Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'

[BirdStrike]

i just wonder what the source of Reuters was on 28 January 2005, the data they used to get to that 65%. It must be from the first round, and i cant find the numbers that would lead to that 65%. and in the article there is no source mentioned. when the reuters number is correct, we should be able to find those numbers and come to the same result.
i dont deny that hamas won 2/3 of the seats, but i would like to look closer of the claim of 65% of the vote. thats all btw, i didnt make any list, i just searched for the exact data. and still im puzzeled how Reuters came to that 65%.

It really boils down to this. More Gazans supported Hamas than not. The vote results say it all. The five very reputable news sources I quoted support that position as well. Now that the going gets tough for the people who put Hamas in power you'all want to absolve them of their democratic choice, which was HAMAS.

So you guys circle your wagons and start this "truther" hair-splitting. And then ddt went so far as to create his own list for "evidence" that I am obviously 100% wrong.

Well, I am done with this crap. You guys go off and make up your own realities and have a blast with it. No hard feelings. Ok?

To all lurkers, it must be obvious who here tries to get to the truth of the matter and who here only tries to put out propaganda slogans.

Now the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are pedaling in "propaganda slogans" which I am supporting on JREF. Pure Truther talk if I've ever heard it.

 

[DC]

It really boils down to this. More Gazans supported Hamas than not. The vote results say it all. The five very reputable news sources I quoted support that position as well. Now that the going gets tough for the people who put Hamas in power you'all want to absolve them of their democratic choice, which was HAMAS.

So you guys circle your wagons and start this "truther" hair-splitting. And then ddt went so far as to create his own list for "evidence" that I am obviously 100% wrong.

Well, I am done with this crap. You guys go off and make up your own realities and have a blast with it. No hard feelings. Ok?

ddt actualy did not only google some news articles, he used the original data.

and actually i am only interested in how many people did really vote for them.
i am not so sure more did vote for hamas than did not vote for hamas.

it is not always required to have the majority of the popular vote to win an election.

but when your not interestd in the details, so be it.

 

[Skeptic]

What is your evidence that they're not democratic?

Er... that they are members of, or are partners with, a Marxist-Leninist terror organization?

Just a wild guess.

But hey, they have "democracy" in their name, so that is enough for you. I'm sure you think North Korea is a democracy, too. It says so right in its official name!

 

[ddt]

Of course there were other parties. That was my point, that no one did stop the Palestinians from forming, or voting for other parties. But more chose Hamas than anyone else. It was a democratic vote. The people spoke.

Because nearly half a million Palestinians voted for an militant Islamist movement is the reason Gaza is starving.

I have spent the past 24 hours Googling the numbers for the 2005 Gaza municipal elections. I can easily find the numbers for the 2006 Palestinian Presidential elections, the percentages often quoted here, but for the life of me I cannot find the actual breakdown for the 2005 Gaza municipal elections.

I have been doing this to give you that information. Guess what? I can't find them anywhere. If someone wishes to try to find the numbers for the 2005 Gaza municipal elections I would be willing to read them.

So I base my opinion on what I can find, and it is this, repeated by hundreds of news sources:

So IMHO if Hamas wins 2/3rds of the popular vote in the 2005 Gaza municipal elections, and every Palestinian on Earth knows who and what Hamas stands for, I don't accept the "get out of jail free card" people are trying to hand Gazans who gave Hamas 2/3rds of the popular vote in the 2005 Gaza Municipal elections.

Fair enough?

Are those numbers for the 2005 Gaza Municipal elections, or the 2006 Presidential elections. I dunno the the links are dead.





DING! WRONG. Hamas won 2/3rds of the vote in the 2005 Gaza Municipal elections.

If winning 2/3rds of the vote in the 2005 Gaza municipal elections is not "overwhelming" then I dunno what is. No matter how many ways you try.

I'll tell ya what guys. I'm not your enemy, so while you are trying to find ways to negate the 2005 elections in Gaza I shall rely on the following links to support my position.

"Results collated by Reuters for the 118 seats on 10 councils showed that candidates from the Hamas list had won just over 65 percent in Thursday's ballot against nearly 30 percent for Fatah."

I can keep going if you want. But the thing is, I don't want to.

It really boils down to this. More Gazans supported Hamas than not. The vote results say it all. The five very reputable news sources I quoted support that position as well. Now that the going gets tough for the people who put Hamas in power you'all want to absolve them of their democratic choice, which was HAMAS.

So you guys circle your wagons and start this "truther" hair-splitting. And then ddt went so far as to create his own list for "evidence" that I am obviously 100% wrong.

