Posted on 04/20/2007 11:58:21 PM PDT by the scotsman
You appear to consider “playing dead” as a absolute, like if you simply “play dead” you are invisible.
You are not taking into account the second part -— that the shooter did not notice that you were PLAYING dead.
Obviously ANY distraction, like Waleeds movement kept the attention away from “A”.
Therefore we can take it as a FACT that the movement of Waleed, and the diversion of attention towards him and away from others in the room, was ABSOLUTLY a contributing factor in the survival of “A”.
bvw said — “There is no reason for the eyewitness of such a event to remain anonymous — except for fraud.”
And RS said — “There is every reason - since it would still only be his word, he gains nothing by subjecting himself to interrogation.”
When the uninjured student gives us the entire premise of the whole story, based solely on a “belief” that he has — we do see very clearly why he did not want to come forward. The facts of the matter challenges his beliefs. And he knew that he could not withstand the challege, because his belief would be shown to not hold up with the facts.
The student is shown to have fooled the killer into believing that he was dead. And that is what saved his life, since we are told that the killer returned to the room two more times looking for signs of life.
The *addition* of the uninjured student’s beliefs to the already given and known facts is simply an attempt to assuage a typcial victim’s sense of guilt for being alive and trying to give some meaning to the fact that Waleed (right next to him) is dead. So, the uninjured student adds the belief.
The actual facts of the matter is simply — the uninjured student played dead and it worked very well. He stayed alive.
Waleed moved and he got shot.
Simple story except for the games that people’s brains play on them when they are overwhelmed with guilt feelings that we are told that these types of victims will have...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Gullibility is contagious and must be worked against. There are some rules that can be applied as antidotes. Not accepting anonymous reports is one. A reasonable request for a name is two.
How contagious is gullibility? Here, see, you've already drawn ST into your gullible rendition of the wanna-be universe. Another galaxy conquered.
You said — “Obviously ANY distraction, like Waleeds movement kept the attention away from “A”.
Therefore we can take it as a FACT that the movement of Waleed, and the diversion of attention towards him and away from others in the room, was ABSOLUTLY a contributing factor in the survival of “A”.”
As we see from the account, the killer returned two other times “looking for signs of life”. Now, it is another stated fact (which we have no reason to doubt) that Waleed moved. And being that he was wounded, perhaps seriously, he might not have been able to stay still. In any case — he moved.
Now, the main premise to the entire story is that this movement saved the student’s life. But, we see from the facts that this is a false belief — which the student says is simply a “belief”
So, since we know that the killer is *looking* for signs of life — and we know that Waleed moved — yes, it is also very clear that when the killer shot Waleed, his *attention* was on Waleed as he was shooting him dead.
But, we must not ignore the fact that the killer was *looking* for signs of life and had returned twice, doing so. That means that once he shot Waleed, he’s doing what he came in the room to do — looking for signs of life.
Another fact of the matter is that the uninjured student is laying next to Waleed. Thus, the killer shoots Waleed, he is now dead. The killer is *already there* at the “live body” of the uninjured student. The killer doesn’t have to go across the room, doesn’t have to step across desks, doesn’t have to move anywhere. The killer is already there — right at the uninjured student’s body — who is feigning death.
We know that the killer is looking for signs of life, we know that Waleed is now dead, we know that the killer is right there since the uninjured student is laying next to Waleed...
Therefore — it’s apparent that what saved the uninjured student’s life, as Waleed is now dead, and the killer is right there at the live student’s body — was — the fact that the uninjured student played dead very well.
Waleed simply died, nothing more. He’s dead now. The uninjured student is alive, but feigning death. He feigned his death very well, while the killer — after killing Waleed is looking for signs of life.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You keep repeating this, but the facts show you are wrong, and CANNOT know this.
You make statements like “ ...as Waleed is now dead, and the killer is right there at the live student’s body —”
You don’t know he is “right there” He could have shot Waleed from 20 feet away.
