I gotta reply cause it’s not an issue of our reading comprehension; the real issue is your terrible writing and self-contradictory logic. In other words, the issue is your own comprehension and writing ability.

In your orginal comment, the overall sarcastic tone, the “what a [~]…” expression which is commonly used to connote a degree of incredulity in regard to what follows, and the deprecating emoji would all be reasonably used to infer that you view LA as actually NOT being a particularly safe place, YET still being chosen as a “safe” place, due to the irregular state of the world (hence, “what a world”).

Then, when u/consentualcunteater follows that logical thread by questioning you about LAX’s vulnerability to missile attack, you immediately contradict yourself by rejecting that user’s logical reply. If perhaps you sincerely believed that LA is indeed a safe place in the world for that plane, then you shouldn’t have used that sentence construction and sarcastic tone in your original comment.

Then, in your next reply, you finally reveal that you do indeed believe that “LA is a safe place for that plane”. So, your original comment was poorly written; you actually wrote the opposite of what you mean.

Finally, in that same, third comment of yours, you introduce the topic of distance by comparing LA to five other cities and capitalizing “MUCH” to describe “closer”. This stylistic choice, along with the fact that you choose to conclude your critical comment with it, reasonably leads the reader to infer that you believe the variable of distance from Bahrain is an important reason for why the choice of LA is strange. If that is indeed the case, then you should have drawn attention to that in your original comment, rather than only mentioning safety.

Your ability to express yourself in writing is subpar, not our comprehension. Though I’m of the mind to forgive you, since a quick review of your recent dozen or so comments reveal that English is not a native language.