Yeah, doctors are well educated, but I think they are often 1/2 way off their rocker. Med school is enough to do that to you sometimes, it's a grind, and then they make you do an internship, then a residency. By the time you hang your shingle you've spent your entire youth being "educated." Who you are as a person may have been seriously sacrificed.
I actually have a
slightly negative opinion of doctors as a profession myself. A bit over-rated, in my opinion, outside of E.R. trauma-care.
But that's going off-topic entirely, my reservations about them have nothing to do with terrorism.
I don't think there's a particular connection of that profession and terrorism, at least not one that doesn't just as well apply to all the high-status professions that tend to appeal to people from the cultures that are relevant to certain forms of terrorism. Engineers are notoriously greatly over-represented among them, for example. Really not hard to see why that might be.
Anyway, I'd be
amazed if anyone imagines at this point that terrorists are always drawn from uneducated poor people. That's not the historical pattern
at all.
It irritates me that often I hear conservative commentators attacking the straw man idea that terrorists are always poor and oppressed in every way, implying that
the liberals are so stupid as to believe that.
Nobody actually believes that in the first place, it's
way more complicated than that.
There are clearly certain groups that are over-represented but there is more than one such group, there are clearly clusters of them across multiple demographic categories.
Also the startling thing to me about that Glasgow attack was how inept at terrorism these highly-skilled and educated guys turned out to be. They failed to check in advance whether their fire-bomb car would fit through the bollards outside the airport doors - it didn't, it got stuck, meaning the only people they injured were themselves.