We know for a fact that the shooters inspections were NOT good enough, and any distraction by Waleed gave him less time to inspect the others.
You have stated many times that Waleeds action or non action is not connected whatsoever with “A”’s survival, yet you CANNOT know this.
We DO know that the shooter did not take the time to detect that “A” was playing dead. ANY time he spent on any other matter contributed to the survival of “A”.
“...they are in the very gullible category.”
LOL - Naw, I don’t believe that ...
“Not accepting anonymous reports is one. A reasonable request for a name is two.”
Excuse me, but isn’t everything “bvw” writes an anonymous report ?
You said — We DO know that the shooter did not take the time to detect that “A” was playing dead. ANY time he spent on any other matter contributed to the survival of “A”.
We can recount the facts that are presented to us and see what we come up with. We are told several things which are given as facts and then we are told the student’s “belief”.
The fact is that Waleed was intitally shot and wounded, on the first go-round. We know that the uninjured student and Waleed were laying next to each other. We know that the uninjured student was playing dead. We know that Waleed made a “movement” (student then says he has a “belief” about this movement). We know that the killer returned to the room two more times looking for signs of life.
We know — as a “result” — that since Waleed is dead, he exhibited signs of life, which resulted in the killer firing another shot into him, killing him. We also know — as a “result” — that since the uninjured student is alive, that the killer did not perceive that student to be alive, but dead.
So, when we examine those elementary facts and put it together with the “belief” of the student, we come up with these several things.
The killer upon returning to the room, looking for signs of life, sees Waleed move. He kills Waleed. The killer does not see any signs of life in the uninjured student (who is playing dead). The killer does not shoot the uninjured student. The killer leaves at some point.
The result is Waleed is dead because he moved. The uninjured student is alive because he was playing dead and the killer saw no signs of life in him.
Simple story — and we leave his “belief” to him and the counselors to sort out the typical guilt and grief that comes from being part of such a traumatic event, having someone right next to you shot dead, while that uninjured students stays alive, by playing dead. As we listen to what counselors say about these types of things, we see that people commonly seek to find “meaning” to senseless death, and this student’s “belief” is apparently his attempt.
The facts tell a more straightforward story...
Regards,
Star Traveler
” if there was a Jew who saved a life, the MSM thinks there should be a Muslim who saved a life. “
Ding, ding, ding!!! Winner!!!
Dadgum! I’d better get myself to Sunday school, and soon. I admit, I’ve been away too long and for the very reasons I need to be there.
The other end of the extreme, I would suggest, is the Al Gores of the world who spread ill knowledge whilst they buy up carbon credits like there’s no tomorrow!
Oh, wait. There’s not.
Well, I can’t speak of Roberts; she lives in Taos, very red state, I think. Matt Damon, iffy-whatsy. George Clooney, in the nuclear zone of libsville.
“and we leave his “belief” to him and the counselors to sort out the typical guilt and grief that comes from being part of such a traumatic event,”
AGAIN you profess to know things that you CANNOT, and base your assumptions on them -
BTW -
“We know — as a “result” — that since Waleed is dead, he exhibited signs of life, which resulted in the killer firing another shot into him, killing him. We also know — as a “result” — that since the uninjured student is alive, that the killer did not perceive that student to be alive, but dead.
“
NO we do not know those as results, we know it because of our belief that what “A” says regarding the events is accurate and truthfull.
From results all we know is that “A” is alive and Waleed is dead. From forensics we may be able to know the time between the shots that killed Waleed, the angles and perhaps the distance of the shooter.
I never said I hated them because they were like Christ. I despised them because, I instinctively knew (although I knew nothing of the bible) like the Pharisees, they have made an art form of despising others in the name of God. Because they traverse land and sea to make a "convert" and then when they do, they make him twice as much a son of hell than themselves. Because they lie about the nature of God by presenting a bald set of abstract theological truths -- save your bible verses, I have memorized the entire sermon on the mount, John 14-17, Proverbs 11-29, the book of Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians, Romans 5-8 and many individual verses.....and don't need your scriptural "proofs" to demonstrate that God helps us to be despisers of the wicked. That "gospel" is a lie, and I could care less if you dress it up in an outline of soteriological truth.
