There is a difference between saying it was a call, and saying you believe it was a call. There is evidence to the contrary, so we at best cannot be sure without some kind of due process. People are free to believe what they want, of course.

If someone is going to claim they are not trumpeting a narrative and are making fact based claims, and not opinions based on their interpretation of words and events, then I will hold them to that standard.

At some point you have to start reading the intended rather than literal meaning. Otherwise "it would be shame if your shop burned down" is just a friendly warning for the future, not an extortion. There's a lot of grey area which can be interpreted in context of what people usually do, where their interest lies and what they don't immediately speak out against.

As usual, Simpsons already did it, and claiming there's no relation there is like claiming the tattoo really says "the Bart, the" in German.

Never said there is no relation. I’m saying that claiming there certainly was, in this case, is a stretch because there is counter evidence.

Of course, people will disbelieve it, and soon enough, someone like me pointing out the obvious problems with such claims will just be called an insurrectionist sympathizer and be arrested under the new terror laws. So eventually people like the OP can stop worrying their claims will be questioned.

> There is a difference between saying it was a call, and saying you believe it was a call.

No, there isn’t. Like, literally, the utterance “X is true” cannot mean anything other than “I believe that X is true and believe that belief to be justified”. All statements are statements of belief, and all fact claims are based on interpretation of events (and the utterance of words are, themselves, events.)

Such pedantry emerging from what I can’t imagine to be anything other than a strong desire to deliberately misunderstand me means it’s not worth further engagement. Good luck.