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.'
“Well, that’s where we can see that the facts don’t match with the “beliefs” of the uninjured student.”
There is NO support for your idea that “A” has any guilt feeling to assuage.
There is NO support for your idea that Waleed was simply a flopping fish.
There is NO support for your idea that the shooter was “coming for” the uninjured student, since he did not know if anyone was uninjured.
There is NO support for your idea that “A” would have remained in “play dead mode” well enough to fool the shooter if Waleed did not make a protective movement.
All of these are simply your created suppositions.
“Well then your reading comprehension skills are seriously wanting. Here’s a hint: Read the first sentence of my post #269 over again. .....and then again, just to be sure.”
I took your advice and I re-read your post #269.
I stand by my statement and I’m relieved to find that my reading comprehension skills are just fine.
“However, if Waleed actually made a “protective” movement,
wouldn’t CHO want to know the ALIVE person Waleed was
trying to protect?”
To another victim lying on the floor the movement might look like “stay down”, while to someone further away, upright and moving, that same motion could simply appear to be Waleed trying to get up.
Since reality and the eyewitness to the events agree why contradict them ?
You said: "I couldn’t help but notice that you failed to address why we are currently spending billions to rebuild Iraq."
I then asked you to then re-read the first sentence of my post #269 for your answer, which stated "Our main goal is (and always has been) to stabilize the region in the interest of national security."
In other words, we're spending billions to rebuild Iraq because doing so helps stabilize the region, and stabilizing the region is in the best interests of our national security. Understand, so do you need your hand held yet again?
Do you know the dead student’s status when it comes to faith? Do you have facts that prove this student was a Muslim by birth... but that he was he had become a born again Christian in his heart? When did you have the opportunity to converse with him about the Gospel? Did you pray with him, asking Jesus to seal his salvation?
Unless you have done the above, you have NO PROOF that he has been damned to hell.
Much like I have NO PROOF that you are a Christian.
May God remind you of what the judgement of the Pharisees did to Christ.
Why contradict them?
1) Because the only undeniable reality is that Waleed is dead.
2) Waleed & Cho are dead, so there is no corroborating witness.
3) At this point, ANY story can be inserted without challenge.
I admire your persistance. What I have learned and seen a great example of in this thread is that there is no rational argument against an irrational statement. All of this conjecture, which contradicts the witnesses story, is irrational. None of these people were there. They don’t know Waleed, and they have no additional information to support their crazy theories. What they do have is an intense dislike for anyone who is a Muslim, and an inability to understand that all Muslims are not bad.
Their statements are irrational, so I just gave up. I don’t know why it is impossible for them to conceed that all Muslims are not bad, and that even bad people do good things once in a while. But allowing for the possibility that Waleed actually did something that might have saved someone’s life is impossible for them to admit. I find it scary that they are mostly representing themselves as Christian. I for one, am glad that Waleed’s mother will have this to hang on to. Maybe knowing that her son died while trying to save someone else will make this a little less painful. I can’t imagine the sadness these parents feel.
That’s interesting and not at all far-fetched, I’d say. Like you, I know the ‘detached’ feeling I had when JFK was assasinated.
Wakee, wakee yera$$. I was up at 5:30, thankee very much! ;p Of course, I went back to bed until 9:00 something...
There’s a guy in the Kill Bill [2?] movies who says that phrase, gives it a whole new meaning!
You said — “There is NO support for your idea that “A” has any guilt feeling to assuage.”
Callling all counselors...., you’re not needed; go home...
.
And — “There is NO support for your idea that Waleed was simply a flopping fish.”
He moved; sounds like a flop...
.
And then — “There is NO support for your idea that the shooter was “coming for” the uninjured student, since he did not know if anyone was uninjured.”
Good point; then there was no one to “save” by flopping (uhhh... “moving”)...
.
Finally — “There is NO support for your idea that “A” would have remained in “play dead mode” well enough to fool the shooter if Waleed did not make a protective movement.”
You flop; you’r dead. You play dead; you’re alive. The student is alive to talk about it.... That pretty much says it all.
Regards,
Star Traveler
5:30???
Never saw Kill Bill. It’s part of my boycott of Hollywood.
Oh, but Daryl Hanna is a ‘good’ libbie. Drives a veggie oil-powered El Camino. For that matter, who am I kidding? I bought a Hybrid and I may be tired of the war but my support will not be budged!