I have defended the exclusive claims of Christ to be the ONLY way to God and stated in a room full of hostile ivy league university students that if the claims of Christ is true, then Christianity is the ONLY true religion and all other religions are false. I have no problems standing for the truth of Christ in the presence of muslims or of others. The difference is that I want to be like Paul in his discussions on Mars hill, where he AFFIRMED the wisdom of the pagan poets, and in fact quoted him in a way quite unlike the poet's original intent ("we are all His offspring") do draw lines of common ground and affirm the image of God and the desire of ALL MEN to find God. This was the same Paul who later wrote Romans 1, condemning the suppression of truth by men. You have only half of the truth in this issue, and a half truth presented as a whole truth is a lie. In my interactions with Muslims, Jews, Animists, Pagans or Secular Atheists I would like to be an emulator of Christ who WEPT over Jerusalem even as he pronounced damnation on it.
If you cannot do that, your religion is worthless, I care not how orthodox your profession is. I have no interest in learning how to hate the wicked in the name of God.
One more thing. I believe that in the final scene before God, where there is a multitude of men and women from every tribe and tongue and people and nations, that MANY of these will be converts from Islam. I believe God has chosen many for Himself from these people and therefore, I cannot hate them for being Muslim.
You said — “AGAIN you profess to know things that you CANNOT, and base your assumptions on them”
I did present the facts as they are given to us. BUT, and this is the “big but” here — you’ll notice that the MSM is presenting a total “belief” — absent any facts — to jam down an unverifiable story. To the uncritical reader they might think this is true and factual. But, the crticial reader will see that this “story” (of having a life saved because of this Waleed) is *totally unverifiable*.
However, we’re asked to “believe” something which is totally unverifiable — which doesn’t enter into the “factual realm” at all.
.
You then said — “NO we do not know those as results, we know it because of our belief that what “A” says regarding the events is accurate and truthfull.”
The statement you’re referring to is in this section —
We can recount the facts that are presented to us and see what we come up with. We are told several things which are given as facts and then we are told the student’s “belief”.
The fact is that Waleed was intitally shot and wounded, on the first go-round. We know that the uninjured student and Waleed were laying next to each other. We know that the uninjured student was playing dead. We know that Waleed made a “movement” (student then says he has a “belief” about this movement). We know that the killer returned to the room two more times looking for signs of life.
We know — as a “result” — that since Waleed is dead, he exhibited signs of life, which resulted in the killer firing another shot into him, killing him. We also know — as a “result” — that since the uninjured student is alive, that the killer did not perceive that student to be alive, but dead.
So, when we examine those elementary facts and put it together with the “belief” of the student, we come up with these several things.
The killer upon returning to the room, looking for signs of life, sees Waleed move. He kills Waleed. The killer does not see any signs of life in the uninjured student (who is playing dead). The killer does not shoot the uninjured student. The killer leaves at some point.
The result is Waleed is dead because he moved. The uninjured student is alive because he was playing dead and the killer saw no signs of life in him.
Simple story — and we leave his “belief” to him and the counselors to sort out the typical guilt and grief that comes from being part of such a traumatic event, having someone right next to you shot dead, while that uninjured students stays alive, by playing dead. As we listen to what counselors say about these types of things, we see that people commonly seek to find “meaning” to senseless death, and this student’s “belief” is apparently his attempt.
So, yes, we do know “as a result” — that Waleed is dead. That’s a “result” — in other words, an accomplished fact — “he’s dead”, reported separately on the news.
And we accept “as a result” — that the uninjured student is alive. HOWEVER, here is where it is uncertain, outside of this story. This student may not exist at all. This is what we don’t really know.
