Comment: Call for Evidence . . . and then baloney

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Let's wait for more evidence (see in situ)

Call for Evidence . . . and then baloney

You call for more evidence, and I agree with that opinion.

But then you make statements that have absolutely no foundation of evidence:

"Circumstantial evidence points to Russia and so does world's public opinion (and common sense). One has to be blind not to see that.It is important that the world's public opinion is kind of impartial."

'circumstantial evidence' ? Are you kidding ? There is either sufficient evidence, or not. You contradicted yourself.

'public opinion' ? - First of all, we have No Idea what the 'world's public opinion" is on this. Sufficient polling hasn't been done - not that this opinion makes a difference as to what the truth is anyway. The 'public opinion' you see comes from limited western 'news' media. Hardly 'impartial'. Bloomberg articles, for example, aren't 'evidence'. Check other sources of information.

'common sense' (appeal to popularity) 'one has to be blind not to see it' ( ad hominem, and begging the question) - More logical fallacies and contradictions of your initial call for evidence.

Either the plane was shot down by accident or on purpose. If an accident, there are several parties that could have been responsible. If on purpose (that is, they knew it was a civilian airliner from a non-combatant country) one must ask "Who benefits ?"

Please learn about logic and logical fallacies.
Unfortunately, too many people today 'think' in unsound ways like this. Critical thinking skills used to be taught to Americans in school, but not now. Thankfully, Ron Paul offers lessons on this in his Home Schooling program. It is a skill that any of us can learn.

The only thing you said that made sense and was consistent is that we need more evidence. On that point, we agree. But, it appears that you attempt to appear 'fair minded' while already having made up your mind.