Actually, I don't get why your stance on the US should even be relevant here.
And yes, my stance is relevant because I'm already critical of the US. And I would gladly list everything bad the US has done it it were relevant to the conversation...which it's not.
Sorry, I still don't get why your stance on the US should be of any relevance to the thread topic.
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 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".
You made several assumptions yourself. You are assuming why other nations are withdrawing diplomats. You are assuming I question the number of diplomats being withdrawn. You are assuming reluctance on their part to withdraw more. I want proof of all of that. Again, don't debase others for an assumption when you make several of your own.
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).