In this entire article, especially in the first version of it, she only cited "Israeli sources" and a Hizbullah "expert" from the WINEP shop but only to deny that Israel was behind it. In the later edition, she added a Lebanese Shi`ite economist (and she bizarrely called him a Hizbullah expert although he never once wrote a word about Hizbullah): Look at the effort to absolve Israel of responsibility: "Hezbollah did not say how Mr. Laqees had been killed but accused “the Israeli enemy” of targeting him and said Israel would have to “bear all the responsibility and ramifications of this vile crime.”
Yet at the same time, memorial images circulating on social media framed his death as part of the conflict in Syria, showing him against a backdrop of the Sayida Zeinab shrine near Damascus, Syria, a site particularly revered by Shiites that Hezbollah has helped to defend. " Now my favorite part is "yet at the same time". Why would she think that the posting of his pictures with the backdrop of Sayyidah Zaynab means that Israel is not responsible? How did you go from A to B except on an express train of Israeli propaganda?
Yet at the same time, memorial images circulating on social media framed his death as part of the conflict in Syria, showing him against a backdrop of the Sayida Zeinab shrine near Damascus, Syria, a site particularly revered by Shiites that Hezbollah has helped to defend. " Now my favorite part is "yet at the same time". Why would she think that the posting of his pictures with the backdrop of Sayyidah Zaynab means that Israel is not responsible? How did you go from A to B except on an express train of Israeli propaganda?
