I stated that you don’t hold yourself to the same level of proof that you require of others. The statement that SBU offices were hit has far more evidence to support it than the opposite. Yet, here you still are hours later not being able to admit this.
You are free to admit being wrong, you know. It can be refreshing. Especially given that it’s obvious to everyone reading this thread. You’re not fooling anybody here.
I gave you sources, you never contradicted them. Two of the sources say that the SBU offices were hit, third source shows an explosion on the street the offices are located. I love how you’re still struggling with this. Why am I under the burden of providing even more evidence?
I stated that you don’t hold yourself to the same level of proof that you require of others. The statement that SBU offices were hit has far more evidence to support it than the opposite. Yet, here you still are hours later not being able to admit this.
You are free to admit being wrong, you know. It can be refreshing. Especially given that it’s obvious to everyone reading this thread. You’re not fooling anybody here.
deleted by creator
I gave you sources, you never contradicted them. Two of the sources say that the SBU offices were hit, third source shows an explosion on the street the offices are located. I love how you’re still struggling with this. Why am I under the burden of providing even more evidence?
deleted by creator
whatever you say
deleted by creator
Not what I said, but not surprised that’s how you’d interpret it.