A car was in collision with barriers outside the Houses of Parliament.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

I think this is fake news as I was on Kildare Street earlier and there was no sign of anything going on.

There are no "Houses Of Parliament" in Kildare Street.

Dail Eireann and Seanad Eireann sit in Leinster House, for which "Houses Of Parliament" is not and never has been an acceptable translation into English. There isn't a translation, in both Irish and English that is their name.

You could call them the "houses of the Oireachtas" if you must but nobody really does.

I would have thought any sentient Irish man or woman knew this to be honest.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

There are no "Houses Of Parliament" in Kildare Street.

Dail Eireann and Seanad Eireann sit in Leinster House, for which "Houses Of Parliament" is not and never has been an acceptable translation into English. There isn't a translation, in both Irish and English that is their name.

You could call them the "houses of the Oireachtas" if you must but nobody really does.

I would have thought any sentient Irish man or woman knew this to be honest.

Attempts at edgy humour.

Failing attempts like but you know.

Captain Obvious

Looking like this may not have been a terror attack. Seems a reasonable assumption considering the video footage. If it was terrorism it was extremely incompetent.

The crashing of a car into the Houses of Parliament, which prompted a major counterterrorist operation, may not have been an act of terrorism, The Independent has learned.

While the motive of the driver remains unclear, investigators are coming to the view that it is likely to be related to his personal circumstances.

The police have been granted an extension of time, until next Monday, to hold 29-year-old Salih Khater, and more information about what happened may emerge in that time. But senior Whitehall sources say there is no evidence yet that he had been radicalised into Islamist extremism.

Investigations into Sudanese-born Mr Khater’s activities and associates are continuing, and officials point out that while proof of terrorist links may emerge, that is currently looking unlikely.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/westminster-crash-terrorism-salih-khater-isis-sudan-police-extremist-latest-a8496716.html

pleas advice

Deleted User wrote: »

There are no "Houses Of Parliament" in Kildare Street.

Would 'houses of parliament' be acceptable?

Grayson

Mike Hoch wrote: »

There's plenty seem more offended by what they deem Islamophobia than are offended by actual attacks tbh.

Bull****. Find someone who's said that terrorist attacks are fine.

What kind of world exists in your head where you think that people who don't hate muslims are ok with terrorist attacks?

Strazdas

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Looking like this may not have been a terror attack. Seems a reasonable assumption considering the video footage. If it was terrorism it was extremely incompetent.



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/westminster-crash-terrorism-salih-khater-isis-sudan-police-extremist-latest-a8496716.html

It does illustrate the atmosphere at the moment. If virtually any unexpected incident happens involving a non white or non British person causing injury to others, it is a 'terrorist attack'.

Captain Obvious

Strazdas wrote: »

It does illustrate the atmosphere at the moment. If virtually any unexpected incident happens involving a non white or non British person causing injury to others, it is a 'terrorist attack'.

When you consider we had two cases of cars plowing into pedestrians in the space of a few weeks last month with not a hint of terrorism it's something that isn't exactly unusual. Although the fact this incident happened where it did is grounds in itself to suspect terrorism from the out. But when you watch the video it looks more like he is trying to flee from the blue lights than actually aim for anything in particular.

kuntboy

Funny how the tone has changed on AH. Until recently noone dared criticise a certain group without instant punishment. You Irish really are a bunch of sheep brainwashed by your MSM LOL

ExoPolitic

Strazdas wrote: »

It does illustrate the atmosphere at the moment. If virtually any unexpected incident happens involving a non white or non British person causing injury to others, it is a 'terrorist attack'.

The fact that he drove straight at the houses of parliament at high speed and tried to take out numerous cyclists, pedestrians and police doesn't reek of terrorism?

What planet are you living on?

Captain Obvious

ExoPolitic wrote: »

The fact that he drove straight at the houses of parliament at high speed and tried to take out numerous cyclists, pedestrians and police doesn't reek of terrorism?

What planet are you living on?

Didn't look like hewas trying to take out pedestrians or cyclists. If he wanted to do that he could have driven along the path. It looked like he was cutting across the path to get away from the blue lights behind him. and he didn't drive at the houses of parliament. He drove straight into bollards near them. If his goal was terrorism he did it all wrong.

