“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 ?
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.
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