And yet you found a way; full marks for effort. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 09/05/2011 07:52:03 AM
9/11 was 10 years ago. About half of those teenagers were too young to pay attention or understand when it occurred, and how many teenagers pay attention to the news?
Even if I give them a pass on 911 (and it's not like we stopped talking about on 912; this is, as we're so often told, a "post 911 world", after all
) bin Laden and Al Qaeda didn't cease to be relevant that day. That began widespread public awareness of them, it didn't end it, or shouldn't have. Not when they were still out there plotting our deaths, not when there was an attempted attack in the US just 18 months ago. That may just be preoccupied youth, but it's not youthful disinterest in "history", recent or otherwise, it's youthful disinterest in a large, well trained and well financed group actively seeking their deaths, and the man who, until last weekend, funded, inspired and led them. Good news for Iman Al Zawahiri now; best place for him to hide out and avoid capture is probably a US high scool full of people as contemptuous of their parents priorities as he is. 
Wow. You are sounding like a nut. For realsies. For realsies. Have you ever once stopped to consider that just because someone searched for the term "who is osama bin laden" that they might indeed know who he is, but not much else? Further, kids are busy themselves, especially in that age group. Not just with social lives, but with school, sports and jobs. They may know his one most infamous act but you know, it says to me, that those kids are interested in knowing more than just what happened on 9/11.
And your last bit made you sound like a stupid fuck. Just a heads up.
Again, a question indicating general ignorance indicates general ignorance; it's pretty straight forward. I wouldn't start additional research on the subject by asking Yahoo "what is television?" precisely because I have at least a basic familiarity with the subject; any additional research would be to augment that basic familiarity, not recap it. The last statement was sarcasm, as indicated by the smiley, though if general ignorance of Al Qaedas leadership is as widespread as the Yahoo searches suggest it may not be far from the truth even so.
I don't even know where to begin to reply to you. You spew forth "dumb". You take the topic, give an irrelevant answer and thought process in a way that suits your needs and calls an orange an apple. Wow. Just wow. Now I remember why I've been ignoring you for the better part of two years and been ignoring anything you touch that long...
How was my answer or thought process irrelevant? The only question you posed was
Have you ever once stopped to consider that just because someone searched for the term "who is osama bin laden" that they might indeed know who he is, but not much else?
which I answered
Again, a question indicating general ignorance indicates general ignorance; it's pretty straight forward. I wouldn't start additional research on the subject by asking Yahoo "what is television?" precisely because I have at least a basic familiarity with the subject; any additional research would be to augment that basic familiarity, not recap it.
If that's not explicit enough, yes, I considered that someone might ask the most general possible question about bin Laden despite knowing who he is--for about half a second. Then I concluded most people with minimal knowledge would ask a question based on that rather than a completely ignorant one. That's my answer, and the illustrative thought process you directly asked for (thus it's doubly relevant). If you think it presumptuous, fine, but being presumptuous in turn, to the point of dismissing a direct answer to a direct question as "irrelevant", is hypocritical. By your reasoning you have no right to speculate on mine (and no need after I tell you outright), so if you want your click back *gestures at cyberspace* you're welcome to it.
