+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/20/2018 06:25 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.961 Visits   18 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
05/08/2007 05:08 AM ID: 62267 Permalink   

Cowards Build Bombs into Girls' School


An Iraqi girls' school in Baghdad was being built with explosives already built into it in an attempt to cause mass casualties to innocent victims. Although the school was being built by Iraqi contractors it is thought Al Qaeda is behind it.

Luckily troopers in the Salaheddin province found the detonation wire and followed it accross the street to the school, where they found the building lined with shells and propane tanks filled with explosives.

A military statement read "Given the care and work put into emplacing this IED, it is likely it had been planned for a long time" and it is thought that "the IED was not intended to be set off until the building was occupied."

    WebReporter: AccessG Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  My assessment  
I left the assessment I did strictly due to your title. A lot of people here like to sensationalize or mislead with their titles but as long as it is fairly close to the source it is accepted. Opinion is not something that is accepted though, and deeming the guilty as a coward is strictly opinion.

Otherwise a well summarized article.
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/08/2007 06:07 AM     
I left my assessment because I completely disagree with you, and the word Coward was used properly.'s definition of coward,
1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

By planting the bombs in the building while it was being built, he was in fact lacking courage to face opposition.
It is a fact that this guy's action correspond to the dictionary's definition. FACT. So putting into the title isn't completely opinion.

  by: NicPre     05/08/2007 06:20 AM     
  @ NicPre,  
Why not just start calling people big-bad meanies? You could pull out the definition of meanie, and this could apply. It's juvenile. One problem is that Access should respect people enough to let them figure out for themselves whether or not these people are cowards.

Luc was spot on about the title, but wrong about the summary. We don't need to know that the victims are innocent, or that it's lucky that troopers stopped the detonation. As a person with a functioning brain, I'll determine that stuff for myself, thanks.
  by: bdcanuck   05/08/2007 06:33 AM     
Actually that would make the Americans Cowards. they call in Air strikes when they cant face their opponents all the time, and how are insurgents supposed to fight face to face with a Bomber Jet.

Vicious, Strategic and Efficent/Effective (had it been successful) all have Dictionary definitions that suit this Planned Attack doesn't mean that calling it that is not matter of opinion and perspertive.
  by: veya_victaous     05/08/2007 08:10 AM     
a bunch of female school children is the defintion of cowardice. I would say the same for US soldiers if they did the same. I say the same about the use of land mines. These people were cowards, plain and simple. Sorry if that insults you, for some reason you think it brave to set up bombs in a girls school with the intention on killing children.
  by: ssxxxssssss   05/08/2007 08:19 AM     
I agree with luc.
As much as it applies in any situation, name calling such as using evil, diabolical, and even coward shows bias opinion.

I think Dick Cheney is the dark prince himself and he fits the definition in many ways, but this doesn't mean it should be used by news titles.

This practice is refrained from in even high school news papers.

I'd hate to see SN articles stoop lower then HS news...

The comments area offers plenty of opportunity to apply opinion when need arises....
  by: ukcn001xyz   05/08/2007 08:40 AM     
One man's coward is another mans pacifist, maybe not in this case, but i still see the labeling as opinion. Well summarised though.
I love it how the Americans straight away scream 'Al Qaeda!' with no evidence. Al Qaeda could just turn around and scream 'Orchestrated publicity stunt!'.
  by: lachs     05/08/2007 09:08 AM     
  Blah Blah  
With ssxxxssssss again.

Nothing but low down sniveling cowards.
  by: captainJane     05/08/2007 12:09 PM     
  Ok about the title ... and stuff  
I didnt think it was an opinion, I was using it as a description, I believe it can be used both ways. Way I saw it I needed a word that would describe the character of the act. I could have used terrorists but that too could have been taken out of context because then people would say there was no proof it was a stereotypical terrorist and could actually have been a sectarian act, which some people wouldnt see as terrorists.

If theres a dangerous situation that needs dealt with and someone runs from it is that cowardice or is it self preservation? Using one of those terms rather than simply 'ran away' would be an opinion.

With no real clue/evidence of who it was and so many factions within Iraq I used this as I didnt want to clone the sources title and theres the space constraint.

I used the word 'luckily' as well because, well, it was lucky for the girls and staff that would have been going there it was found, I could have said 'unfortunately for those planting the bombs', it works both ways and isnt an opinion but an observation.

