Posted on 04/20/2007 11:58:21 PM PDT by the scotsman
A survivor of the Virginia Tech massacre has been describing how a colleague died to protect others. Although badly injured, graduate student Waleed Shalaan distracted gunman Cho Seung-Hui to save another person from his bullets.
Waleed saved another student's life.The surviving student, who wishes to remain anonymous, told of Waleed's heroics through an email to his supervisor.
He describes how he was left uninjured after Cho's initial round of shots.
Meanwhile, Waleed had been wounded but was still alive.
However, when Cho later returned to the classroom to inspect for signs of life among his victims, the surviving student struggled to remain calm.
He believes he would have been shot dead were it not for Waleed's "protective movement" that distracted the gunman.
Cho turned and shot Waleed for a second time, killing him, before leaving the classroom.
Randy Dymond, a civil engineering professor, has said the student asked to him to tell the tale "so that the family of Waleed understands the sacrifice."
Shaalan's mother broke down when she heard Mr Dymond's account.
"He was trying to save someone else," she said repeatedly.
Dymond said Shaalan's body was taken to a Blacksburg mosque so classmates, teachers and friends could say goodbye before he was sent to Egypt for burial.'
Why remain anonymous? Because it didn’t happen. MHO
I just can't get over the fact that 60+ people allowed themselves to be shot. I can understand the first 5 or 6 but 60+! That I don't understand.
Sadly I am having a hard time seeing how this poor Muslim victim, peace be with him, did anything heroic. I am hopeful I can be enlightened.
Doubt if Waleed made an intentional move but the survivor is probably suffering from some sort of guilt complex.
Very skeptical.
“Protective movement” - what is that? In whose opinion was it a ‘protective’ movement. Even if such a movement was made - it is as likely to be involuntary or reflexive as it was deliberate.
Remains anonymous - why? Is he/she a muslim with an axe to grind?
As long as one remains anonymous this falls into the category of “sources reveal” “many think” etc. This is a worthless waste of a thread, newsprint etc. And it cheapens the real heroics that took place that day.
I could say I personally saw at least 3 muslim students step in front of infidels and take the bullets meant for the infidels. And people like you eager to believe that western civilization is NOT in a battle for survival would swarm out with the warm and fuzzies.
IOW Anonymous probably got his story wrong because that story doesn't hold up, but we should still accept it as he presents it, except with enough corrections to make it a little more believable.
Is Anonymous a trustworthy source or not? Is it possible that what took place was different from his rendition?
Sadly, you are most probably correct.
You had better think again...
BRAVO!!!
Why remain anonymous? Because it didn’t happen. MHO
“Anonymous probably got his story wrong because that story doesn’t hold up”
Curious ... since the entire story appears to be -
“He believes he would have been shot dead were it not for Waleed’s “protective movement” that distracted the gunman.”
Just what part of that dosen’t hold up ?
Waleed “stirred” and anonymous interprets that as a “protective movement”.
Anonymous should be thanking God that Cho was alerted to Waleed by a providential movement.
This is nothing but a weak attempt to discount Lubresca’s true heroism.
What is "cold", is the inability to recognize a long toothed enemy practicing a "religion" which calls for your death.
Recognize, that in NO Islamic nation are non-Muslims granted many of the "rights" which we freely grant ALL Muslims in our nation...
For each Musliml who is reputed to have done an unselfish or "good deed", you must know there are thousands here working toward and looking forward to the day they can enslave or destroy you, your family and your children..
THAT is the reality of Islam.......THAT is COLD!
Semper Fi
How does this story in any way discount Lubresca’s heroism?
You RRRRRRROCK!!!
“For every Eyptian terrorist there are at least as many Nassers, people who gave their lives for peace.”
Huh?
Nasser didn’t give his life for anything.
And he spent most of his career cozying up to the Soviets.
It doesn’t discount Lubresca’s heroism. I said it was
an attempt to discount it. The two cannot be compared.
With purpose, intent and results, Lubresca’s actions
saved the lives of many.
By unverified accident Waleed (may) have unintentionally
saved a life.
[...This is nothing but a weak attempt to discount Lubresca’s true heroism.
That makes more sense than anything else said so far...]
Thank you. This story is a sad waste of ink.
Since we don’t know who the story came from how do you reach that conclusion?
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.