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.
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