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 said — “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?”
I was answering the poster’s *own assertions* in which he tells me about “his Muslim friends”. I can only take the poster at his word, that they are indeed Muslim. Who else would know but the poster himself, since they are his friends.
And, when engaging in discussions, like these, there is always a starting point for facts and givens. The starting point, at least for this other poster — was — “his Muslim friends.”
I see no reason to doubt him, in regards to whether his friends are Muslim or not. I take him at his word. Thus I speak to “his Muslim friends”
Please do tell me that his Muslim friends are not really Muslim, after all, but are Christians.
.
You then said — “Unless you have done the above, you have NO PROOF that he has been damned to hell.”
I can say that Muslims are damned to hell. That’s because “Muslim” has a meaning, a doctrine and it’s a false religion. And thus, Muslims are damned to hell.
Now, if a person, himself, calls himself a Muslim, I can only surmise that they, indeed, know what they’re talking about. But, for sake of disucssion, let’s say that he really didn’t know what a “Muslim” was all about and he was mistakenly calling himself a Muslim.
And mind you..., you bring up the dead Muslim student. I was not answering regarding the dead Muslim student. I was answering a poster regarding *his* Muslim friends.
So, if this so-called Muslim “thinks” he’s a Muslim, but really isn’t — I can safely say that even *not being a Muslim in reality* (but calling oneself a Muslim) pretty much *guarantees* that this person is not a Christian. That’s because anyone who is a Christian, would know right off the bat, that one could not accept Allah in place of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
And, indeed, if one were calling themselves a Muslim, you would also know that they could not believe in a risen Christ (as the Apostle Paul says is essential), because Muslims do not believe that Christ was ever crucified.
And, further, if one called oneself a Muslim, you would know that Jesus is not considered the “Son of God” because Allah has no sons. And further, Jesus is not the Savior, He is only a prophet, but not even the highest or best prophet, only one that is inferior to Mohammed.
So, in all this, mistakenly thinking one is a Muslim or believing one is a Muslim — one is not a Christian and therefore is damned to hell.
.
You then said — “Much like I have NO PROOF that you are a Christian.”
I ask for no proof that the student is a Muslim. Not at all. I only take the student and his family *at their word*. If they say so, then so be it. And if they say that — then he is damned to hell. It’s that simple.
And, by the way, if they are a Muslim, I also know that they believe and act in certain ways. I know that because I know what the foundational documents are that they believe in. I can be assured that they believe in Allah. I know that they do not believe that Jesus ever died on the cross. I know that they believe Mohammed is the greatest prophet.
Now, I take their word at that, that they are indeed a Muslim. But, if I were to find out — that they do not believe Mohammed is a prophet, and that they do not believe that Allah is the true god — then I would conclude that they aren’t a Muslim. I wouldn’t know what they were — but I would know for sure that they weren’t a Muslim, because they don’t believe some essentials that make one a Muslim, fundamental essentials.
And likewise, if someone else says that they are a Christian, I would be taking them at their word. And that would mean that I would then “know” something about them, since they told me that they were a Christian. However, if later I found out that they do not believe that Jesus died on a cross, and they do not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and they do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and they have never “accepted Christ as their Savior” — I would then know that they are not a Christian.
So, whether it is a Muslim or a Christian — one takes the person, initially at their word, and finds out as they talk to them whether this is true or not.
.
Finally, you say — “May God remind you of what the judgement of the Pharisees did to Christ.”
Defending the Word of God and spelling out clearly what the Bible says about going to hell (*who* will go to hell, and *who* will not) and telling about salvation and who will have it verse who will not have it — is nothing more than Evangelism and Apologetics.
The Pharisees were not engaged in Evangelism and Apologetics. They were against the salvation that Jesus Christ brought to the world.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “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.”
That is called “Takkiya” (spelling seems to vary...). That’s one reason why you can never trust a Muslim — because they are *indeed* taught to lie, lie and lie, by their so-called religion.
Furthermore, another important term to know about the Koran is “abrogation”. The older verse are “abrogated” by the newer ones. They replace them. So that the original verses where people get their “propaganda” about “religion of peace” — those verses have been “abrogated” by the verses (coming later) which speak to war, killing, taking over by the sword, and so on.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “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.
[... ]
It says nothing since the point is WHY he is alive, and “A” clearly states it is because of Waleed’s actions.”
Well, the point of the whole article is — indeed — that Waleed was “saving” the uninjured student. But, the interesting thing is that this is only a *conjecture* by the student — as the student himself admits. The student can only say it’s a “belief” — which the professor relating this *overtly says*. The professor says that this student “believes” this to be true.
