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.'
“You asked — “This is written where ?”
In human behavior. All you have to do is read Free Republic and you know that...
LOLRMAO If you think that FR is typical of human behavior you need to get out a lot more, my FRiend.
“And it’s clear that this story does not hold water ...”
Nope - looks perfectly clear to me ... I respect “A” and would consider doing the same thing in the same circumstances - it was between me and the family and the hell with what anyone else thinks. Someone tossed it out to the media ... not my problem.
You said — “So we are left to wonder just why you feel so strongly about this to go to such great length to try to prove his belief wrong. Does his belief threaten you in some way ?”
Very simply — the facts don’t match up with the purported story. It’s just like all the other FReepers here, who smell a stinking fish story (and he ain’t flopping....). Where there’s stink...., it’s usually sh*t. This story goes in the trash bin...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “If you think that FR is typical of human behavior you need to get out a lot more, my FRiend.”
Well, the last time I heard, Free Republic consisted of those same “humans”. Besides, from where I mix in the world (right now in Texas and Oklahoma), they’re pretty much the same. They smell something stinking — and they know there’s a “pile” somewhere...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “Nope - looks perfectly clear to me ... I respect “A” and would consider doing the same thing in the same circumstances - it was between me and the family and the hell with what anyone else thinks. Someone tossed it out to the media ... not my problem.”
Lots of stuff gets tossed out to the media. Not all of it is true and certainly not all is verifiable and reliable. Thus, just like people on Free Republic do, people do elsewhere too — when it’s not verifiable or reliable — it’s just a fairy tale to be dismissed.
And that’s what it appears that many of the FReepers here have done too — dismiss it as a fairy tale.... another product of the unreliable and untrustworthy MSM...
Regards,
Star Traveler
You may want to update your page ... unless you don’t mix well with the people in Oregon .. so much for typical :-)
As far as the “pile” goes .. you sure have created one big one attempting to refute a simple set of actions reported by ( and you seem to believe ) an unwilling participant in the events.
“And that’s what it appears that many of the FReepers here have done too “
So .... have you resorted to polls ?
and just what it is they do not believe ? - YOU seem to believe that “A” exists and that his story is reported with a physical accuracy which puts you at odds with many of the others on this thread.
You said — “You may want to update your page ... unless you don’t mix well with the people in Oregon .. so much for typical :-)”
Been in Texas and Oklahoma for a little while and headed back to Oregon in the near future..., then back to Texas and Oklahoma (just back and forth...).
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “So .... have you resorted to polls ?”
I can read their comments. They seem pretty clear to me.
.
And then — “and just what it is they do not believe ? - YOU seem to believe that “A” exists and that his story is reported with a physical accuracy which puts you at odds with many of the others on this thread.”
Are you asking for me to read you a bedtime story... my goodness, just read the posts. I’m not the only one commenting here. You want me to tell you my discussion and *everyone else’s* discussion, too. Can’t you read it?
.
In terms of “physical accuacy” — I started these comments and have said in several places throughout — that I am discussing this assuming it is as is stated for the facts. It’s only an assumption, for purposes of discussion.
And it very well can turn out to be a total fabrication. But, if it were a total fabrication, then there wouldn’t be anything to discuss. So, when you’re discussing it, you’re conditionally accepting certain things. And in the process of doing that, you can test for consistency and if things hold up. As we’ve seen, many FReepers here don’t think it holds up. Likewise, I don’t think it holds up and I’ve given the facts and then also the statement that the uninjured student only has a “belief” — and with that — I see that Waleed was simply a “flopping fish” — nothing more.
Regards,
Star Traveler
But talk to me about this “fairy tale” ... since some seem to think that “A” dosen’t exist at all, others seem to think he is lieing, others seem to think that he was simply mistaken as to to the “protective movement” ( like yourself - although your posts bounce around quite a bit ) it would seem to be that those who DON’T accept it as written are believing their own particular fairy tale.
“. Likewise, I don’t think it holds up “
You seem to think it ALL holds up - unless you think that “A” dosen’t believe that the motions were premeditated actions by Waleed, and I don’t see how you could support that.
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.
Uh...what's a "protective movement?"
You said — “But talk to me about this “fairy tale” ... since some seem to think that “A” dosen’t exist at all, others seem to think he is lieing, others seem to think that he was simply mistaken as to to the “protective movement” ( like yourself - although your posts bounce around quite a bit ) it would seem to be that those who DON’T accept it as written are believing their own particular fairy tale.”
Well, you know..., if you’ve got a question for those other FReepers, that’s what the board is for. Just write away to them. I’m sure you’ll get a response...
And all the while, I’ve written back, too. You’re not lacking the information here, that’s for sure.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You asked — Uh...what’s a “protective movement?”
It’s something akin to a “flopping fish”.... a sort of wishful thinking on the part of the student who was cowering on the floor playing dead, while the guy next to him was shot dead.
I was just telling someone that if a bear is coming across the river towards me (obviously with food on his mind) and then that bear sees a flopping fish — I ceertainly could look at that fish as benevolently giving up his life in a “protective movement”.
