This is both a Tu Quoque and a straw-man fallacy. It'd make a good training case for a rhetoric or junior law class.
I could call your response poisoning the well based on the same frivilous bullshit, this is just an attempt by you to be condescending, but okay, I will happily engage in a "further discussion" and dismantle your point.
So what do you imagine any "further discussion" to be? Degrees of how guilty Russia is before judicial or evidence-based guilt has even been established?
There is no solid evidence linking Russia to the downing of the flight - Even though it seems likely that Russian Intelligence and/or technicians were involved, that is far from certain, and there are other possibilities - Such as the rebels seizing Buks from Ukrainian armouries, Ukrainian Buks and jets, and so on... None of these possibilities have been ruled out, either. So Russia maintains plausible deniability, something the US didn't have in '88, and every country on Earth which has that tool uses it. Including the US, which does so on a regular basis.
You bring up circumstances. The US participated in the Iran-Iraq war, violated directly on Iranian territorial waters, attacked Iranian targets without a declaration of war, and shot down Flight 655 in its original flight path at cruise altitude - with two Cruise missiles fired directly from a US ship. If you want to expand context of US involvement in the Iran-Iraq even further, the US case looks even worse... considering they supplied WOMDs to Saddam, for example.
In the case of MH17, the most likely scenario is that the Donbass rebels used a Buk system either supplied to them, or a seized system to shoot down what they thought was a Ukrainian military transport... They Ukrainian Air Force was escorts and airstrikes, and made legitimate military targets. The MH17 flight was also on an altered trajectory after being sent on that course from Kiev. (and the Ukrainian Government holds the tower voice recordings a secret, whereas the Russiand and rebels handed over the black boxes and voice recordings to investigators almost right away...) Airliners had been warned in advance not to fly over the area, as it was designated a war zone, and Malaysia Air Lines decided to take the risk, with disasterous results.
If you think I have characterized the situations unfairly, left any important omissions, then please tell me what I am missing. The central point here is that if you're going to cast judgement on one nation for doing something horrible, it's not excusable when another does the exact same thing. Context is important - but you also have to look at the facts.