Comment Re:Obvious answer? (Score 1) 736
Well I did RTFA but I agree with the GP as the arguments in the article weren't convincing.
According to the article:
"Another possible explanation would be that engineers possess technical skills and architectural know-how that makes them attractive recruits for terrorist organizations. But the recent study found that engineers are just as likely to hold leadership roles within these organizations as they are to be working hands-on with explosives. In any case, their technical expertise may not be that useful, since most of the methods employed in terrorist attacks are rudimentary. It's true that eight of the 25 hijackers on 9/11 were engineers, but it was their experience with box cutters and flight school, not fancy degrees, that counted in the end."
The first point regarding the leadership roles seem like a non sequitur. Holding leadership roles could be a result of moving up through the ranks because of success at the practical level (eg hands-on with explosives) or analysis/planning/project managing (engineers learn more than just technicians). Or it could simply be the result of there being more engineers in these groups.
The second point regarding low tech methods also does not properly account for enginuity and innovation when there are massive resource and technical constraints. Also engineers are more than just technic