For the fun of it!  Why else?

And these turds call Obama elitist!

It would seem Americans are at least as well as informed as "other countries".

American's don't ridicule the rest of the world. They just don't care about it. And the world gives little reason for Americans to care.

It would? How so? There are no stats relating to the USA in the table you posted. In the absence of any evidence to support your claim, it remains mere supposition.

Actually, I think there is a difference between being interested in learning what people in other countries think about the US and Americans and wanting to base domestic policy and laws on how they do things in other countries.

I know when I have travelled, or met people here for other countries, I am often interested to hear what they think about the US and Americans.  I'm also usually interested to learn the differences between how we see them and how they really are.

So I do care, I just don't want our elected officials, judges or diplomats to let what others think be the driving justification for decisions or actions.

You do know, there is this whole Internet thing where these stats are readily available.  Are you saying you've never seen it?  It's 75/25 (75% al queda, 25% all others combined).

Very droll. Doubtless you are equally aware that one can find 'evidence' in support of almost any argument one chooses, no matter how bonkers, if one trawls widely enough.

That said, I accept that your supposition may well be right. However, given that the study you cite did not include a sample from the USA means that it remains just that - a supposition.

So, assuming we're taking Al Quaeda as the 'correct' answer, what we have here is an American 'high ground' based upon an error rate of one in four. Surely this should be regarded as less an opportunity to dismiss the opinions of the rest of the world than cause for questioning domestic perceptions.

And here I was thinking it was Donkey Kong...

(Yes, I know it's cheesy to quote oneself, but please bear with me.)

Since my last post, it occurred to me that it might be revealing to look at the statistics Draginol cited not as percentages of national populations, but in terms of absolute numbers. This led me to put together the following table:

The table is sorted on the final column, in ascending order.

The reader will notice that, when it comes to numbers of people who believe that the 9/11 attacks were NOT instigated by Al Quaeda, the USA has more than every other country surveyed except Indonesia and China. Indeed, the USA has more than Palestine, Jordan, Kenya, Taiwan, South Korea and France COMBINED.

So - an illuminating alternative view of the statistics Draginol cites as 'Something to keep in mind next time someone argues that we need to care what other countries think', or just 'lies, damned lies and statistics'? You be the judge.

Yea, that stupid little thing called percentages gets in the way.

Considering we have 20% loons on the right, and on the left, plus the obligatory flat earthers, the percent for the US is not surprising,  But I fail to see how you showing 2 wrongs proves a right.

I didn't, and it doesn't. I did not mention 'wrong' or 'right', and claimed neither for this alternative presentation of the statistics. On the contrary, I offered a specific invitation:

That you chose to respond not to what I wrote, but to what you obviously wanted me to have written, speaks volumes, oh doctor of naught.

Ah, another sycophantic moan!  And here I thought you had your own brain. 

As you clearly had a point to make by pointing out several issues with the numbers you posted, that was what my question was directed at you about.  Since you dont have a brain apparently, I can see how you would miss that, and just bleat what your handlers want you to say.

sycophant - n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. (American Heritage Dictionary)

How can a 'moan' be an attempt to flatter, and just whom did you have in mind as the influential party it was supposedly directed at? The use of long words is not quite so impressive if it is clear from the context that the writer doesn't know what they mean.

Sticks and stones. Abuse is the most common indicator of a lost argument.

I agree and since you did it first, apparently you lost.  Thank you for conceding.  And better get a new dictionary if you cant figure out the sycophantic moan part.

i wonder how many of the "other" were cases where people answered bin laden...

Balderdash (Bowdlerised). I called you a 'doctor of naught', which is no more and no less than precisely what you are. But tell me, how is life in kindergarten?

I see - so in your world,only what you say is name calling is name calling (and indeed I did not call you a name, just said that your lacked a brain).  Since you clearly dont know what I have, it is clear you were just being childish with your school yard taunts.  Granted, it was not very sophisticated or clever, but then the names you decide to use are not my choice. .Although it seems that you want to make the choice for everyone else.

It does not work that way.  But as far as kindergarten, I left it 45 years ago.  WHy?  You applying now?