Ebola contained … What if terrorism were treated like a disease?

The following headline caught my eye:

clip_image002

======

More specifically, the WHO said:

“Ebola transmission … no longer constitutes an extraordinary event, the risk of international spread is now low, and countries currently have the capacity to respond rapidly to new emergences.”

Hmmm.

Now, re-read the WHO statement, substituting the words “radical Islamic terrorism” for “Ebola transmission”.

Let’s connect a couple of more dots …

=======

How was it that the world was able to get its arms around Ebola, but doesn’t seem to have a clue re: the spread of terrorism?

Maybe the answer is to start treating terrorism like a disease.

I don’t mean to clinically classify it so that it becomes rationalized and excusable.

Nope, I’m talking about treating terrorism as if it were a threatening disease.

Think about it.

How did Ebola get contained worldwide … and, kept from being a statistically significant threat in the U.S.?

First, the “world” declared war on the specific named enemy – Ebola – and put on a full-court press to stop its spread.

In the U.S., folks traveling from virus-plagued parts of the world (think, Africa) were stopped when attempting to enter the U.S., subjected to rigorous on-the-spot testing, quarantined if there was the slightest indication of infection, biometrically “registered” for tracking, and monitored to make sure that they weren’t spreading the virus.

Pretty good program with pretty good results right?

OK, now do some more word substitution.

Just change “virus-plagued parts of the world” to “terrorism-plagued parts of the world” and change “virus” and “infection” to “radicalization”:

“In the U.S., folks traveling from terrorism-plagued parts of the world (think, Syria) will be stopped when attempting to enter the U.S., subjected to rigorous on-the-spot testing (think, polygraphs maybe), quarantined if there was the slightest indication of radicalization, biometrically “registered” for tracking, and monitored to make sure that they weren’t spreading the radicalization.”

Sounds to me like a pretty good prescription.

So, next time you hear somebody shrug off the fact that refugee groups might contain a handful of radical Islamic terrorists, just ask them:

“What if the refugee groups contained a handful of Ebola-infected virus-spreaders?”

My bet is that they’ll give you a different answer.

So, why not treat terrorism like a disease?

=====

#HomaFiles

Follow on Twitter @KenHoma            >> Latest Posts

 

One Response to “Ebola contained … What if terrorism were treated like a disease?”

  1. John Carpenter Says:

    Terror has broken out in many places. Besides the presumed implication of screening all “infected” Middle East travelers I assume you will be willing to subject the residents of France, Belgium and Russia to this scrutiny. Also, I assume it would apply to residents of New York, San Bernadino,and Garland, Texas.

    Why not treat terrorism like a disease? Because it isn’t. Address it for what it is and recognize what it is not. One thing it is not is an existential threat to the US. Neither is it the majority or even large minority inclination of any religious group, including Muslims. What it is is a manifestation of anarchy and/or thousands of years of animosity coupled with depravity, ignorance and economic deprivation. Fixing these things while still hanging on to civilization is far more complicated than curing a disease.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s