I used the word 'innocent' and no one seems to have had a problem with that one ... but who is to say they would all have been innocent? I bet the people that turned their school into a giant firecracker wouldnt see them as innocent.

If I had wanted it to be opinionated and felt strongly on the matter I would have used something a lot more potent than cowards, trust me. If you look at my other submissions from last night youll notice that I attempted to be as different as possible from the sources, over 5 years of frequenting the site and I do more in one night than ... ummm ... those 5 years.
  by: AccessG     05/08/2007 12:10 PM     
  Sod The Title  
It was a good story, how childish you guys are sometimes.
And those that don't even get story together at all, giving assessments, pathitic.

You lot put me off writing on the story at all.

For the children in the room.

Well written and good story.
Can someone get now comment on the bloody story now please.
  by: captainJane     05/08/2007 12:21 PM     
  Don't these people have  
daughters? or sisters? or a heart?
  by: DarkAngelJG     05/08/2007 01:13 PM     
  @ access  
Good find
  by: DarkAngelJG     05/08/2007 01:14 PM     
probably, but these are people on the other "side", so dont matter.
  by: Gogevandire   05/08/2007 01:25 PM     
  people that do these things  
dont deserve anything but name calling.

  by: m.i.a.elite     05/08/2007 03:04 PM     
  Didn't mean to cause a fuss  
However as far as reading the news goes.. so long as we consider ourselves a legitimate news source I'd like to decide for myself exactly what the classification of the bombers are. You would be more much more wise to state that it is unknown who planned and constructed the IED, rather than using coward or terrorist. I'd say stick to the facts to avoid any misinformation.

I thought the wording was used just fine in the summary.
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/08/2007 03:41 PM     
If you read the article it states:
"The military suspects the plot was the work of Al Qaeda, because of its nature and sophistication, Caldwell said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
Notice the words "suspects" and the backing of that suspicion with the words "nature" and "sophistication".
So as far as "screaming Al-Qaeda without any proof" you are jumping the gun a little. I think the military has been "at war" with Al-Qaeda long enough to recognize their handy work.
But you could be right, if the President was brash enough to order fabricated proof of WMD, he may order fabricated bomb attempts...
The actual point, I think, is whoever did/attempted to do this, they are scum.
  by: Allanthar     05/08/2007 04:27 PM     
  I have..  
To agree with lucid, the use of 'coward' in the title is opinion and as such has no place in reporting the news. It would have made much more sense to use 'Terrorists' instead of 'Cowards'.
  by: StarShadow     05/08/2007 04:48 PM     
  you could argue  
that they are cowards in the sense that they are actively targeting children, one man's terrorist is another man's hero but actively targeting kids certainly is not heroic so i would call it cowardice.
  by: jocksteeluk   05/08/2007 06:30 PM     
  Ignoring all other comments  
Despite literal translation of the word, it's quite obvious that it was used to state an opinion.
Btw, I saw a few of yall trying to pick a fight with Americans in there. Gratz for trying to pick a fight. Guess it didn't work.
  by: seniorgato     05/08/2007 06:34 PM     
  This whole thing  
is a farce and the source is a big fart. I Am not buying this, infact it is too expensive free.
  by: kinko     05/08/2007 06:35 PM     
  Emotional Saps Take Over Shortnews!  
In other news, people on the news community "Shortnews" have shown their incredibly sappy side.

The issue was brought to the world's attention when prominent contributors DarkAngelJG and Captain Jane decided that if someone does something they find really really really despicable, it is okay to call them names.

No word on whether you can call people names if you only find someone moderately despicable.
  by: bdcanuck   05/08/2007 06:44 PM     
  Show of hands  
Who thinks it isnt cowardly to blow up a school full of children?

Who thinks its brave to do so?
  by: Gogevandire   05/08/2007 06:55 PM     
  I didnt want to post in any of my submissions,  
however ... how many people here are calling ME a liar? No you arent accepting my explanation so I MUST be a liar. I told you it was a DESCRIPTION and NicPre even gave the definition. I also told you why I used some words and not others ... but still people will not accept it ... why? Over the years Ive lost count of how many submissions Ive poked holes in (truth be told I have a mind like a sieve and cant remember jack) but if theres a valid reason I back down and admit Im wrong. Read my previous post in this thread. What you people are saying is we cant even have headlines like 'hero saves family of four from burning house' because that would be an opinion. 'Oh noes they werent a hero because they were just insane doing that risking their life for someone elses'.