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If you start interfering with women children and animals, then you are asking for trouble. Its what should have happened in the north of England when that sort of thing started

You appear to be advocating ethnic cleansing.

skooterblue2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You appear to be advocating ethnic cleansing.

I never said any such thing, they could be deported, interred or corporeally disciplined

Strazdas

ExoPolitic wrote: »

The fact that he drove straight at the houses of parliament at high speed and tried to take out numerous cyclists, pedestrians and police doesn't reek of terrorism?

What planet are you living on?

He may have lost control of his car. A priest lost control of his car in Dublin recently for example and ploughed into a group of mourners at a funeral. There was that bin lorry incident in Glasgow in 2014 which resulted in six fatalities in the city centre.

As I said, the atmosphere is such that nearly every untoward incident these days is regarded as a terrorist attack. Such incidents have been going on for years but the atmosphere has changed.

Diceicle

They should get some of those Allahu-Ak-barriers we have on O'Connell street now.

4068ac1elhodqr

Captain Obvious wrote: »

If his goal was terrorism he did it all wrong.

It's not an 'if', this is exactly what he is getting charged with by the authorities. It is also what was clearly suspected from the outset due to the nature of the incident, and the non-cooperation from day 1, obviously.

Just like the chap (last night), in Barcelona
https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2018/0820/986297-barcelona-spain-attack/

Captain Obvious

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

It's not an 'if', this is exactly what he is getting charged with by the authorities. It is also what was clearly suspected from the outset due to the nature of the incident, and the non-cooperation from day 1, obviously.

Just like the chap (last night), in Barcelona
https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2018/0820/986297-barcelona-spain-attack/

Seems he was charged with two counts of attempted murder. The article in the Independent states that

Police said prosecutors will be treating his case as terrorism due to the method of the alleged attack, the targets selected and the high-profile location.

but that sounds very strange. You either charge them with terrorism or don't.

4068ac1elhodqr

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Seems he was charged with two counts of attempted murder. The article in the Independent states that

but that sounds very strange. You either charge them with terrorism or don't.

Are you still convinced that maybe he dropped his phone under the accelerator or something?

Sure maybe he spilt his coffee, hot coffee can be very disorentating if it spills.

He wasn't charged with 'planning or orchestrating' it, but actually carrying out an act i.e. attempting to kill with the singluar purpose of terror.

Captain Obvious

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

Are you still convinced that maybe he dropped his phone under the accelerator or something?

Sure maybe he spilt his coffee, hot coffee can be very disorentating if it spills.

No I definitely think he was up to no good. I don't think he went there intending to do what he actually did though.

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

He wasn't charged with 'planning or orchestrating' it, but actually carrying out an act i.e. attempting to kill with the singluar purpose of terror.

This is what I am saying is unusual. A prosecutor saying they are treating it as terrorism without actually charging them with terrorism. Seems like something the defence could easily argue is prejudicial. Maybe it's just the way it is being reported.

4068ac1elhodqr

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No I definitely think he was up to no good. I don't think he went there intending to do what he actually did though.

And you were quick to suggest, or claim that maybe

'It looked like he was cutting across the path to get away from the blue lights behind him.'

I.e. You 'still' don't really think he choose to do what he did?

Captain Obvious wrote: »

This is what I am saying is unusual. A prosecutor saying they are treating it as terrorism without actually charging them with terrorism. Seems like something the defence could easily argue is prejudicial. Maybe it's just the way it is being reported.

Maybe it's the way your interpreting it, maybe a desire or otherwise (on your behalf), to ignore the presented facts, a desire, or even conspiracy to ignore the obvious.

Sure if there was evidence on the contrary it's likely the case would be appealed. No one else is suggesting there is anything else to it.

There isn't a set amount of years for acting under a 'general cause or intention', which is why he's charged with 'attempted murder', as the subset. If he had a membership booklet, or written plans it would be additional.

Frankly can't see what the problem is with all the denial...

Captain Obvious

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

And you were quick to suggest, or claim that maybe


I.e. You 'still' don't really think he choose to do what he did?

