Slashdot Mirror


Engineers Make Good Terrorists?

An anonymous reader writes "Engineers' focus and attention to details, along with their perceived lack of social skills, make them ideal targets to be recruited as terrorists, according to EETimes. Planning skills make engineers good 'field operatives' was written up by Raphael Perl, who heads the Action against Terrorism Unit of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He offers that 'Engineers ideally make excellent strategic planners, and they make excellent field operatives. They think differently from how other people think.' That may sound like a stereotype, but Perl claims that 'because of those traits, terrorist groups actively recruit engineers.' He says that Al-Qaeda has widely acknowledged that a significant number of the group's top leadership had engineering backgrounds." This is the second time in just a few months that engineers have been likened to terrorists.

8 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Blah blah. by dwye · · Score: 2, Informative

    > (Engineers are all smart and anti-social, therefore they're basically the unabomber).

    The Unabomber was a mathematician. Quit trying to claim credit, where not due, you mere engineer, you. :-)

    IANAM, either.

  2. Re:Well, um, duh by secPM_MS · · Score: 3, Informative
    It was obvious more than 20 years ago that terrorist organizations were notable for their lack of strategic as well as technical competence. Mind you, this is rather common among the various groups that consider themselves to be social, religious, and political leaders. Legitimate organizations can hire the technical expertise that they need, and find scientists and engineers to be invaluable in accomplishing various objectives - the scientists are needed if you need to develop new technologies to accomplish your objectives.

    As an undergraduate physics student in the late 60's I made a number of comments about the total incompetence of the various radical groups. When one radical tried to get me to provide guidance for one of the groups (I still don't know if he actually had the contact) I replied that if I wanted to get into that business, I would go to work for the feds and that the group in question would either get arrested or blow themselves up, both logical and deserved consequences of their stupidity. They did. And they didn't even take out any innocent bystanders.

    If you are scared of change, you are not going to like dealing with engineers and scientists. They enable it. Build it up, tear it down, secure it, penetrate it. Engineering can do both good and bad. So can science. Different organizations may have different definitions of good and bad.

  3. Re:Red Alert Counterstrike? Re:Old news by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Informative

    Didn't the GDI engineers have the same ability? IIRC, in the first C&C either side could take over a building with a lone engineer. Then C&C:RA required either a van full of them, or some damage to the building ahead of time.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  4. Re:This makes me so ANGRY! by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hey, if you as an engineer think you get the short end of the accusatory stick, you don't. I'm a Muslim, and I have to qualify sentences with "IANAT" every time I say something that involves technical gear, government issues or gardening. I was once questioned because a wiretap caught me saying "that damn bush has got to go".

    --
    I hate printers.
  5. Terrorism Definitions by copponex · · Score: 1, Informative

    Terrorism has always been defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political goals. For states, of course, this definition only applies to the "enemy", which in a sweet twist of fate, includes enemies both foreign and domestic.

    The military is a terrorist organization when used in an aggressive manner not congruent with international law. But of course the rules only apply to "them" and not "us."

    1. Re:Terrorism Definitions by superwiz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Terrorism has always been defined as the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political goals. Defined by whom? That's not the definition at all. Terrorism is an attempt to destabilize cohesiveness of a society through violence and threats of violence. War-time saboteurs are generally considered terrorists as well. Certainly, they do not have any political goals in mind (only military). Military is not in itself a terrorist organization. It can use terrorist tactics, but the purpose of a military is two-fold: protecting violent attacks coming from without and attempting establishment of (hopefully temporary) dictatorial control over territories outside of one's country. Neither one of these goals is in itself terrorist. You are attempting to make the word "terrorism" mean more than it does in order to make it encompass activities which (while are not necessarily innocent) are not as abhorrent as terrorism is.

      The military is a terrorist organization when used in an aggressive manner not congruent with international law. "International Law" is a misnomer. "Law" is a set of rules enforcible and enforced by an overseeing authority. No such authority exists for the globe. Don't even start with the UN: it doesn't have the power to enforce it's resolutions. Whatever little power it does have it is mostly to shill opinions and wag its finger. The best we have is international agreements. But those are not even contracts (again, because contracts must have a law organization to enforce them). The international agreements are simply pacts -- which can be(and often are) broken in plain sight with no repercussions.
      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  6. Re:Engineers make horrible CEOs by aero6dof · · Score: 2, Informative

    They make horrible CEOs because they are detailed oriented

    Actually engineers don't make bad CEOs. The most common CEO undergrad degrees in S&P 500 companies is ... engineering! See link.

  7. Re:They have the skills, but the desire, maybe not by chuckymonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you ever been in on an interrogation for one of these higher up? Ever met on in person or talked to one? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass? I have personally been there and done all of the above. Iraq 2003-2004 2005-2006 (sneaky bastard). Most of them are pushing a very religous agenda, even the ones high on the food chain aren't doing it because they're opressed, they do it because they want to be the opressor in their region. They want all the mosque's in their area to preach what they want preached and to keep the masses ignorant to garner more power for themselves. Ever seen a body wadi? That's what we called it because that's where we would find all the bodies of a particular tribe that another tribe hated. I was present when we captured a particularly sick imam that made a habit out of raping and beheading people with opposing religous views. Most of the guys planting the bombs don't even necessarily care one way or the other about the position of the person who wants him to do it, usually it's just some poor farmer that had someone offer him money to put a box in a certain place at a certain time. What I think you fail to understand is how the culture in the mid-east works, there is a lot more to it than U.S. vs. Sunni. vs Shiite. There are huge familial bonds, ancient blood feuds, clan feuds, tribal feuds, honor killing, among many other things. All of them want to be the dominant power where they are and after they get it, they want more power and more, it's just the way of things. Not to say that all muslim regions are like this, just the bad ones are like this. I even had a fight with my mother about lumping a whole group of people together, she said some nasty slur about muslims and I lost my cool. Muslims aren't the problem, power hungry religous zealots are the problem. I worked with so many muslims that were great (Gigi, Aziz I'm looking at you) people, fun to be around, and all they wanted is for people to stop fighting and get along. They saw us (U.S. Forces) as the best way of doing that and often they would die for that when another zealot would find out they worked with us. Here's a little story for you, we took a break in the city we were in at a place where the proprietor was friendly towards the U.S. We bought some roasted chicken and were sitting down BSing with him when he received a phone call and immediately ushered us into the back. The reason was that there were some of the above stated assholes coming and he didn't want to have a firefight that could hurt other people, so he hid us in the back. Call it what you will, but the man was just trying to help and get on with his life, the vast majority of muslims want this. The others just want to control these good people.

    --
    "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho