Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

[Q]: Sorry, but anyone who believes that Saudi Arabia's ultra-reactionary philosophy of bigotry and hatred of other religions ( including other sects of Islam )  is anything new is either blatantly lying, or is insane.

So OK, if he is not lying, then I guess that we can say that the poor man is delusional, and is mentally ill.

I've posted clear facts showing that other members of the press ( and even his own newspaper, the New York Times ), have known about this for a very long time.    This is not a new development.  Not by any means.   To state otherwise, as he has done here in this editorial, is to spread FALSEHOODS.

What he said is a LIE.   For it is NOT TRUE.
[A]: Yes


[Q]: How wrong art thou?  Let me count the ways:

(1) I'm an 'Ahmed', not a 'Judah'

(2) And you offer yet another example of what my dear friend, returned to his Lord eight years now, once observed--no people make a greater show of their 'humility' than so-called 'Christians'

(3) And none so frequently--and falsely--claim 'persecution'

(4) One who admonishes keeping God's Law while failing to do so is not only a hypocrite, he embraces arrogance--"Anna khairum min'hum; I'm BETTER than him".  Satan first uttered that blasphemous fallacy before God Himself

(5) I'm a staunch critic of both the Zionist entity and Da'esh (wrongly called 'Islamic State'--there's nothing Islamic about them).  I've denounced the Sa'ud family--their ideological and financial backers--in Minah, Saudi Arabia, and was threatened with death for it.  Can you say the same?

(6) To paraphrase Sidney Portier: "ASSUME" makes an A$$ of U, not ME

(7) eindama yunaqish rajul maequl, fazt--eindama yunaqish al'ahmaq, afqad
[A]: Yes


[Q]: What a bunch of little punks...cops should have accepted the "challenge" and beat their friggin asses to an inch of their lives...
[A]:
Yes