But, when we examine the facts of the case — against the “belief” of the student — we see that it is not true.
It goes like the following, as was presented above —
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.
So, we see that the flips or flops made not difference and that the “belief” of the student is merely that. And if he needs that to assuage his guilt for being right next to the dead Waleed, while he survived, I guess that’s what counselors are for...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Excuse me, ST, did I miss something? Wasn’t this an “anonymous” email? Or do we now have the name of the witness?
You said — “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.”
The article relates to us that the killer came back two times looking for signs of life. And we have a “belief” by the uninjured student that Waleed (who was wounded, maybe dying) that some movement by Waleed was meant to distract the killer from the uninjured student, and therefore “save” him.
Well, that is presuming that there is something to “save”. In other words — what the uninjured student is trying to tell us in “his belief” — is that *if* Waleed had not made a movement, then the killer would have killed the uninjured student.
Thus, the uninjured student is presenting us with his “belief” like this —
(1) Waleed makes no movement; I will be killed.
(2) Waleed makes movement; my life is saved.
Well, here we can see by the actual facts, that the student has let his emotional state of the moment has clouded his thinking. And since he has been in such a life and death traumatic situation, he is like others who feel guilty for surving and is in need of counseling. And his thinking has been affected to the point where his “beliefs” don’t reflect reality.
The following shows how it works out — if — as the uninjured student “thinks” — that if Waleed had done nothing, this student’s life would have been ended.
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.
And we’re examining this under the same “assumption” that the student is making. The student is making his “belief” known that Waleed’s “movement” saved his life. The corollary to that is — “If Waleed had not moved, my life would have been ended.”
We now see that it would have made no difference — whether Waleed moved or not — the student convinced the killer he was dead and the killer left him alone.
Regrards,
Star Traveler
You said — “Excuse me, ST, did I miss something? Wasn’t this an “anonymous” email? Or do we now have the name of the witness?”
No, it was simply an anonymous report to the public. That’s true. And there are not “witnesses” (in the plural). There is only *one anonymous e-mail. At least it’s anonymous to us.
Of course, pretty much all FReepers know that if we had all our news come from unverifiable sources and no way to ever question anything — and we had to simply *accept* whatever an anonymous e-mail said — then — the Democrats could make up a *boatload* of lies and no one would ever be able to say anything against the lies.
And so, this is simply an attempt to put a PC spin on Muslims “saving” someone (you see, since the Jews got into the act) — by the MSM — trying to use an *anonymous* e-mail to do it.
I can’t think of a *more unreliable source* than perhaps Miss Cleo...
BUT, for the sake of discussion, I can examine the so-called “facts” and measure them against the “anonymous witness” — who actually says that it’s *only a belief* that he was saved.
And from examining those presented facts — we see that the “movement” made absolutely no difference at all. The “anonymous student” is simply letting guilt feelings help him make up a fairy tale that makes him feel better...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I am fully aware of TAQIYA but many trusting people cannot fathom this.
My reality based information comes from the people (Sudanese, Iraqis, Iranians, etc) who have survived living among muslims and have learned the hard way.
They are not to be trusted!
“Thus, the uninjured student is presenting us with his “belief” like this —
(1) Waleed makes no movement; I will be killed.
(2) Waleed makes movement; my life is saved.”
Completely wrong ... allow me to correct
(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved
Your version presumes that he is making the statement during the events, which is absurd.
“I am fully aware of TAQIYA ...”
Then perhaps you could point this commandment out in their “holy book” ?
You said, in this part — “3) At this point, ANY story can be inserted without challenge.”
You know..., in looking at what the assertion of the story is — we see that it is a very mild and muted assertion. It’s even stated as a “belief” (indicating uncertainty there).
This could have been made up to be some wild escapade with a brawling fight that this Muslim student engaged in and fought to the death to save another student. But — no — those kinds of things have a way of being found out to be *untrue* — too easily.
So, if one is to make up a story, one has to be *really careful* not to trip oneself up.
How do you do that. Well, you make an assertion that has *no facts* — but “belief” And what do we find — INDEED — the entire assertion is based upon a “belief”.
However, in carrying out this “plan” of simply asserting a “belief” — one has to have a modicum of facts to accompany the “story”. Thus we are also presented with some “facts”
But, what we see is that the presented facts put the *lie* to the assertion in the “belief”. We see from the facts, that no matter what Waleed would have done, the student simply stayed safe and alive by convincing the killer that *he was dead*.
Nothing more than that happened.