Now for sake of merely — discussing — this story and seeing if the facts hold together with the “stated beliefs” — we can use the “assumption” that this student exists. And by using this assumption, it allows us to continue the “discussion” of this story.
HOWEVER — this particular *assumption* is — also *totally unverifiable* at this point in time.
For all we know, this is a literary fiction, concocted by a professor to give an MSM slant to the news of “a Jew saves a life, so now a Muslim saves a life.”
And since we don’t even have any outside and verifiable evidence that such a student exists, this could very well be an elaborate hoax.
BUT, even if it were not an elaborate hoax, the facts belie the very “belief” that is stated in the story.
So, let me say that again — this story is actually *totally unverifiable* because we have no proof that such an uninjured student even exists. He’s anonymous; he could have been invented; we have no way of even finding out. At this point in time, the story cannot hold any water, because of it’s potential of being a total hoax.
But, if we assume certain things for sake of discussion, we *also* find that the “belief” of the “supposed student” — is not verifiable on the factual basis.
The proper order of things to even accept such a story as true, even before we analyze the facts — is to establish that such a student exists and that such a thing actually happened.
Until we know that he exists and until we know that such a thing happened — this is simply like Aesop’s Fables, and we are simply exploring “literary fiction”....
Regards,
Star Traveler
If you can't name the owner of your local paper, does that make him anonymous? No. While my real name is not public here, it is known to the operator of the Forum.
Yet were I to wish to honor the memory of a some person to a relative, would I not want to do so with a name? With a name the message is then made more real --the refined gold of honesty and tenderness for the bereaved combined. In that case my letter would be signed -- I would write or call the mom directly and not through some intermediary. How callous and uncaring to damn such a message with the taint of anonymity! Rings a false tone.
[...Therefore we can take it as a FACT that the
movement of Waleed, and the diversion of attention
towards him and away from others in the room, was
ABSOLUTLY a contributing factor in the survival of “A”.
Correct.
But was it done to intentionally save another’s life?
You said — and don’t need your scriptural “proofs”
You may not, but others here may not know, so it’s useful, and it’s necessary.
.
And also — “Because they lie about the nature of God by presenting a bald set of abstract theological truths — save your bible verses...”
Too general of a statement to really say anthing about anything. I could say that “in general” about anything in the Bible and about a lot of other teachers and preachers. Doesn’t mean too much here. We might as well say, “the sun is going to rise in the morning...” That’s about as useful as that is.
When you get down to exactly what verse is being used differently than it was intended and what it meant — then we might have something to say. Otherwise, you sound like a “Cho” ranting and raving about the world that he has in his mind...
.
You said also — “I have defended the exclusive claims of Christ to be the ONLY way to God and stated in a room full of hostile ivy league university students that if the claims of Christ is true, then Christianity is the ONLY true religion and all other religions are false. I have no problems standing for the truth of Christ in the presence of muslims or of others.”
Well, that’s fine and dandy, as it stands. It’s something that all are commanded to do. Therefore what one can say is that you are apparently doing what we all are commanded to do — present the Gospel and defend the Word.
As for the rest of it, that you said, that’s a matter on what methodology you choose to use, versus the methodology that someone else chooses to use. Certainly you choose the methodology that works well for you. Others will choose what works for them in presenting the Gospel and I’ll certainly choose the one I’ll be using.
.
And — “If you cannot do that, your religion is worthless, I care not how orthodox your profession is. I have no interest in learning how to hate the wicked in the name of God.”
No matter what one does — their faith in Christ is never worthless. I’m afraid you’re wrong on that one.
Furthermore, the beginning of understanding the need for any salvation is to understand clearly the consequences of sin and the resulting hell and damnation that will result. And the “hate” that you describe is apparently not applicable to the Bible.
The deeds of the wicked are definitely hated by God. All evil is hated by God. We are to hate the same things as what God hates. And in addition to that, whomever the person *is* who is doing those “deeds” — it is *that actual person* who will end up in hell and damnation, and not simply “their deeds” which will end up there.