Well, I am done with this crap. You guys go off and make up your own realities and have a blast with it. No hard feelings. Ok?

Now the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are pedaling in "propaganda slogans" which I am supporting. Pure Truther talk if I've ever heard it.

I think it's obvious for everyone to read.

You claimed Hamas had won 2/3 of the popular vote, not 2/3 of the contested seats. Your claim is based only on part of those elections, the first round, and then on the number of seats gained, not on the number of votes. You haven't been able to confirm your claim; nor is it credible, as I argued before.

Your claim of "24 hours of Googling" seems dishonest. It took me what - 20 seconds? - to find that wiki page. I don't know how long it took DC to find the official site, but I bet it wasn't long either.

You claimed earlier that you were interested in the results. Now that you've gotten official links, you just refute what it says there, and moreover, depict those who came with those links as troofers. What happened with your interest in the results, as you stated in an earlier post?

Your attitude in this is disgusting, and that's an understatement.

 

[Skeptic]

Now the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are pedaling in "propaganda slogans" which I am supporting on JREF

When someone thinks "The Guardian" or the BBC are peddling pro-Israeli propaganda, they need to check themselves in for treatment before they hurt someone.

 

[BirdStrike]

ddt actualy did not only google some news articles, he used the original data.

This is my last response. The Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are not in on a big conspiracy to make the Palestinians look bad. I am not in on the conspiracy either... by pedaling in "propaganda slogans" - ddt's own words - based upon the findings of the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters.

and actually i am only interested in how many people did really vote for them. i am not so sure more did vote for hamas than did not vote for hamas.

...oh, wait a sec, ddt is telling the truth and everyone is lying. I get it.

it is not always required to have the majority of the popular vote to win an election.

but when your not interestd in the details, so be it.

So it is really me that is "not interested in details." God damn my stomach hurts I am laughing so hard right now!

 

[BirdStrike]

When someone thinks "The Guardian" or the BBC are peddling pro-Israeli propaganda, they need to check themselves in for treatment before they hurt someone.

Hahahahahahaha! I know. Those are two of the most rabid anti-Israel papers in Europe! And still their information is invalid. You just can't win with the "Middle East Truthers."

That is why I give up on this thread, the "Truthers" can go ahead an make up all the lists they want to split hairs in an effort to absolve the Palestinians from their democratic choice. I am done with this crap.

 

[ddt]

It really boils down to this. More Gazans supported Hamas than not. The vote results say it all. The five very reputable news sources I quoted support that position as well. Now that the going gets tough for the people who put Hamas in power you'all want to absolve them of their democratic choice, which was HAMAS.

Backpedaling? Your earlier claim was: Hamas won 2/3 of the votes. Stick to that. The 5 news sources say exactly what they say: Hamas (*) won 2/3 of the council seats. As I mentioned again and again, UK Labour won a similar number of seats in the Commons with only 36% of the popular vote. So it doesn't support your position at all. And it's only a part of the election, as you can see, in the later rounds in the other municipalities, Hamas did markedly poorer.

(*) and technically, they're incorrect there, as there was no Hamas list in that first round.

And finally, I don't see the relevance here of putting Hamas in power in the various municipalities on the bearings of "national" politics.

So you guys circle your wagons and start this "truther" hair-splitting. And then ddt went so far as to create his own list for "evidence" that I am obviously 100% wrong.

I've based my numbers on the official data. What's wrong with that? I also mentioned how many councillors were Hamas affiliated in that first round according to the NDI - a number that's even a bit higher than mentioned in your newspaper articles. Hair splitting????

Well, I am done with this crap. You guys go off and make up your own realities and have a blast with it. No hard feelings. Ok?

On the contrary. I'm red hot with anger about your attitude. I put some real work in compiling those lists. And as you can see, to get to the popular vote requires more number crunching. You obviously don't want to put in any effort at all to get there, and prefer to try to waste my time on posts like this.

Now the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are pedaling in "propaganda slogans" which I am supporting on JREF. Pure Truther talk if I've ever heard it.

No, you try to read something in those articles that's not there. Remember, your claim was about the popular vote, not about the seats.

 

[DC]

Er... that they are members of, or are partners with, a Marxist-Leninist terror organization?

Just a wild guess.

But hey, they have "democracy" in their name, so that is enough for you. I'm sure you think North Korea is a democracy, too. It says so right in its official name!

wow you know me isnt it?
i am a huge fan of the North Korean Democracy, really.....

