who were discovered shortly afterward) were released as suspects.
The date on this video is 11/5 (Thursday). A little out-dated I think.
There was ONE terrorist, Dr. Hasan.
I don’t like conspiracy theories so will not indulge now. But, yes, there were some strange aspects of Thursday’s events. For me, the biggest was Hasan being alive for many hours before they decided to tell us.
They still don’t tell us much.
Exactly right.
I know it fuels conspiracy theories but the initial reports were that there were multiple shooters.
What does muliple shooters mean? A conspiracy.
Now, if there really was multiple shooters, do you think Washington is going to admit to it in the “there’s no War on Terror” mantra they have? Of course not. Plus, everyone was told Hasan was dead so they had their Oswald and could claim there was no reason to look further.
I’m sure there is forensic work being done to determine where all the shots came from and whether there were any accomplices but whether the public gets the truth is a whole ‘nuther story.
Now, I would put no credence on what Perry says. He wasn’t there and is just parroting what he heard from initial reports. IOW, it was just gossip. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if there really were multiple shooters, I don’t trust the government to tell the public this.
Because this is older video...could the 3 refer to the Islamic maniac, the hero woman MP and one other MP or local police person? Weren’t two good guys trying to take down the one Islamic murderer?
Initial reports from any event are very rarely accurate. Happens every time and should be expected. That is why I am willing to wait an additional hour or two to get some solid, verified information.
Because this is older video...could the 3 refer to the Islamic maniac, the hero woman MP and one other MP or local police person?
Nope, not what Gov. Perry said. He said that based on current info there were ‘three shooters, one dead and two in custody’.
We now know that at that time the info being dispersed was inaccurate and often it is in early reporting of an event like this.
I’m not sure of the poster and what their purpose was in posting this 3 day old data. There are a new sign up and have made on three post, all articles with no responses on any of them.
Welcome to FR!
It is hard to believe that on a military base that has enough weaponry to kill everyone in the state of Texas that nearly everyone on base is unarmed and that they had to rely on civilians to stop the massacre.
We are at war. Shouldn't the base be crowded with armed soldiers?
Actually for most of the day we were told there were 3 shooters. Then, there was only one, and I find that interesting. Don’t you?
Actually for most of the day we were told there were 3 shooters. Then, there was only one, and I find that interesting. Don’t you?
Not really. Most events of this nature have a lot of misinformation at the beginning as is to be expected. It takes time to sort the events out and get info accurate. It’s just someone, a gov. of the state in which the event happened, talking to reporters at the capital and using very preliminary info.
What should he have said?...... I don’t know any details and we’ll have to wait for the official version?
I believe it was the base’s commander who said in a media interview that, no, they don’t go around the base armed. He said “this is our home”. He said they are armed if they are going to the range to practice, and they have the armed military police and civilian police.
haha. Kay, is that you?
I think the base commander needs to re-evaluate as to whether or not they should arm themselves while they in their home.
If only one out of 10 soldiers "in their home" was carrying a sidearm, this puke would not have gotten off more than a couple of rounds before he would have been neutralized.
Because the base was the equivalent of a gun free zone, 13 people are dead and another 3 dozen are wounded.
Heads should roll.
No. My husband was stationed at Ft. Hood. You do not carry loaded weapons. Even when he was on guard duty, his gun was not loaded.
I think there were 3 shooters. It was widely reported on the first day. I think they are covering it up because they can spin one muslim but not three.
At least someone got a response from you, the only one that you have made at FR although you have posted three articles in your three days here.
I am not familiar with military procedures, so not being armed, unless going out for practice, isn’t the norm?
That means that any terrorist attack on such a base will be largely successful.
That is a stupid policy.
I’d like to know the facts of the shooting, including those they took in custody, but I’m not holding my breath.
There was only one shooter; Hasan. I didn’t put any stock in the initial reports, because, they’re rarely accurate. Sadly, too many people hear the first reports, take them as gospel, then complain they’re being lied to, when the facts are finally made known.
They took some folks into custody, and released them, because it became clear they weren’t part of the shootings. They may have been running away, but who wasn’t?
Kay Bailey, is that you?
The commanding General at Ft Hood was quoted in our morning paper here in San Antonio yesterday saying “This is our home. We do not carry weapons.”. Confuzzles me too.
Wait. That was a civilian police officer that shot the gunman. Employed on the base. The base has a civilian police and fire department. I would imagine the mp’s carry loaded weapons.
“Gentlemen, gentlemen! You cant fight in here, this is the War Room!”
Also, when on guard duty, though his weapon was not loaded, my husband said his sgt at arms had ammunition if needed. Sorry for the mish mash of posts to you.
Exactly, that’s why I brought it up.
Normally, weapons on a military base are kept in the arms room. I could make a case for this based on the number of soldiers in my career who for some reason or other developed real psychotic breaks with reality. And I’m serious. They came to believe absolutely non-credible, fantastic things.
So, since those were the military’s weapons, and not weapons owned by individual soldiers, the military has chosen to keep their weapons under lock and key.
The one thing not needed, is for misinformation to be spread; and for crack pot conspiracy theorists to start websites saying there was some cover up of something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.