In other words, *that person* is “the one” associated with their deeds to the extent that *they* end up in hell and damnation, as a result of those deeds. They have to know this — in order to know the nature of salvation.
And if that person is associated with and believes in such a religion as Islam, then they have to know (i.e., be told and have it made clear) that this is an evil, despicable, false and abhorrent religion and will result in their damnation in hell.
.
Finally — “One more thing. I believe that in the final scene before God, where there is a multitude of men and women from every tribe and tongue and people and nations, that MANY of these will be converts from Islam. I believe God has chosen many for Himself from these people and therefore, I cannot hate them for being Muslim.”
There are converts to Christianity — right now — from the Muslim world. We already know that, so you don’t even have to “believe” for the future. It’s *already* happening (and has for a long time in the past). That’s nothing new. Christ gains converts from everywhere. Nothing new there.
However, that in no way should disguise the fact that any Muslim who is faithful to his religion is not to be trusted — as they are taught to be liars — and to deceive the infidel. In fact, one can most likely believe that any Muslim will barely tolerate you and lie to your face, making you believe that you are a friend, when — if given other circumstances and in another place — they would know that they should *slit your throat* right now. That’s the Muslim “religion”
They are taught to lie to the infidel and to *not befriend* them. If you think you have friends there, you are being deceived.
However, if a Muslim does leave and becomes saved, by accepting Christ, they become a new person in Christ and they will have left the old “lying and deceitful” nature of Islam behind. Let’s hope that those Muslims you know abandon that sort of lying and deceitful nature that they are taught.
Regards,
Star Traveler
[...You don’t know he is “right there” He could have shot Waleed from 20 feet away...]
Oh yes we do know that Anonymous Uninjured was “right there” because he said so in the email.
QUOTE FROM THE EMAIL
“The student that narrates the story was not shot but pretended to be dead and lay on the ground BESIDE Waleed who at that time was only injured.”
You said — “But was it done to intentionally save another’s life?”
Yes, that’s very true. And since the student, himself says that it’s only a “belief” that means he is uncertain of it as well...
BUT, it’s time to consider something else. All along (and just for the sake of “discussion”) I’ve been assuming stated facts are true.
HOWEVER, the *prime fact* of the whole story is actually in great doubt here. It is extremely doubtful that there is really such an “uninjured student” as is stated. It’s extremely doubtful, because it’s a professor who states that he received an e-mail and a student doesn’t want to talk about it.
Knowing the nature of professors, in general, at these liberal institutions, and their PC nature — it’s absolutely not inconceivable that this professor simply “made up” an imaginary student, giving it to the press and saying that he was only passing it on because the student did not want to talk to the press.
We’ve seen *all sorts of hoaxes* perpetrated by the press themselves (think of those reporters who have simply made up their stories, saying that it is a “sampling” of several inviduals).
This professor may be making up what he considers to be what a Muslim might do, and invents a “composite student” (a literary invention) to express a “truth” that the professor thinks exists.
Namely — “A Jew saved a life, and I know a Muslilm would do the same thing [since the professor thinks in “PC” terms] and therefore I’m going to make up a ‘composite student’ to illustrate to the American public that a Muslimm does the same thing.”
It’s just like a Dan Rather story in which the document is false — but the “story” is true!!??
And thus, the professor says, the student is false, but the story is true [because it just has to be, dontcha know...]
Yep, another Dan Rather story, for sure.... with an anonymous and mysterious student...
Regards,
Star Traveler
INFORMATION WE KNOW FROM THE EMAIL (not necessarily factual)
1) Waleed always sat in the front row of Norris 206
2) When students hear shots they jumped to the floor
3) Loganathan & many students are killed
4) Uninjured Graduate (UG) Student survives
5) Waleed is injured
6) Cho leaves room, then returns
7) Cho approaches UG (who’s heart is pounding)
8) At that moment Waleed makes a movement to distract (that distracted) Cho.
9) UG is not noticed and Waleed is finished off by Cho.
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.