Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
My issue is that on the (?second) day of the war, a group of Western reporters were presented with “evidence” of the planning that had gone into the attack, and I found the “evidence” to be laughably bad - the evidence itself, the supposed circumstances it was found under, the condition of the evidence - all were bad. And if you present such incredibly poor “evidence” at one point, I’m going to automatically be much more suspicious of any other “evidence” you present later.
My issue is that on the (?second) day of the war, a group of Western reporters were presented with “evidence” of the planning that had gone into the attack, and I found the “evidence” to be laughably bad - the evidence itself, the supposed circumstances it was found under, the condition of the evidence - all were bad. And if you present such incredibly poor “evidence” at one point, I’m going to automatically be much more suspicious of any other “evidence” you present later.