Nope, wrong again. There is no statistics involved at all. This is more of a common sense thing. Let me explain:
Situation A:
A group of people, in protest of the occupation of the West Bank, calls for the death of IDF troops.
One week later, a man walks up to the Rafah checkpoint and guns down four Israeli soldiers.
Situation B:
An activist group makes claims that a company has, through negligence, caused hundreds of deaths in a small town. The story gets widespread media coverage, but later it comes out that some of the claims were exaggerated/fabricated.
A month later, a man walks into the offices of the company and guns down four employees.
Simply looking at both situations (not performing any statistical analysis, because as I'm sure you know, it is impossible in these situations for reasons of both ethics and mathematical rigor) which group would you say did more to incite the actions of the murderers? I would claim, as I did in my previous post, that neither connection is particularly strong. But certainly it is stronger in the first instance, as the group in question actually called for the end result which occurred, which, in the second situation did not occur. Nothing about this argument involves quantitative analysis. It is more a question of applied ethics. I hope that helps to clarify!