Reality check, whether or not it is an opinion is a matter of perspective, I gave you mine and its not accepted ... why? arent there any adults that can say 'yea, well, ok ... I see what you mean?' Never before have I seen so much contraversy over one single word in a title and even then, come on ... suggest I use terrorist after I say why it would STILL have been borderline? I'll repeat myself, look at my other submissions and tell me if they are opinionated, ones written well before this kicked off.

BTW that statement excludes everyone that does see my point.

Heres another thing before anyone else says something ... I can for a fact say that someone with mod power has checked and corrected the title. I had Girls and it remained Girls for ages ... now its Girls'. I hate to crush you but its obviously been checked by experienced mod(s) who prolly read every story that ships through.

All I done was use a descriptive word to seperate my title from the sources.

Maybe the people its annoyed are the people that either wanted to write about or that I dare say ... wanted it to happen ... you wanted opinion, there ... have some ... because it seems so many are more concerned with that word than the act.

Im just glad I have been a memeber for a long time, know what people can be like and have skin so think you cant penetrate it with an RPG.
  by: AccessG     05/08/2007 07:17 PM     
Let's not stoop to the levels of British tabloid newspapers. No matter what the opinion of the writer it should be left out. Think of reputable newspapers like the Independent and Guardian. They manage to write without such words and simply report the facts - even with the worst crimes. Don't emulate the Sun and Mirror
  by: barryriley   05/08/2007 07:27 PM     
Face it, it was an opinion it should not have been part of the title.
It wasn't included in the original article and shouldn't have been included in yours.
as for:

The mods read it and they know everything. so there. .... hahah

I paraprased a bit but I think I got the gist of it.
  by: davesnews   05/08/2007 08:02 PM     
The guardian is a fair and balanced newspaper?
That cant even be hid under opinion, thats an outright lie.
  by: Gogevandire   05/08/2007 08:22 PM     
  Be Consistent  
If you want to just start posting everything that you think is true, why don't you post the word liar every time you post the word Bush? I think most people believe that Bush has been dishonest during much of the last 6 or so years, but that wouldn't add anything to whatever the article is about.
  by: bdcanuck   05/08/2007 09:53 PM     
thanks for calling me a liar ... did you actually read all my comments? I have no idea why Im trying to edumacate you people but here goes ...

As NicPre said ...

1. a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

They dont have the courage to face the opposition head on and the dangers of pain therefore they fit well into the definition of cowards.

Now go read, fully, the rest of my comments and when you understand them you can come back and apologise.

Heres a snippet of one of my comments, if you can understand this then hey, your there ...

"If theres a dangerous situation that needs dealt with and someone runs from it is that cowardice or is it self preservation? Using one of those terms rather than simply 'ran away' would be an opinion."

I dont even know why Im writing this lol ... maybe cus Ive now been up 2 days ... Also I should get the duck stories title changed, I said 'boy' when its a sixth grader ... for all I know its a 25 year old that fails to grasp simple concepts and has been held back his whole life and the police also assumed its a boy since they are a 6th grader ...

Its all good though.
  by: AccessG     05/08/2007 10:15 PM     
Read all of the other comments instead of just yours. By using the word "cowards" in the manner that you have you have stated an opinion.
Go get some sleep and you will realize the error of your ways.
  by: davesnews   05/08/2007 11:01 PM     
  @ bdcanuck  
i called names?
I try to not call people names and i can't see where i did it, so please tell me where as i need to be aware of it so i don't repeat it.
Where did i call anyone names? if you meant the heartless, i was simply questioning how they didn't feel anything planting those bombs. I am sure they had a convincing enough reason, hence they did it- but i also felt sorry for the girls.
  by: DarkAngelJG     05/08/2007 11:10 PM     
  Regardless of title  
I'm jealous that this summary got 15 assessments.
  by: John E Angel     05/09/2007 01:03 AM     
  OK, enough...  
When I read over this I hear a room with all of you yelling over eachother. Get on with the topic. lol! By the way, this is really horrible, I don't think it will get better even when the US leaves!
  by: luc2010   05/09/2007 01:13 AM     
  New take.  
Regardless of whether the perpetrators are actually cowards, using the term is not an effective description. I'm sure there are millions of cowards in the world, so calling the perps 'cowards' doesn't exactly narrow the field much. Perhaps 'insurgents' would be a more effective term.
Otherwise a fine article.
  by: guyfawkes   05/09/2007 01:21 AM     
  @motivation of Terrorists  
I was under the Impression that the insurgents that were planning this were against the education of wemon as thats what it says in their bible/koran/fairytale. So this Attack is directly on one of the things they are (obviously) violently against and is being supported by the West. It Targeted an Institution to Educate wemon which according to their beliefs is going to cause hell or something. So it is not like they are randomly slaying innocents because they dont consider an educated womon innocent.

