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.'
I'd be surprised if Waleed was waving to A to quiet him because such a wave might have actually caused the killer to look to see what Waleed was waving at.
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 ?
Known facts: Waleed wounded, killer returns to room. Reasonable (IMO) assumptions: 1) Waleed was down and, if conscious, trying to appear dead in front of killer. 2) If Waleed was not unconscious or playing dead, killer would have shot him right away and thus no connection to anybody else in the room.
Now, if Waleed is lying on the floor unconscious or feigning death (probably the smartest move in that situation) to escape killer's attention, how does he monitor A's situation to even know if A is in danger of exposing himself to killer?
So my take on what doesn't hold up is "protective movement". With the killer right there and not blocked from shooting anyone in the room, Waleed wasn't able to buy time for anyone to get away.
If Waleed was doing it to draw the killer's attention away from A, he'd have to be giving up his life to distract the killer for only seconds. If the killer had already realized A was alive, he'd have shot him too.
If you're already wounded, almost certainly in shock, and playing dead well enough to fool the killer, you're probably not in a position to analyze the situation or act strategically.
Maybe if you're SF or something, you can control the shock and pain and peek through your eyelashes enough to see who needs to be saved... Possible yes. Likely for an untrained student? I don't think so. I could be wrong.
Mimaw, almost anything is possible. My question is what's likely vs. what requires radical stretching.
I think it's likely that A, if he exists and isn't just trying to produce propaganda, saw movement and got control of himself enough to play dead in time and is now suffering from generalized survivors' guilt (unjustified usually) or a more realistic sense of gratitude whether to a hero or a fortunate accident in timing.
He could even, wrongly IMO, feel a more specific guilt that a single, real person got fatally shot because of a movement that saved himself.
I totally understand Waleed's mother seizing onto the idea of her son's heroism both because of loving him and also wanting his senseless death NOT to have been in vain. And, if any of this story is true, it wasn't in vain if someone lived because of it whether he meant to save someone else or not.
I have other questions on this situation.
However, when Cho later returned to the classroom to inspect for signs of life among his victims, ...
How long was "later"? Were Waleed and Anonymous the only people left alive in the room when the killer left? Apparently Waleed was in no condition to try to escape. Did A or any other survivors try to get out of there?
It wouldn't be smart to bolt out the door right after the killer, and a person might figure the safest place was where he had already struck and left, but time was not working in Waleed's favor or any other wounded but not yet dead victim. As time passed, did anybody try to make a break for it to get away or to get help to rescue the wounded before they joined the dead?
If staying in the room, did anybody left alive try to help Waleed or any other wounded who might not have been dead yet? If they didn't, might they feel some guilt over that and want to do something to compensate? IMO both possible and likely.
Well put.
Thx.
We didn't go into Iraq to "liberate Iraqis from tyranny"; we went in because we deemed Saddam's regime to be a threat to our national security. Period.
That's a fundamentally self defeating way to think. "Those" people are not homogenous. For every Eyptian terrorist there are at least as many Nassers, people who gave their lives for peace. .... In fact that's exactly what terrorists want is to play Americans and the Arab street off against each other. By grouping all Egyptians together you actually *help* the terrorists.
I agree with what you said, ketsu, but you got warmongering Gamal Nasser mixed up with Anwar Sadat. ;-)
Gee I don’t know - maybe the vagueness of the action. The lack of attribution. Anonymous is less than useless.
In other words, more proof than you have that it isn’t a sham.
Neither did your side - or has someone actually come forward now and gone on the record, newbie.
The president has said many times that this was part of our mission. And the votes by liberated Iraqis - the purple fingers of voters -- have been widely celebrated (by President Bush and many others) as testament to America's liberating mission in Iraq. And those voters happen to be Muslims.
If this person did something to save another, than he is a hero.
My question is, why does the headline identify him as “Muslim”? “Muslim is not used in the headline when acts of terror are committed here and abroad.
Also, would the headline have been “Christian student gives life to save others”? Why is this person being identified by his religion?
I do not believe they used the word “Jew” to describe the professor who was a hero. Holocaust surivivor, but they didn’t say “Jewish hero”.
“In other words, more proof than you have that it isn’t a sham.”
Good PR, though, huh? /s
[... What facts and evidence”...]
I’ll quote Dr. Z to answer your question,
then I am wiping your dust from my feet.
POST #180
Past experience combined with a strong mistrust of the media - without corroborating proof from other sources - leads me to this conclusion:
Mohammedans DO NOT have a stellar track record of
humanitarianism, so I have a very healthy skepticism
where mohammedanism and selflessness are alleged.
The two are almost mutually exclusive.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. I don't recall any headlines that say "Christian" or "Jewish" hero in them.
Yeah, I know. And he's also publicly called Islam "a religion of love and peace" dozens of times. You believe that BS as well?
What is your final solution for the race? I’m sure you have one.
Not just Bush, but many conservatives and many freepers have said we went to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis. My only point is that some of these same folks then turn around and talk as if we’re supposed to hate anyone and everyone who’s a Muslim. That’s a massive contradiction, since the Iraqis we’ve liberated - and who these folks professed to care about - are Muslims.
[...why does the headline identify him as “Muslim”? “Muslim is not used in the headline when acts of terror are committed here and abroad.
Also, would the headline have been “Christian student gives life to save others”? Why is this person being identified by his religion?
I do not believe they used the word “Jew” to describe the professor who was a hero. Holocaust surivivor, but they didn’t say “Jewish hero”...]
*******************
BRILLIANT POINTS.
Me too.
Thank you. (bowing)
Islam isn’t a “race.” There are Arab Muslims, white Muslims, black Muslims, Asian Muslims, etc.
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.