And as such, it is nothing more than a typical MSM story, designed to create “PC designer news” — because if there was a Jew who saved a life, the MSM thinks there should be a Muslim who saved a life.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said — “Completely wrong ... allow me to correct
(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved”
And looking at the following — you’ll notice that I put this as the student’s “belief” in the last post —
(1) Waleed makes no movement; I will be killed.
(2) Waleed makes movement; my life is saved.”
Yeah, it sounds like that is “his belief” all right. That’s exactly what I said was his belief. And now what we do is analyze his *belief* with the “facts” of the matter, and we see where his belief is wrong...
Let’s add the “fact” here and look at that once more —
(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved because I played dead
Now, simply by adding the one relevant fact, which was a fact given to us by this very same uninjured student. We see where his belief is totally unfounded.
In line two, we see that the “operative statement” is simply “my life was saved because I played dead.”
And from that, we see that line 1 is simply an “added belief” to give the student some sense of meaning to the senseless death next to him.
The student is surely affected as all other traumatic victims are affected in these situations and is dealing with guilt at being alive and the senseless death right next to his own body, while he was playing dead.
And in an effort to “make sense” of it all (as we people attempting to do) — this student assigns a “belief” to a senseless death.
But, as we see, it was simply the students own “feigning death” that saved his life.
Waleed’s death was merely a senseless death. His flips or flops or movements merely contributed to being shot by the killer again.
Regards,
Star Traveler
“It’s even stated as a “belief” (indicating uncertainty there).”
Correct - “A” is intelligent enough to know that he CANNOT know what might have happened if Waleed had not made his movement, unlike yourself who presume to have this certain knowledge.
You said — “They are not to be trusted!”
Absolutley, without a doubt. Since their so-called religion teaches them to be liars (and it is hard to believe, which is why Americans are fooled) — there is no trust to be given to them, at all.
Regards,
Star Traveler
The student who survived in that classroom -- their names are known. There is no reason for the eyewitness of such a event to remain anonymous -- except for fraud.
Looks like I’m going to have to walk you through this like you’re a little kid.
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?
That’s pretty decent spin. I’ll give you a solid “B”.
“(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved because I played dead”
Nope - let me correct you again
(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved because the shooter did not notice I was still alive.
You were responding to — ““It’s even stated as a “belief” (indicating uncertainty there).”
And you said — “Correct - “A” is intelligent enough to know that he CANNOT know what might have happened if Waleed had not made his movement, unlike yourself who presume to have this certain knowledge.”
Here is what we *can know* about the uninjured student.
From the facts presented to us — that the killer returned two other times to look for any signs of life, and that the uninjured student played dead, so the killer would not know that he was alive, and that Waleed moved and was immediately shot and killed.
From this we can know that by playing dead the uninjured student saved his own life.
Anything else that he wants to “believe” outside of these facts, I guess he can use to assuage the kind of guilt that survivors find they have...
Regards,
Star Traveler
And secondly, you think I'm spinning when I say that we're investing billions in Iraq to stabilze the region in the interests of our own national security? Hilarious. Your childish contention that we're investing solely for the purpose of "liberating the Iraqi people" is naive in the extreme. How old are you, boy?
“There is no reason for the eyewitness of such a event to remain anonymous — except for fraud.”
There is every reason - since it would still only be his word, he gains nothing by subjecting himself to interrogation.
You were responding to this listing of the uninjured students mixture of belief and facts that I presented here —
(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved because I played dead
And then you said —
Nope - let me correct you again
(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved because the shooter did not notice I was still alive.
.
Once again, the uninjured student is making his “beliefs” known — however you remove the “pertinent facts” that show why the killer did not notice he was alive. So, let’s put the facts of the matter in there with the “beliefs” of the student.
(1) If Waleed had made no movement I would have been killed
(2) Waleed made a movement - my life was saved because the shooter did not notice I was still alive because I was playing dead
Now, we have added the relevant fact to this uninjured student’s “belief”. AND, once again simply by adding the one relevant fact, which was a fact given to us by this very same uninjured student. We see where his belief is totally unfounded.
I merely state the situation again, because it is all exactly as it was before...
In line two, we see that the “operative statement” is simply “my life was saved because I played dead.”
And from that, we see that line 1 is simply an “added belief” to give the student some sense of meaning to the senseless death next to him.
The student is surely affected as all other traumatic victims are affected in these situations and is dealing with guilt at being alive and the senseless death right next to his own body, while he was playing dead.
And in an effort to “make sense” of it all (as we people attempting to do) — this student assigns a “belief” to a senseless death.
But, as we see, it was simply the students own “feigning death” that saved his life.
Waleed’s death was merely a senseless death. His flips or flops or movements merely contributed to being shot by the killer again.
Regards,
Star Traveler
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.