All I’d say is that isn’t an exaggerated claim. They said 41 targeted, any assumption about how many were hit is not coming from them.
Equally, the quote you have provided confirms just that they know of at least 13 destroyed.
It could be 41 were hit but only 13 destroyed.
This also implies:
they are still assessing the total impact and 2. arguably are doing exactly the opposite of what you stated by only counting known destruction and not exaggerating
All I’d say is that isn’t an exaggerated claim. They said 41 targeted, any assumption about how many were hit is not coming from them.
Equally, the quote you have provided confirms just that they know of at least 13 destroyed. It could be 41 were hit but only 13 destroyed.
This also implies:
The headline in this post says 41 hit. That is the clarification I was trying to make.
You’re right, I apologise