In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
--------
Question: (CNN) -- The final of the European Champions League will see two of the continent's giant clubs meet in the Estadio Santiago Bernabeu in Madrid, in a battle to decide the champions of the most lucrative competition in world soccer. The match, which takes place on 22 May, will also pitch two heavyweight coaches against one another in the shape of Portugal's Jose Mourinho and Holland's Louis Van Gaal. Mourinho, who won the European Cup with Porto in 2004, is hoping to cap a treble for the Nerazzurri after already wrapping up the Italian title and domestic cup prior to the game. Bayern are also looking to seal the capture of three pieces of silverware for the campaign, after beating Schalke to the Bundesliga title and also having won their domestic cup. Check out our profiles of the two coaches by clicking the links in the photo gallery above. Can Mourinho beat Van Gaal to become king of Europe? The match will also see some of the greatest players in the world -- Arjen Robben, Samuel Eto'o, Bastian Schweinsteiger and Lucio among them -- vie for the most lucrative title in club football before jetting off to South Africa to take part in the 2010 World Cup. CNN will have all the build up to the big match with Pedro Pinto and Alex Thomas hosting a special half-hour preview program on CNN International at 1800 GMT. Your can also have your say on which coach you think will emerge as the new king of Europe by adding your comment to the blog.

Answer: European Champions League final will see two of the continent's giant clubs meet in Madrid .
Clash will pitch Portugal's Jose Mourinho and Holland's Louis Van Gaal in a head-to-head .
CNN will build up to the big match with Pedro Pinto and Alex Thomas live from Madrid at 1600 GMT .


Question: (CNN) -- A most awkward and revealing situation has emerged in the heart of Europe, forcing European governments to choose between their principles and their fears, and drawing an uncomfortable gap between Europe's words and its actions. Last July, a bus carrying tourists about to start their vacation suddenly exploded outside the airport in the Bulgarian city of Burgas. The bombing killed five Israelis -- including a pregnant woman -- and a Bulgarian driver. This week, Bulgaria's foreign minister blamed  Hezbollah, saying an investigation showed the attack was carried out by two members of the Iran-linked Lebanese organization. Hezbollah denied the accusation. But Bulgaria says it discovered strong links, with "data showing the financing and connection between Hezbollah and the two suspects." The news shines a light on a most surprising fact: Hezbollah has been conducting business rather comfortably in much of Europe over the years, openly raising money for its operations. Those operations, according to countless investigations in a growing number of countries, include plotting and attempting to kill tourists, diplomats and others. Washington, which labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization in 1995 after a series of attacks in Lebanon and elsewhere that killed hundreds of Americans, has been pressuring the European Union to do the same. But the EU has resisted. The "terrorist" designation is more than a symbolic label. The label would allow European authorities to freeze funds, control the travel of Hezbollah operatives, and otherwise do what it can to prevent more loss of life. The new secretary of state, John Kerry, urged the EU to "send an unequivocal message to this terrorist group" now that Hezbollah has been linked to an attack on European soil. American officials have told Europe that their inaction is "making it harder to defend our countries." U.S. officials accuse Iran and Hezbollah not only of conducting attacks against civilians around the world, but also of actively supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's brutal repression at home in a conflict that has already left more than 60,000 dead. Opinion: Why Obama is going to Israel . According to a new report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, authorities in various countries have uncovered and disrupted nearly 30 different terror plots by Hezbollah or Iran's Quds Force, an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in the last couple of years. But Europe, incredibly, continues to waver. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton reacted to the news from Bulgaria with a clammy statement that there is a "need for reflection." Hezbollah operates in Lebanon as a powerful Shiite political party, social services organization and an intimidating, heavily-armed militia. It has strong support among the country's Shiite population and bitter opposition from Sunnis. EU officials say they fear destabilizing Lebanon, a country perennial teetering on the edge of sectarian violence. They also worry about angering Hezbollah, fearing attacks on European peacekeepers in Lebanon or terrorist attacks on European soil. Judging by recent events, that particular outcome was not prevented by their timid approach. France, in particular, has resisted upsetting Hezbollah. Paris has taken the lead in fighting extremism in Africa, sending troops against militants in Mali and declaring that it is committed to "a relentless struggle against terrorist groups." But it is somewhat less relentless when it comes to Hezbollah. The French take a special interest in protecting their influence in Lebanon, a former colonial holding. A firm Western stance against the group, however, could strengthen Lebanon's struggling pro-Western opposition, which blames Hezbollah for the assassination of many of its members, including former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. A U.N. tribunal set up to investigate Hariri's 2005 assassination indicted four Hezbollah members. The pattern is well established. Argentinean prosecutors accused Hezbollah of carrying out and Iran of planning and financing the worst terrorist attack in that country, the 1994 bombing of a Jewish Community Center, which killed 85 and injured 300. Western experts generally agree with the assessment of the former U.S. homeland security secretary, who describes Hezbollah as "the most potent terrorist organization in the world." The government of the Netherlands already declared it a terrorist group and Britain named its militant wing a terrorist entity, as if it were separate from the rest of the organization. It is funded by Iran and closely coordinates its moves with Tehran. Over the years, it has been accused of carrying out attacks throughout the world, often in collaboration with Iran. In recent months, as tensions have risen between Iran, on one side, and Israel and the West on the other, Tehran and its Lebanese ally have stepped up their activities to a feverish pace, targeting Israelis diplomats and tourists in India, Cyprus, Thailand and elsewhere. Hezbollah and Iran were linked to a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. Hezbollah's protective ally, Iran, is enduring harsh economic sanctions from the West over its controversial nuclear program, and a number of Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated, as have a few key figures in the Hezbollah hierarchy. The circumstances of these assassinations have all been murky, but there is nothing vague about the bombing of buses full of tourists. By any definition of the word it qualifies as terrorism. And clearly, the question is not just symbolic. Europe is letting Hezbollah operate on its soil. By some counts, there are 950 Hezbollah-affiliated individuals in Germany alone. Europe wants to treat Hezbollah as a legitimate political organization, but the group's actions place it squarely outside the realm of legitimacy. As long as Europe closes its eyes to this reality and allows the group to organize, fundraise and hold meetings, it is guilty not only of hypocrisy, but also of passive complicity in Hezbollah's attacks on innocent civilians. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Frida Ghitis .

