because 

A) That's not true.

and

B) Your whole Holomodor spiel has brought you to whole new levels of lack of credibility.

Your about as believable as someone from Maidan who would deny the holocaust... actually slightly less so, since at least they weren't part of the country where they made such ridiculious claims.

After in general debunking a number of things you've said already like not even knowing when the outsed head of Ukrainian intellegence took power... that more or less seals the final nail in the coffin of credibility.

In general at this point i consider you less credible then places like infowars (which you site, and which are well... terrible.)

You have an opinion, and you shape the facts around said opinion.   Ignroing general facts on the ground even when they contradict, instead simply finding different things to cover yourself in, rather then change an opinion.

Which, in general is something you tend to have supported as a way of thinking about... somehow.  Never finding anything wrong with "patriotic" stuff as you put it.

Prove it, and explain why certain police officers have the same red armbands? why not single body had red armband? why the man on the pic below wears St.George ribbon and Ukrainian flag at the same time AND red armband.

When did I exactly denied famine of 1932-33, a quote please? I denied the premise of it being delibarate genocide as it referred by propaganda, hence the invented term Holodomor.

Wanna talk about it? Go through my points above one by one. Just do not fall flat on your face like Badassbab did.

A) Not sure what that has to do with whether or not the march troubles had anything to do with the union fires.

As for the picture... there are plenty of reasons he could have an armband+the flag.  A trophy, just being dumb, really anything.  If your trying to argue some kind of false flag start to the whole thing... don't you think that'd be something they'd make sure was removed?

B)  I could, just like I could spend  a whole day deconstructing 9/11 conspiracies as bullshit... it's not particularly constructive to break down the dozens of ways the soviets basically caused the famine/made it worse with their incompetant polices then specifically crafted new policies targeted at Ukraine like the blacklist sysem. 

Besides which, you already admit the goverment removal of grain from an area with famine.  Basic government grain export numbers from the period alone speak for themselves.

Your arguement seems to be that they didn't plan for there to be a famine so it shouldn't be considered a genoicde, which seems a bit off since they used the genoicde to target specific people... as shown by the fact that the majority of people who died during the famine were the people who lived in the area that food grew.  

Hell even the soviets knew it. Otherwise, I'm guessing it wouldn't of been classfied up until the 90's.

And this is your argument? You've just disregarded the evidence. Ok, what about the rest of my questions: "explain why certain police officers have the same red armbands? why not single body had red armband? " -- and I'm merely scratching the surface, there's f**kton of questions to ask. The link I gave earlier should shed a light on the events for you, smbd even did you a favor and translated it into English so you won't rely solely on BBC and alike.

In another words you can't documentally disprove  my arguments I posted above, instead used demagogic stunt to accuse me of saying things I didn't. Been there.

I'm still trying to figure out what your arguement is in either of these cases at this point.  At first you argued the conflict had no connection.  Now you are trying to argue a connection... but a different one.   Which is it?

It doesn't seem like there are many questions to be asked in regards to the incidient if you ask me.  Two groups of miltia escalated in a fight, Ukranian miltia one and slaughtered the other side with a bunch of innocent civilians.

That there were police in the group isn't partiularly surprising, since i imagine your average police officer is likely to support the miltias at least in sentiment, espeically since the Ukranian government is ignoring the fact that they exist, essentially giving those groups tacit approval.  That some should suit up and join the miltia in killing a bunch of russian supporers makes perfect sense to me.

As for the second part...

Official Grain exports+ the majority of the people dieing being the areas that had their grain taken is pretty damn undeniable when you get down to brass tacks.

There are tons of other policies that can be documented, things that can be drawn out... but the above not sure how you argue with that.  

My argument is plain obvious, I've stated in the first post on the matter. It's a provocation, red armbands are probably have no connection to either of the groups. The main culprit is the same who's likely behind the mass murders in Kiev this February, Parubiy. He was in Odessa three days before the events btw. This is hardly proves his involvement, but I'm absolutely dead certain about this being a provocation made by officials, not an accident.

I'm not sure what you mean by "grain taken", you have to be more specific and terminologically correct, but this doesn't even matter. This is pointless discussion unless you start addressing points I made in responce to Badassbab, there's really many of them, but enough to debunk his "deliberate genocide" suggestion. Otherwise this is exactly "...whole day deconstructing..."

Not sure why you think any of your points actually prove your point, their isn't anything TO refute.

As for grain taken... I'm not sure how much more terminologically correct I could be... but sure...

The soviets took food from the Ukraine during the famine, blacklisted villigaes that couldn't produce enough, basically causing them to die, and a whole other list of henious shit.  

This can be shown by the fact that the famine basically only hurt those who provided the soviet union with the most food in the first place.

Assuming you take the low end of the casualties... (as would be my guess) simply by not requisitioning the grain in the first place, basically nobody would have died.

If Holomodor wasn't the government's fault, and Stalin wasn't targeting the Ukranians, why did he make sure they all stayed in the Ukraine, covered anything up, and killed anyone who talked about it?

Why was it a crime to mention it happened, regardless of who or what you blamed?

Generally it doesn't take 50 years for a government to admit when people die to a third party event.

Are you answering to your inner voice or what? Have you actually addressed any of my points? Should I repeat them for a third time -- people with red armbands, police with same armbands, both nothing to do with people who have been slaughtered?

Quote actual act goddammit, are we talking about "food assessment" or what? Be precise.

Pepe of Asia Times strikes again :D

Oh I mean nothing to refute on the holomodor thing.  This stuff is just something i'm not inclined to dig into due to your general lack of reliability whe it comes to these conspiracy theory like angles as shown when you were completely wrong on the Yakymenko statements, not even knowing when he assumed power.

As for the actual act... with the grain,  do I speak russian?   It's exports after what would closest translate to "Food Requistion" i'd guess.   I'm doing this from memory.

It's not like it's some rare unknown policy or anything.  The tax was something like 40% of expected totals, with yields inflated to the point of where, basically farmers couldn't pay their shit, villiages got blacklisted, and then were basically fucked.

Of course, you really haven't addressed why they'd keep a famine top secret for 50 years punishable by prison time if it was mentioned... or blacklisting or any of that.