&gt; Just because something isn&#x27;t necessary doesn&#x27;t mean we shouldn&#x27;t do it. Your comment isn&#x27;t necessary, and it isn&#x27;t making a friend of me. Does this mean that it&#x27;s your fault if I attack you? That you should have backed out and minded your own business?<p>Surely you can discern why disagreeing with someone on HackerNews is different from invading their country, seizing their resources, and killing their family members.<p>&gt; So you say. But I can&#x27;t distinguish that whether that statement is fact or ideology. So I don&#x27;t believe you, and I shouldn&#x27;t until you&#x27;ve got some convincing evidence that it&#x27;s true. You can tell me a story. I don&#x27;t want a story.<p>And you can distinguish fact from ideology when people say that the solution to terrorism is more of what we&#x27;re already doing?<p>I can understand you discarding information because you don&#x27;t believe it&#x27;s reliable. What I don&#x27;t understand is that in the absence of information you believe to be reliable, you&#x27;ve still decided to form an opinion and argue for it. If you don&#x27;t have enough information, it&#x27;s okay to admit you don&#x27;t know.<p>&gt; And I really don&#x27;t see how people committing acts of terrorism are making good decisions that we should support by giving them what they want for doing so.<p>I really don&#x27;t see anyone proposing that.