What you're referring to. You said "I read that as less of a joke than a wry observation." What is 'THAT'? Then you go into something about bad writing for journalism. I'm not sure how your post is anyway related to thread.
Ah.
Tinkerbellandeeyor wrote: "He had a joke I am
Pretty sure it was him that had to do with suicide
https://www.disboards.com/threads/ive-just-seen-the-headline-suicide-bomber-strikes-again.3620249/"
You'll note that I quoted her in my post, the one you responded to.
Responding to her line, "He had a joke...", I said, "I read that as less of a joke than a wry observation." Meaning, Domo is probably not saying suicide is hilarious, he's saying that the headline is ridiculous.
Then I went on to point out that Domo really could have been telling the truth when he said, "I've just seen the headline, "Suicide bomber strikes again." A quick Google search reveals that this is, indeed, a very common headline.
It's also a terrible headline, because obviously suicide bombers don't strike "again". Suicide is, after all, a fundamental part of 'suicide bombing'. And it's hard to commit further atrocities once you've gone and killed yourself. What the journalist means to say is that
another suicide bomber has gone and blown himself up.
So, yes... on seeing that kind of headline, I would probably make the same observation that Domo did. Oobviously, I don't intend to minimize, celebrate, or in any way suggest that suicide bombing isn't a terrible thing. It's simply bad journalism.
Does that make it any clearer?
