In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

[Q]: Comment: “I will strike TERROR into the hearts of the disbelievers; therefore strike ye at their necks and cut off every fingertip of them.”
[A]: Threat


[Q]: Comment: The Church does not, and should not, condone sinful behavior as something good. This stance in no way can be equated with what Mateen did to these people at Pulse. That action was driven by hate, and hate alone.

This goes to a larger piece which addressed this ideological hate with rallies across the country this past weekend. The Left reflexively came to the defense of shariah adherent ideologues who have no problem killing homosexuals. In fact, they take it as a duty. WHY?
[A]: Threat


[Q]: Comment: So that was Scheer who swore at an MP, elbowed another in the chest, and grabbed one by the wrist and yanked him down the centre aisle in the house.  Was he also the one who called MP Peter Kent a piece of sh$t?  And is he the leader who petulantly refuses to directly answer most questions and then sits down with an arrogant smirk?

Wow.  If he's that guy, he deserves everything he gets from the other side.

I'm a little surprised though.  I was told that Andrew Scheer served for four years as the speaker of the house which is a bit like herding cats and yet was quite popular on all sides of the chambre and able to discharge his duties with relative diplomacy and an even temper.

It was one of the other leaders, so I was told, who was an arrogant, smirking bully much like his father and used to always getting his way and having everyone fawn all over him.

Thanks for setting me straight, Ursula.
[A]:
Non-threat