“Discretion is the better part of valor.” [?]
My boycott of Hollywood includes Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.
The last one hurts because I love the movie “Bull Durham.”
One major difference between Christianity and Islam (not a religion IMO) is that Muslims are commanded in their “holy book” to lie....in order to undermine their perceived enemy. Lying to the “infidel” is ingrained at an early age.
You said — “Since reality and the eyewitness to the events agree why contradict them ?”
The only eyewitness was playing dead. He couldn’t be seen by the killer as being alive, so he wouldn’t be looking at the killer (see the “one of three scenarios repoeated above). Playing dead is what kept him alive.
And then, finally, the only eyewitness says that he ony “believed” that a “move” protected him. Of all the facts of the situation that we’ve been given — this one (the “move”) is the *only one* in which the eyewitness himself says “believed”. He thus admits that he does not know if Waleed was “flopping” or distracting the killer.
The clear point which is being made — was that the uninjured student was “saved” by Waleed’s actions.
Of course, one can’t be saved if the killer was never going to kill the uninjured student in the first place. The assumption made by the uninjured student (and his “belief”) is that he would have been killed otherwise.
To that the following is clear. If the killer was going to kill the uninjured student and he saw Waleed move — then it’s bang! to Waleed (since he moved) and then bang! bang! bang! (three shots) to the uninjured student who is now dead. That’s *if* he was going to kill the uninjured student and Waleed gave his “famous flop”...
But, on the other hand, with the uninjured student playing dead so effectively (which his present breathing proves) — then the killer did not see that the uninjured student was alive — however — he saw Waleed was alive by his “now famous” flop... So, it was bang! to Waleed. Now Waleed is dead and the uninjured student is alive.
So, either the killer was going for the uninjured student or the killer was not going for the uninjured student.
(1) He was going for the uninjured student, but Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then bang! bang! bang! (three times) to the uninjured student (now dead).
(2) He was not going for the uninjured student, Waleed flopped, bang! to Waleed, then perceiving the uninjured student as dead (since he was a good actor), killer leaves once again.
One way — dead “uninjured student” — the other way live “uninjured student”. And, “either way” — flops make no difference.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I’m going to bounce a controversial thought around.
Here goes my unabashed Neenerjacking of this thread.
Up here in the Northwest, there are militant people
who believe the environment should never be touched
by humans. In other words, if a tree falls, it should
be left there to decay. However, if you look at the
birds, beavers, moles, rats, spiders and even some
domestic animals - MANY of them “nest” or “manicure”
their domiciles.
Ergo... Could it be that (some) humans take advantage
of the nature excuse to justify their laziness?
Through indolence the rafters sag, and through slackness the house leaks. (Ecclesiastes 10:18)
Further... We are called human in order to conveniently
blame us for ravaging the planet, yet our evolutionary
designation is animal.
If we are animals, then our depravity is excused.
If we are human, we are without excuse.
**************************************
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
“Callling all counselors...., you’re not needed; go home...”
Correct -— ALL counselors are NOT needed - some MAY be needed.
“He moved; sounds like a flop...”
EVERY movement is a flop ? ( like your arguements ? )
“Good point; then there was no one to “save” by flopping (uhhh... “moving”)...”
NO he was looking FOR movement, and “A” is stating that Waleed saved his life by a “protective movement” which either kept “A” from moving, stopped any movement of “A” before the shooter could notice it, or distracted the shooter from “A”’s movement.
“The student is alive to talk about it.... That pretty much says it all.”
It says nothing since the point is WHY he is alive, and “A” clearly states it is because of Waleed’s actions.
Add Julia Roberts, George Clooney and Matt Damon to the list.
(This is going to be a long list)
If any muslim deserves his 72 virgins, this one does
“So, either the killer was going for the uninjured student or the killer was not going for the uninjured student.”
Neither since he did not know there WAS an undead student to “go for”. “A” is of the opinion that Waleeds action kept the shooter from realizing he was still alive, thereby keeping the shooter from “going for” him.
“... Muslims are commanded in their “holy book” to lie....in order to undermine their perceived enemy.”
Nope - simply not true
( but curiously enough THIS lie is perpetuated by the ignorant to undermine a perceived enemy )
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.