Yes, it's good to be precise with statements.

It's also good to deliver precise information in a way that does not imply further misinformation. Take this statement:

"X has happened"

If you reply with "It's not X", you inadvertently imply that nothing has happened. "It's Y, not X" does not have the same implication.

It's shifting focus away from the main issue at hand. Yes, in the future, I'll speak accurately about the attacks, but your point is purely academic when we're talking about the material conditions around a bombing.

The problem is that bad faith actors often attempt to discredit one's argument overall when they are not 100% accurate about the facts.

If I were making a formal statement in a professional setting, I'd want to be as accurate as possible, but on a forum post where the issue is one country bombing another, correcting someone on the nature of the bombings' targets isn't adding to the discussion in the same way.

I don't mean to attack you, but read the room.

This is such a weird thread and your tidbit of correction was totally inoffensive and benign