Or maybe, I just might think he was simply a “flopping fish” doing what they do, and I just lucked out...
This guy Waleed was simply a flopping fish, perhaps injured and involuntarily moving, so that the shooter came in and saw he was still alive and simply finished him off. And when that was going on, the uninjured student next to him was playing dead — obviously very convincingly. And that “playing dead” is what saved his life.
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — Oh, take a look at post #338...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821116/posts?page=338#338
You said — “You seem to think it ALL holds up - unless you think that “A” dosen’t believe that the motions were premeditated actions by Waleed, and I don’t see how you could support that.”
I only assume, for the sake of discussion that you accept the facts as given. And that’s a good place to start from. At that point, you can see if any of the facts of the case contradict one another. If they don’t, you can continue with the assumption that the facts are sufficient for that discussion.
Then, you can examine the “beliefs” of the person to see if the “beliefs” match up with the given facts. And since the uninjured student has made clear that he only “believes” that Waleed acted in some manner to save him — we can look at the facts to see if that holds water. Well, that’s where we can see that the facts don’t match with the “beliefs” of the uninjured student.
And since he admits that it is simply a “belief” of his, we can allow him to assuage his guilt feelings by “believing” that there is some “meaning” to him surviving, while he played dead — by thinking incorrectly that Waleed actually meant to save him, instead of simply flopping around.
What we find out from the facts is that the gunman came into the room looking for any signs of life — two different time (i.e., returning two different times). And we know as an accepted fact (again for sake of discussion) that the uninjured student was playing dead.
And then we also hear that there was some sort of “movement” from Waleed. And since we know that the gunman will kill anyone that shows signs of life (as we have been told) and since the gunman can see two bodies laying next to each other, and since Waleed’s body moved, and since we accept the fact that the uninjured student’s body didn’t move — we understand that the gunman killed the moving body and didn’t shoot the non-moving body — perfectly fitting our facts.
If the gunman was coming to kill the uninjured student, as it is implied — but — Waleed distracted him (that’s the “idea” given by the student) — then we see that this is a wrong “belief”. We see it’s wrong because if the gunman is coming for the uninjured student — then he gets distracted by the “movement” (supposedly done on purpose, you see for the purpose of distracting) — then the gunman simply goes bang! to Waleed and then immediately returns towards his original purpose before being distracted by Waleed and goes bang! bang! bang! (three shots) to the previously uninjured student — but now dead student.
However, if the gunman was *not* originally going for the uninjured student, there as nothing to be “distracting” him for. And if Waleed did “move” he did nothing more than simply flop like a fish.
And in that event — if the gunman was not originally going for the uninjured student (thus not requiring Waleed to “move”) — that means that the uninjured student was indeed *effective* in fooling the gunman into thinking he was dead.
In that case, we *commend* the student for playing dead so effectively that the gunman never had any intention of killing him “again” (thinking he was dead already).
But, if the gunman thought this was a “ruse” he would have shot Waleed and then immediately shot three time into the “now dead” student.
So, it turns out that if the student is alive — he acted “dead” very well.
But, if he didn’t act “dead” well enough— the was going to be dead for sure.
That means, either way, Waleed was nothing more than a dead flopping fish, supplying nothing to the uninjured student...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I agree with your take on it. If they cared, they’d do something about ‘bad’ Muslims. That they don’t makes them all look bad.
Good Morning DOPC,
Thank you for your reference to post # 344.
My suggested advice to you is to wake up, smell the coffee and recognize our enemy.
Consider the following; invite some mooselem(s) to your home, feed them, drink with them and have dessert with them. Later on, maybe they will slit your throat last, as a good gesture to their (allah).
Your logic reminds me of the (Stockholm Syndrome) when it comes to the real enemies of America.
Please accept my post as it is (constructive-educational-realistic-food-for-thought)
Some with institutionalized P.C. progressive indoctination often, “fail to see the islamic demons until they come calling.”
Respectfully,
NSNR
[...what’s a “protective movement”?...]
I called it a “stir”. #172
However, if Waleed actually made a “protective” movement,
wouldn’t CHO want to know the ALIVE person Waleed was
trying to protect?
******************************
THREAD NOTES TO JO:
Post #177 - No Comparison
Post #194 - Bravery
Post #212 - Facts & Evidence (#180)
Post #217 - Why mention his religion? (#210)
Post #223 - Final Solution
Post #254 - America Loves People (#247)
Post #258 - Patriotic Muslim-Americans
Post #225 - Flopping Fish (#287)
Post #346 - CHO LEFT THE ROOM
Post #361 - Katrina Syndrome
Post #317 - NEBUCHADNEZZAR SYNDROME
Post #425 - Playing Dead (#338 & #391)
Post #448 - One Word Changes The Meaning
Post #465 - Synthetic Connection to Waleed
See Post #258.
And Good morning sunshine!!!
Wakee! Wakee!
Here’s an example of someone synthetically inserting themselves into an event. (Post #465)
“Oregon Student Lied About VTech Ties ... “ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821231/posts
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.