Response to "How terrorism finds root in the west"

Url: http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SXX75345-0-7236&artno=0000262329&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N



This article talks about how the extremist ideologies of terrorism could have originated from Europe. The French president now encourages neighboring nations to make a more conscious effort to integrate Muslims into their community, thus avoiding the potential of terrorism completely.

Terrorism has always been known to spring up in the Middle East nations, due to conflicts in issues such as religion and politics, but it is logical that the actions of Western communities may also drive the Muslims affected to desperate measures to achieve their ends. Many examples of such circumstances happening are given in the article. If terrorism is really nurtured in Western civilizations, it is important to rectify the mistakes as soon as possible.

The factors linking terrorism with Western communities are: the clashing of political and social ideologies and alienation of the Muslim population. Of this, alienation is perhaps the most critical factor of all. Leaving out, or shunning the Muslim population will develop tension between the majority and Muslim minority. To a larger degree, the rights of the Muslim population will be compromised as social stratification occurs. The Muslims might then turn to other options in order to exact revenge or get what they want. On a larger scale, it might as well lead to acts of terrorism. This is similar to racism in some ways.

I feel education might be the way out of this situation. It is well known that racism still exists in societies today mostly because of the lack of understanding between races. Similarly, with different religions, there exists much tension because both sides fail to fully understand each other. With a bit of patience and understanding through education, religious acceptance and tolerance, there would be no need for violent demonstrations of unhappiness.

In countries like the United States, Muslims are successfully integrated into the society. Our own country is considered multi-racial, and indeed, multi-religious. Our pledge dictates that every individual is equal regardless of race, language or religion. Some time ago, it was announced that Singaporean Muslims were not supportive of the terrorist ideology. Though it might have been because Singapore had already hosted Muslims for a long time, and most of the European Muslims are recent immigrants, I still feel that if some countries are able to exhibit sensitivity, others should be able to integrate Muslims into their communities, and put a stop to terrorism.

Response to "A dangerous, costly path"

Url: http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SXX75345-0-7236&artno=0000261411&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N

This article deals with concerns about nuclear power, as well as the positive and negative impacts of using it as a viable source of energy. The author, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlights the pros and cons of nuclear energy, relates it to the greatest issue of our generation - global warming, and gives suggestions on possible alternatives.

Global warming is something that might not affect the individual directly, but its effects can be read in newspapers everyday. News of rising sea levels, melting ice caps, floods and droughts, are becoming increasingly common. Nuclear energy does not contribute to carbon emissions and is capable of producing enormous energy. While it seems to be the answer to global warming, it is too money consuming and unsafe for mankind to use it worldwide. We could use other 'clean' sources of energy like wind or solar power, which are cheaper and safe, but have lower energy outputs.

The article stresses on the importance of energy conservation, which is highly overlooked. Indeed, every single person can prevent that tiny bit of carbon from escaping to the atmosphere and contributing to the greenhouse effect. Simple measures such as turning off electrical appliances when not used and making the effort to recycle plastic bottles and metal cans help greatly to decrease carbon emissions. Also, it does not stop at the personal level. Some supermarkets set aside certain days when disposable plastic bags must be paid for, to encourage more people to use reusable bags. 'Green' cars have been designed, and are increasingly popular with the community. Recently, a few countries organized 'Live Earth', aiming to spread the message of energy conservation to the world. These are the ways in which we have attempted to resolve the issue of global warming.

I feel that the most viable way of stopping carbon emissions is to use clean energy from three sources: wind, solar, and hydroelectric. These three sources should be our main energy providers, with nuclear power providing a minor 6% of the energy as it is today. That way, the radioactive by-products generated would not go out of our control. This, I feel, is the best way of reducing carbon emissions, but it might not be cost-efficient or practical. As of now, only 7% of the world's energy supply comes from renewable sources; the transition from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy would take a lot of time and money.

Indeed, Frances Beinecke feels that a more gradual approach by allowing nuclear power to compete with other renewable sources does better, and also feels that energy efficiency is the most important resource of all. A gradual change makes sense, because change in this area is difficult to achieve when the world places economy first, rather than the environment. We have to make the transition slow and steady, and meanwhile, do our part by conserving what energy we can.