(In case you cant tell this is actually my opinion but as I havn't seen a post from Unity so the Devil needs an Advocate)
  by: veya_victaous     05/09/2007 03:14 AM     
By labeling the perp a coward you are also ASSUMING his motive was to kill the girls at the school, how do you know this was the intention? The contractor could be pulling a sneaky and planning to demolish the building and blame terrorists just so he could rebuild it again. So assuming this motive 'coward' would make no sense, and would in fact be misleading.
  by: lachs     05/09/2007 03:17 AM     
Not all misleading, since the orginal article suggests the attack was to kill "most innocent victims" which would lead to them being the school children, which are all female.
So i think any person planning on attacking a school full of children , regardless of it being girls or not... would be cowards.
There is no way to spin this to where it would be a good thing, so i don't see any problem with it.
  by: sp00ky187   05/09/2007 03:34 AM     
Reporters do not make assumptions, they state facts. How do you know they intended to harm anyone? You are assuming they were going to wait until the school was full of girls before they detonated, they may have intended to destroy the buildings when they were empty... Would that have made them cowards?
  by: lachs     05/09/2007 03:55 AM     
Are we talking about shortnews reporters or are we talking about cnn reporters?
I was saying AccessG is correct in writing that it is thought the terrorists were going to blow up a school full of girls, because the orginal articles states it.
It would be wrong for AccessG to report such an article and think otherwise, that would make no sense. The original article states it, so its fine for AccessG to state it as well.
  by: sp00ky187   05/09/2007 05:00 AM     
Every allusion in the CNN article has quotation marks around it. Coward is stated by no one no where in the article. It is not a factual statement because the 'bomb planter' was not interviewed and his motives are not completely clear, only assumed by those interviewed. I don't doubt that the intention was to kill as many as they could but that does not make it a fact, and thus should not be stated as one. AccessG should not think at all, he should state facts and quotes about the story and leave the reader to make their own assumptions.
  by: lachs     05/09/2007 06:08 AM     
I never said coward was in the orginal article. I said in the oringal article it "implies" that the bombs where going to be used to inflict casulties on the most innocent victims.
Whether it is fact or not, he is still reporting what the original article is implying. I think you need to blame for not letting its readers make up their mind, not AccessG.

If you think it is so wrong, why do you think this article hasn't been changed or removed because you claim it is misleading??
Maybe it is misleading from the original article, assuming they really don't have any facts to back up their claims, or maybe they are hiding the evidence because its vital to catching the people who did this.
  by: sp00ky187   05/09/2007 08:26 AM     
I never said that you said coward was stated on CNN. CNN didn't imply anything, read the article again. Does the reporter take the liberty of speculating or does he quote sources for assumptions?

I do think the title should be changed, thats been my position this whole time, thats what this discussion is about isn't it... ?

Hiding evidence? So you're saying the reporter is implying all of these things (which he isn't) because he has inside info but can't say anything??? What would that have to do with this discussion anyway?
  by: lachs     05/09/2007 09:17 AM     
Tell me what you think this is implying.

"The plot at the Huda Girls' school in Tarmiya was a "sophisticated and premeditated attempt to inflict massive casualties on our most innocent victims," military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said."
  by: sp00ky187   05/09/2007 04:43 PM     
  Semantics aside  
anyone who chooses a girls school for a plot like this is: 1) a coward, and 1)thinking in a primative manner

What I mean by that is that his (obvious to me) goal is to 1) kill young girls, 2)traumatize and enrage their parents, and 3)trying to enforce a "primative" mindset where females are only good for making babies

Hmmm...enforcing your point of view through fear caused by violence specifically targeted against innocents...terrorist at least?

At least when they attack an American outpost they are displaying some courage
  by: blrod11   05/10/2007 04:56 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: