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.'
Some are getting a bit carried away arnt they?
Well, there is *one very obvious* reason for remaining anonymous. It’s the best way to *maintain a story* and never be cross-examined, by asking other questions and seeing if what you’re saying is *consistent* with what you said at first. It’s always by follow-up questions to what you hear from someone that you’re able to tell if they are truthful.
When someone avoids “follow-up” — that usually means that they are hiding something. I would say that this is an indication of hiding something — probably the fact that the “presentation” of the story *is not true*.
NOW — let me give a “presentation” of the story with the same facts — and see if this is true. I’ll assume that the facts are true (just for sake of telling this) and I’ll present it in the first person from the standpoint of that surviving student.
The gunman came into the room and shot up several students, but I was uninjured. The gunman left and then came back later, apparently to see if any of the students survived the first shooting. I remained still and quiet, pretending to be dead. But, my classmate, Waleed Shalaan, was badly injured and appeared to move and maybe beg for mercy as the gunman was ready to shoot him again. And the gunman shot him dead.
I believe I — “... would have been shot dead were it not for Waleed’s “protective movement” that distracted the gunman.” [quote from article!!!]
I thank God’s providential hand was on me, by having the gunman notice that Waleed was still alive, and thus, his struggling movements, having been wounded, saved my life.
Now, why wouldn’t that be the story? Well, for one, the press doesn’t like to give God credit in — His providence. So, that would never make it into the story.
And — SECONDLY — here’s where it gets a bit “touchy”. You see..., one would not like to admit that a “flopping fish” (like my “bear example”) saved my life — although — it was probably just *exactly* a flopping fish that saved his life.
So, he (the student) doesn’t want to sound so crass and cruel as to make out that the dying student, in his “death throes”, involuntarily flopping, caught the attention of the shooter — and the shooter finishes him off.
Nope, that kind of story has *no media pizzaz* at all.
So, let’s add a little “heroics” — essential facts are the same — and let’s call this dead Muslim a “hero” for “saving my life.” Now, that sounds a little bit more “palatable” when I present the story. It makes me feel a little bit “better” that I was saved by his “conscious” action — rather than his “involuntary death throes”. Yep, I would feel *awfully guilty* if I was saved by the jerking around of a dying person....
Dying people, all around you, does funny things to your thinking. You try to justify things that were never there in the first place...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Remember the story about the gay “hero” on Flight 93? Turns out it was all a bunch of crap. This is the same.
So a muslim twitches and this becomes a protective movement ??? Pathetic if they are going to harp this as heroism.
The article said — 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.”
When one has a totally senseless series of killings, like this guy, Cho, did — it causes people to actually “search for meaning”. And basically, people will run through things over and over in their heads, thinking it through and seeing what “meaning” they can get out of something “totally senseless”.
One of the best “meanings” that people seem to come up with is — so and so acted to save my life”. It tends to “add order” to total chaos and disorder. That’s the reason why people look for these things. They are *searching* intently for meaning.
And thus, many thing have meaning attached, where we would not *ever* give it a second thought in other more normal circumstances. In other cirucmstances we would say, “So what, that’s no big deal...” But, here, we have to find the “big deal”.
Thus, even if someone is simply — flopping around like a fish — and when people are dying, it’s not pretty and weird things happen, that people don’t like to mention, that’s when we try to *avoid* the “reality” of what actually happened — and attach a “special meaning” to it — like “he saved my life.”
in actuality, those kinds of things would be more likely to be “death throes and involuntary movement, being in great pain — rather than anything else. And furthermore, if the killer comes back in and you were shot the first time, the *most likely* scenario (knowing that you are severely wounded) is probably to *put your hand up* as a “defensive movement” — or — as a gesture of sign of begging mercy. But, no, the killer coldly looks at the guy, sees that he’s begging mercy — and just shoots him dead.
The student sees this, finds the “horror” in the situation, doesn’t necessarily like the idea of “begging for mercy” and so “attaches” a sentiment of “he saved my life.”
That’s probably more likely what happened....
Regards,
Star Traveler
Sounds plausible...
And also consider this ..if the student was guilt-ridden (which unfortunate several will have “survivors guilt”) and went to Mr Dymond, (his advisor) his touchy-feely professor could have changed the “involuntary death throes” into a “conscious” action” to make the student feel better about himself, etc...
Then Mr Dymond took the new version to the Mom to make her “feel better” about her son’s death....
They’re getting easier to spot.
Two days ago you were demanding we believe that the students were too young to think for themselves....
Link, please.
Not sure if “ethnic Jew” is a precise or commonly used term.. As I said it, I meant people whose mothers are Jewish. (Most of those that I know aren’t very observant.. not that I’m very religious either).
I believe this is the thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819619/posts
Although you may have not been involved, several here felt that the students were all helpless kittens and too young to have a concious though for survival.
speaking from my own experience at not much older and wiser I ventured to diagreee.....
My personal story is not included in the thread for several reasons, one being that there were differences and another being that I would have been ridiculed by some here as I was in the military at the time...
[...You have absolutely no evidence to support your claim...]
My assertions and opinions about this “story” are as
good as anyone elses because there IS NO EVIDENCE.
“While our information level could change, right now we don’t know 1) whether Anonymous actually exists and has clear and accurate memory, 2) if he does exist but was too emotionally traumatized or guilt ridden to accurately evaluate what happened, or 3) if he does exist but is putting out propaganda. “
So, now since you are speculating that “A” dosen’t exist and Randy Dymond is lying, how do we know Dymond is trustworthy about such matters ? Has anyone done a background check on him ?
But you SAID I was; you said it definitvely.
You're a liar.
Oh I’m sorry I just realized that the thread you wanted to read was THIS one....
Because a bear goes after a flopping fish instead of after
me, doesn’t mean the fish was flopping to save my life.
Definitely “bears” repeating.
“Perhaps everybody not quite as interested in the salacious details as you seem to be.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
And this is a unfounded accusation to me by what kind of person?
I don’t know a thing about Randy Dymond. If you or someone else does a background check on him, please ping me to the post. Thanks.
You gave this reference to this web site — “The Muslim Student Association of Virginia Tech”
I went there and read what the *information* was regarding this incident. And then, I followed up two links they had on that Muslim site, taking you over to the New York Times and Fox News.
Now, the *first interesting thing* I saw was that if this Muslim site and this professor was the sole source of the news about this incident (the student having passed on the information to him) — then *why* does Fox News and the New York Times have *more information* than he does? That doesn’t make sense, unless someone is giving them a “backdoor” interview that no one else can have (in other words, the public really can’t *examine* this — but it’s only a “made up statement”).
Secondly, I looked at the New York Times recounting of it and I see exactly where this story is *absolutely false*. It’s false by pure common sense.
First — let’s look at this one paragraph from the New York Times —
“Mr. Shaalan was badly wounded and lay beside the other student, who was not shot but played dead, as the gunman returned two times searching for signs of life. Just as the gunman noticed the student, Mr. Shaalan made a move to distract him, at which point he was shot a second time and died. The student believed that Mr. Shaalan purposefully distracted the shooter to save him, Mr. Dymond said.”
Now, get that picture, the student is playing dead. Is the student looking into the eyes of the shooter? Nope. He’s playing dead. How does the student know that the shooter is going for him? Well, by sound, maybe. But, that student is right next to the wounded student. Is the shooter going for the uninjured one, or the injured one? How can you tell?
Perhaps the student is laying down with his hand and arm over his head, but can see under it, to the floor and sees the feet of the shooter. That’s possible. But, does that tell you where the gun is pointed? Does that tell you where he is looking. Mind you..., if you’re playing dead. You’re basically *not* looking at the shooter — for sure — or you’re going to give away that you’re not dead. And if you were playing dead, you definitely would not want to have your eyes open — just in case the shooter might see it. You’re going to have your eyes shut, if you can.
So, the student is *definitely* not looking around, being that the shooter came back into the room twice, looking for people to “finish off”. Nope. You don’t want to be seen “as alive” or you know you’re going to be dead — in a hurry.
Therefore, how does that unijured student even know that the other “injured student” made a motion to save him? How does he know he even made a motion. Well, if he’s right next to him, perhaps he felt him move. If he’s not, perhaps he heard the movement of his clothing as he did so. Maybe he even heard him utter a word.
But, here’s what we’re *told to believe* — regardless of common sense. We’re told to believe that *first* the shooter was going for the uninjured student — and then — then Waleed made a movement to put attention on him and not on the uninjured student. Well, I’d like to know how he knew that. Was he sitting up looking around??!!
But, let’s say that Waleed did make a movement. So, the shooter is going for the “uninjured student” and all of a sudden “Waleed moves” — he turns and shoots Waleed.
NOW, let’s say you’re the shooter — and here’s the *clincher*. You are trying to *finish off* every last single person (that’s why you came back in twice). If someone is alive, you’re going to shoot them. And you notice a student looks alive — you go for him. BUT, Waleed intervenes. You shoot Waleed.
Then do you turn around and go out. NOPE!! Not at all, you turn *back* to the guy you were going after in the first place, right next door to Waleed. And you shoot him to make sure he’s dead — just like you were doing just before Waleed moved.
SO, just by knowing that — you *know* the recounting of the story is *totally wrong*.
The shooter was *not* going for the injured student. He was going for Waleed, because he saw Waleed was not dead yet. So, he makes his move and Waleed knows he’s had it. So, Waleed either puts his hand up in a defensive move, or he’s begging for mercy. The shooter kills him. Then the shooter turns around and goes out.
He goes out — because — he was *never* after the uninjured student in the first place. He was “playing dead” pretty good, you see...
That’s the story — according to people who *use their brain* and don’t believe the drivel of the mass media.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Thanks for hitting abuse EveningStar. There’s
been a lot of unnecessary name calling on this thread.
Are you crazy?
You sound unhinged.
We’ve established you’re not a credible poster.
Now go away.
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.