cooljules Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 You cant kick someone out because a family member or spouse commits a terrorist act and what if she was born here? but she wont admit he was guilty even with the evidence...i wouldnt care if she was born here, she supports terrorist acts by means of not giving evidence against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooljules Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Can't be that much of a risk coz she hasn't even attempted to set off any bombs. as said, she didnt belive he did it, but now might consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bounce Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Why does she want Legal Aid ? Quote from BBC News- Lord Justice Thomas said the court heard how Ms Patel "was interested to understand why her late husband and the other bombers acted as they did" and sought "an opportunity to ask questions of witnesses at the inquest which bore on their knowledge and experience of her husband and others". And why was she refused ? Quote from same Item- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11114627 Although requested by this court to show how she could help establish why her late husband and the others, whom she knew acted to murder fellow citizens, she has provided not an iota of evidence to us which could show how in some way she could bring a wider benefit, let alone a significant benefit to the inquests or to the understanding of the victims of the bombing." Hmmm. So because she couldn't come up with a reason to tell them why her husband would want to blow himself and other innocents to pieces,she has been denied the chance to clear his name. There is little evidence he did it,and a hell of a lot that he and the others were innocent "patsies"(please spare me the meat pie type jokes) So my feeling is they don't want her asking awkward questions that could reveal that those bombings were another false flag attack .Simply to get Mr Blair out the sh..trouble he was in,:rant:and get public support for the invasion of certain countries,despite it being illegal , making he and everyone else in power, not doing anything about it guilty of treason ? So is it fair ? Its obviouse why they did it to anyone with half a bran but some people want to pretend they blew themselves up to kill innocent people for the sake of it. The 7/7 bombers left videos giving their reasons for the attack namely Iraq and Afghanistan. There is evidence for and against it being a fasle flag. The way I see it is if it was done to get Blair out of Iraq trouble and win support for Iraq war why would they blame it on four random British born Muslims from Leeds why not blame it on Saddam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bounce Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 as said, she didnt belive he did it, but now might consider it. BNP members have also been caught with explosives planning terrorist attacks. With all your kick her out of the country nonsense even though she's not a national of another country means your thinking is along the BNP line. Therefore you could be considering terrorist attacks and are more of a security risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 That could be because she can't accept that her husband could commit such an atrociety. What makes you think that if she gets married again that hubby no 2 would do the same? She obviously drives her husbands to suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 That could be because she can't accept that her husband could commit such an atrociety. What makes you think that if she gets married again that hubby no 2 would do the same? According to the link in the op, she's already remarried. She's obviously moved on with her life, so it begs the question, why is she doing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 Watch 'Ludicrous diversion' and '7/7 ripple effect' to find out how he probably didn't.nothing has been proven. R'Diversion http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719# 7/7 RipEff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2NXPl625A In the years since 9/11 more than 1,000 people have been arrested under anti-terrorism laws, of which less than 50 have been convicted. Quote. So sweeping are the anti-terrorism powers that people have been detained on the flimsiest of pretexts. Earlier this month, five people in Plymouth were detained under the Terrorism Act after a young man was seen spraying graffiti. “Political literature” was reportedly found in one of the homes raided and it was claimed at the time that the five had been planning to join the G20 protests in London. Held for several days, they were all released without charge. All the while, the hysterical atmosphere generated by such arrests has been used to further strengthen police powers and undermine democratic rights. The brutal shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005 by undercover anti-terrorist officers exposed that police had covertly adopted a shoot-to-kill policy. Less than one year later another innocent man, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, was shot by anti-terror police in a raid on his home. (He too was found to be innocent). how did I know that the youtube conspiracy nutter would pop up. He was found in the aftermath. I think that's fairly reasonale evidence that he did do it! Now if you just wanted to argue about the terrorism laws then fine, but you don't need to dream up some ludicrous theory out of whole cloth for doing so - all that happens is that you look foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 Ang on there's evidence to say he did it, they were filmed casing the act out and doing trial runs were they not ? didn't one of them run off with there bomb after it didn't go to plan? I wonder why the epicentre of the bombs was from the big red puddle of dna from the bombers then ? were they duped into walking round with backpacks full of explosives ? I will look forward to her giving evidence if some ones daft enough to front the money. Trial runs ? you mean they were seen catching a train Who ran off ?(Officially) Any DNA "found" ? can we trust it was found at the scene and not from one of those shot in canary warf after the bombs went off ?They claim his ID was found at,at least two of the crime scenes The damage done was not consistant with the type of home made explosives they reckon they used.some survivors say the bombs blew upward from beneath the train . I recommend you watch the ripple effect.it is largely theory with some interesting "evidence".(largely ignored in the main media).But so is the story we get from the government. Its well worthy of a full investigation. And maybe another thread.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 she said she didnt belive her husband did it, there was enough proof....now what happens when husband #2 does the same thing? In every quote I heard her make she's said that she does think that her husband committed the atrocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 In every quote I heard her make she's said that she does think that her husband committed the atrocity. Which would now be a good time for cooljules to prove you wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.