Did you actually watch the video of the incident. Did you see the ambulance coming from behind him? I think he heard the sirens, saw the blue lights and paniced. he cut across a path and drove into the barriers. I don't think he intended to do that when he left his home that day. It would have been an awful plan. He may have been scoping the place out, he may be just a normal criminal driving without licence/insurance or he may have been going to commit an act of terror but I definitely don't think hitting the barriers where he did was his plan. Do you?

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

Maybe it's the way your interpreting it, maybe a desire or otherwise (on your behalf), to ignore the presented facts, a desire, or even conspiracy to ignore the obvious.

Sure if there was evidence on the contrary it's likely the case would be appealed. No one else is suggesting there is anything else to it.

There isn't a set amount of years for acting under a 'general cause or intention', which is why he's charged with 'attempted murder', as the subset. If he had a membership booklet, or written plans it would be additional.

Frankly can't see what the problem is with all the denial...

There are specific offences for terrorist acts and terrorist membership. The UK have perfected them over the years due to their involvement with the IRA. There are no shortage of terrorist offences to charge him with.



It's unusual to charge someone with a different offence and then introduce evidence trying to prove he was a terrorist. That is prejudicial. It would be like being in front of a judge for robbery and the Garda stating that you had just come from raping someone around the corner when you committed the robbery.

4068ac1elhodqr

Captain Obvious wrote: »

...

On balance the circumstances and behaviour don't point to anything other that what was concluded. You also choose to completly ignore the 'non-coperation' aspect.

If he dropped his pen or spilt his tea when driving, causing such an act (or other type accident), he would happily of explained it as such. instead of failing to cooperate from the outset.

At this stage, your train of though is obviously a bit worrying, and maybe best suited to the (unfortunate) 'Conspiracy Theories this way -->' repsonse.
Good luck.

Captain Obvious

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

On balance the circumstances and behaviour don't point to anything other that what was concluded. You also choose to completly ignore the 'non-coperation' aspect.

If he dropped his pen or spilt his tea when driving, causing such an act (or other type accident), he would happily of explained it as such. instead of failing to cooperate from the outset.

At this stage, your train of though is obviously a bit worrying, and maybe best suited to the (unfortunate) 'Conspiracy Theories this way -->' repsonse.
Good luck.

You seem to be intent on trying to strawman my point. I have not suggested he dropped his pen, spilled his tea or dropped his phone. why do you keep trying to claim I am making it out to be an accident?


As to non-cooperation? Nobody with any sense talks during an interrogation.


What conspiracy theory are you talking about exactly? I haven't suggested a conspiracy.

4068ac1elhodqr

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You seem to be intent on trying to strawman my point. I have not suggested he dropped his pen, spilled his tea or dropped his phone. why do you keep trying to claim I am making it out to be an accident?

As to non-cooperation? Nobody with any sense talks during an interrogation.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about exactly? I haven't suggested a conspiracy.

You're clearly trying to suggest all is not as it seems.
You're from the outset suggesting it likely was just an accident (speeding from the blue lights you said on the previous page)
You're (repeatedly) questioning the offical verdict.
You're now suggesting nobody co-operates during an investigation.

Now you're doing the usual two 'backstepping' and 'strawman' cards, out from your very limted toolbox of discussion skills.

Sorry, forgot the link to the Consparcy Forum -->:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

Captain Obvious

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

You're clearly trying to suggest all is not as it seems.

I don't think there is a conspiracy. I think the prosecutor is either holding back or over reaching.

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

You're from the outset suggesting it likely was just an accident (speeding from the blue lights you said on the previous page)

I never suggested it was an accident.

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

You're (repeatedly) questioning the offical verdict.

There has been no verdict. The trial hasn't started.

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

You're now suggesting nobody co-operates during an investigation.

Not cooperating is not unusual. It's pretty standard. "No comment" all the way through. It's up to the state to prove you did something. You don't have to prove you didn't. Why don't you pop on over to Legal Discussion and ask them how common it is for someone not to talk when interviewed.

Tinsley Hot Stockholder wrote: »

Now you're doing the usual two 'backstepping' and 'strawman' cards, out from your very limted toolbox of discussion skills.

You are strawmanning though. You are presenting my point as something it is not, in this case claiming I said it was an accident, and then disputing it. You stop strawmanning and I'll stop pointing out when you do.

4068ac1elhodqr

Link to the Consparcy Forum -->:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576