 

[ddt]

This is my last response. The Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are not in on a big conspiracy to make the Palestinians look bad. I am not in on the conspiracy either... by pedaling in "propaganda slogans" - ddt's own words - based upon the findings of the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters.

They're telling Hamas won 2/3 of the seats. You claimed:

Gazans who gave Hamas 2/3rds of the popular vote in the 2005 Gaza Municipal elections.

...oh, wait a sec, ddt is telling the truth and everyone is lying. I get it.

I gave the links, you can check my work. You're trying to say that those newspaper articles claim that 2/3 of the Gazans voted for Hamas. That is indeed a lie.

So it is really me that is "not interested in details." God damn my stomach hurts I am laughing so hard right now!

It's obvious you're not interested in the details. Not even in the actual facts.

 

[DC]

This is my last response. The Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are not in on a big conspiracy to make the Palestinians look bad. I am not in on the conspiracy either... by pedaling in "propaganda slogans" - ddt's own words - based upon the findings of the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters.

maybe you didnt read my post, but i asked only a question about the Reuters number.
And even if the reuters number is wrong, it must not mean conspiracy. it can be a misstake.

the elections took place on 27/1/2005 in 14 population centers. the article was online just one day later. maybe they used exit polls? did they have already the results? when was the results known?

...oh, wait a sec, ddt is telling the truth and everyone is lying. I get it.

arent you twisting what i said, like the Loose Change kids like to do it in theyr "blockbusters"?

where did i accuse you of lieng?

So it is really me that is "not interested in details." God damn my stomach hurts I am laughing so hard right now!

you said you where interested in the results, there is several links now here, and you seem not to be interested anymore, how come?

 

[ddt]

Now the Guardian, Telegraph, VOA News, BBC and Reuters are pedaling in "propaganda slogans" which I am supporting on JREF

When someone thinks "The Guardian" or the BBC are peddling pro-Israeli propaganda, they need to check themselves in for treatment before they hurt someone.

Would you care to check in what context Birdstrike made that statement? Hint: it didn't involve Israel at all, it only involved the outcome of part of the Palestinian municipal elections. Would you then also check his claims w.r.t. those elections and how his claims relate to what the Guardian et.al. wrote?

 

[DC]

it took me maybe 5 minutes to find the official homepage

 

[Pardalis]

(a) Has "Democratic" in its name,

You mean like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

Boy, you wave the word "democratic" in front of these useful idiots' eyes and they can't think for themselves anymore. Kind of like hypnosis.

 

[WildCat]

are they against Democracy? or why are you so upset they use Democratic in theyr name? what exactly makes them undemocratic?

Hey, you're right! Having the word "democratic" in your name means you're all for democracy!

Just like, for example, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! Or that former democratic part of Germany, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik!

 

[a_unique_person]

It really boils down to this. More Gazans supported Hamas than not. The vote results say it all. The five very reputable news sources I quoted support that position as well. Now that the going gets tough for the people who put Hamas in power you'all want to absolve them of their democratic choice, which was HAMAS.

So you guys circle your wagons and start this "truther" hair-splitting. And then ddt went so far as to create his own list for "evidence" that I am obviously 100% wrong.

Well, I am done with this crap. You guys go off and make up your own realities and have a blast with it. No hard feelings. Ok?

Dubya is still president, yet clearly he has not had the support of Americans for at least a few years now.

Hamas was chosen because it was the first chance that was available to teach Fatah a lesson, since Arafat no longer had the power to manipulate the democratic process. From what I can tell from current polls, Hamas isn't going to do too well if elections were held now.

 

[DC]

Hey, you're right! Having the word "democratic" in your name means you're all for democracy!

Just like, for example, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! Or that former democratic part of Germany, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik!

like you kow anything, still waiting you to backup your absurd claimes from other threads, like your claim that in most european countrys one can marry his her sister/brother LOL. you Xenophobe

I know just cause they call themself democratic doesnt mean anything, i know. Sceptic calls himslef Sceptic and thats the best example to show that just cause it is labeled Sceptic it doesnt mean it has anything to do with Scepticism.

 

[WildCat]

like you kow anything, still waiting you to backup your absurd claimes from other threads, like your claim that in most european countrys one can marry his her sister/brother LOL. you Xenophobe

That was the claim in the CNN video I linked to. Is CNN wrong?

 

[DC]

That was the claim in the CNN video I linked to. Is CNN wrong?

oh sorry, it was on TV, then it must be true.

 

[WildCat]

oh sorry, it was on TV, then it must be true.

I responded in the other thread.