Who shot down MH17? Pro-Russian separatists, of course. There is – as this week’s Economist calls it – a high-court’s worth of circumstantial evidence to prove it. Just like in last year’s Ghouta attacks, however, evidence is worthless if it is not trusted. This is the disastrous long-term consequence of the 2003 WMD fiasco.
Lack of trust results in polarization. Have a look at this:
Whatever one thinks of these arguments, it is plainly wrong not to invite someone holding the opposite view – an accusation that the state-funded Russia Today is regularly and rightly exposed to.
Interestingly, however, it is exactly what is happening on the other side. And not only in the obvious places. See for example Al Jazeera:
and even BBC’s Newsnight:
All this would stop if US Military intelligence could provide a conclusive, incontrovertible, in-your-face Smoking Gun. Why don’t they? Maybe, despite their awesome surveillance apparatus, they don’t have it. And, of course, lack of conclusive evidence is no proof that the hypothesis is false: that would be ‘Denying the antecedent‘, a blatant logical blunder. Maybe they have it, but they can’t release it. Or maybe no evidence, however strong, is immune to the counterclaim – honest or otherwise – of having been fabricated.
What certainly should be avoided, however, is to portray as conclusive evidence that obviously isn’t. That is a sure way to lose the argument:
