Perfect proof of what I just said: You're admitting that you haven't seen any actual proof whatsoever, you're just confident that the fact that some countries are taking action must mean that there must be truth to the accusations. You're probably not even wondering why it's basically only US allied countries on that list, maybe haven't even heard that it's very typical for the US to apply pressure to allied countries to join in on such actions, and I assume you're not even wondering why most countries on that list are only expelling the bare minimum, 1 or 2 diplomats, which indicates that they were reluctant to do so.

Do you need a list of all the bad things the US has done over the last few decades? Jesus get some perspective 

Actually, I don't get why your stance on the US should even be relevant here.

But if you want to compile a list of bad things country X has done, start with your own country first. After all, that's the country for whose policies you as a citizen and voter are even personally responsible for.

Sorry, I'm not getting what you're referring to.

What I'm trying to say is that I find that "Well, I admit I haven't seen any proof whatsoever, but if so many countries join in and also expell diplomats, I guess there must be something to the accusations"-thinking a bit weird.

But anyway: Please, name me just one plausible explanation why russia, out of all the billions of reliable ways they could have killed the guy, they instead decided to try to kill him in the one way that instantly points towards them, and which is obviously extremely unreliable (since none of the victims died so far). I so far still haven't heard any plausible explanation for this; instead, in my eyes this very fact rather screams "false flag attack - the true target of the operation wasn't even to kill the guy, but to immediately suggest that russia was responsible".

There's also the question why russia didn't simply kill the guy years ago, when he was in imprisoned in russia for his actions. But the former question is much more pressing.

No I didn't read the other posts, it's good your open to seeing the shite from all countries

For all the crap the US has done in the past Im not aware of any mass US diplomatic expulsion from any of those countries, somehow the US dodged that bullet, yeah we all know why, there is definitely camps developing here, and the Russians see it, don't expect anything to get better, this is just stirring up shit and wont be good for anyone, prove it first, give the Russians a right of reply, the way these countries are doing it now is like a gang of school yard thugs accusing a kid with no evidence of some infraction 

Again this will only harden Russia, the hawks in each of the countries love it, particularly in Russia and the US 

The government is purely pro-American. Nothing strange.

Sorry, I still don't get why your stance on the US should be of any relevance to the thread topic.

What's the problem with assumptions? I don't consider making assumptions alone to be a problem. Yes, I do assume that the major reason behind these countries acting like this is because they feel pressured to join in on the "expelling diplomats" train - the odd fact that pretty much all these countries are US allies strongly suggests so etc.

And yet, even though there is very strong indication that this assumption is true, I'm not demanding to expel diplomats from these countries without any actual further proof, am I? You on the other hand are instantly welcoming the expelling of over 150 diplomats ("It's a start.") without having seen or even demanding any actual proof, and your sole rationale seems to be "Well, why else would these countries act like this if these accusations wouldn't be true?" Well, in my previous posting I simply named an alternative plausible explanation...

Anyway, you completely ignored the question in my previous posting, so I'm asking it again. Please respond to it, otherwise I will assume that you probably do not want to answer because you do not have a good answer:

Please, name me just one plausible explanation why russia, out of all the billions of reliable ways they could have killed the guy, they decided to try to kill him in the one way that instantly points towards them, and which is obviously extremely unreliable (since none of the victims died so far).

Exactly. I do not understand how anyone can seriously welcome these actions, how anyone can believe that it's something positive to expell diplomats.

The so-called "doomsday clock" is already at two minutes to midnight (=doomsday), it has never even been closer than that - even during the Cuba crisis it was several minutes further from midnight.

And yet, despite obvious doubts people should have about russia being behind this, people are seriously welcoming steps that are sure to only significantly increase the tensions between Russia and the US and push us all closer to WW3, without even demanding any actual proof whatsoever?

I don't get it. Are these people so damn sure they won't seriously be affected by WW3? Right at a time when for example the US wants to build new nuclear weapons, Europe wants to massively increase its military budget etc.?

Yes, just one, that's enough.

What you linked to is far from being an answer though - instead of providing the plausible explanation that I asked for in my question, you're instead simply referring to a similar case, where NATO countries were also quick at pointing fingers towards russia, but ultimately never provided any actual proof for these claims.

That is as if I were accusing you of having killed Martin Luther King - and when you're asking for a plausible explanation how you could have done that, given the fact that you weren't even born back at the time, I'm answering by linking to an old thread were I also accused you of having shot JFK...

So, once again:

Please, name me just one plausible explanation why russia, out of all the billions of reliable ways they could have killed the guy, they decided to try to kill him in the one way that instantly points towards them, and which is obviously extremely unreliable (since none of the victims died so far).

True. But then again, that was a clear retaliation response to an action by Obama:

Shortly before leaving office, Obama ordered to increase tensions with Russia by expelling russian diplomats, effectively reducing the number of russian diplomats in the US to 455.

So the Kremlin did a tit-for-tat response and ordered that the number of US diplomats in Russia must also be reduced to the very same number, 455.