Answer: Frida Ghitis: Bulgaria blamed Hezbollah in bus attack, yet EU still won't call group terrorists .
She says doing so would let EU freeze group's funds, control its travel, averting attacks .
But EU fears angering group, destabilizing Lebanon; let's Hezbollah raise funds in Europe .
Ghitis: In letting group claim legitimacy, EU passively abetting a terrorist organization .


Question: (CNN)  -- It seems that now someone called "Barack Hussein Obama" can be pulled aside and patted down merely because of his name. But while our president has the benefit of Air Force One, millions of us with a "funny name" (Muslim and otherwise) do not. Like me. I've consistently faced "random" selections for extra screening at the airport after I decided to wear the hijab, or Muslim head covering. I've been told to take my head scarf off or have my head probed while the passengers in front of me offered pitying smiles as they rushed to their flights. One time, the woman in front of me had a hairdo that could pose more of a security threat than any head scarf could. Muslim women wear the hijab as a symbol of modesty, to be judged not by their appearance. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed that people would be judged for "the content of their character." However, the Transportation Security Administration  is judging me and other Muslims by the way we look. The TSA uses the hijab to profile Muslim women, and passengers can now expect a full-body pat-down, an appallingly invasive "enhanced pat-down search  that could include the chest and groin, or a planned "mind-scan"  that would track people's reaction to terrorist symbols. What's next, palm reading? At an airport with a full body scanner, I can have the image of my body displayed before a stranger -- virtual nudity.  Do they seriously have a blank check on our bodies? Of course I care about profiling partly because I'm affected. But does one have to face this issue to feel that it's wrong? After all, it is difficult to imagine ourselves in other people's shoes when we don't have to. It's hard for me too. Especially over the past month, I've been shocked at the comments about my faith, and the sometimes-prejudiced support for racial profiling. Radio host Mike Gallagher said, "There should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed." Sorry Paula Abdul and Muhammad Ali, or anyone with the world's most common name, Muhammad. For people who aren't affected by racial profiling at airports, imagine this: The TSA implements a new rule to counter drunken driving, which kills over 13,000 Americans every year. People who are not Muslim have to go through a Breathalyzer test before they can enter their vehicle. Muslims don't drink alcohol and are, therefore, exempt. Ridiculous? I agree. I know that what I am going through is just the tip of the iceberg of racial profiling in our country. Thirty-two million Americans report that they have been the victims of racial profiling. Racial profiling violates the U.S. Constitution, is ineffective and trickles down to the workplace, schools and elsewhere. You also run into problems when you justify profiling nearly one in every four people in the world. There are Muslims of every possible race, making profiling practically futile. Fareed Zakaria said  it best: "When you're trying to find a needle in a haystack, adding hay does not help you." Putting ethical and pragmatic reasons aside, it's hard to justify not caring. Even if racial profiling doesn't affect us, it affects our friends, family members, co-workers, doctors, television personalities --  the list goes on.   There are some people who don't know Muslims and are numb to realizing the effects of profiling. Therein lies the problem. According to the Pew Research Center, people who know Muslims are less likely to have negative views of them. Co-existence is a dismal possibility unless people go to the source to find out about Islam, not skewed Web sites. And Muslims, here's something to think about: If your knowledge of Islam came from common stereotypes, wouldn't you also be misinformed about the faith and its followers? The Quran says, "[God has] made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another (49:13)." So get to know your fellow Americans. There are some Americans who think Muslims are terrorists and some Muslims who think that other Americans are willfully ignorant. Neither group deserves such a label. Psychologist Henri Tajfel, who was a Holocaust survivor, explained  how we isolate ourselves into an "in-group" and facilitate discrimination of an "out-group." Religious profiling boxes Muslims into a category separate from Americans. We can't accept that distinction. Let's all think outside of the box. It's essential for U.S. security that airport screening be done. But we need to stop the inflation of procedures that make our society more afraid and less secure. The TSA needs to stop and evaluate methods that are more effective, less invasive, and don't discriminate based on religion or race. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nafees A. Syed.

Answer:
Nafees Syed: Millions face extra screenings at airports for having "funny names"
Syed says she has been singled out for extra screening  because of Muslim head covering .
She writes that racial profiling violates the U.S. Constitution and is ineffective .
Syed: We need to know one another and stop procedures that make us more afraid .