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.

[EX Q]: Comment: "Additionally, the report found that forests in Southeast Alaska will capture more carbon going forward, though it is only a small region of the state."

Why? How? 
"going forward?" Please, let's kill this nonsensical and completely redundant idiom now.
[EX A]: Threat

[EX Q]: Comment: Very likely the republicans were not as careless with their cyber-security. Also, to the extent that the Russians do or don't like Trump; they may be misunderastimating him, much like our home grown politicians.
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: I want to ask a question that has been nagging me for a bit: what, exactly, is served by the need to make the Big Official Announcement that this (or any such) incident was, in fact, an "act of terror"? I mean, couldn't it be said that this sort of "marketing" is precisely what the recruiters for the Religion of Peace are hoping for? Who does it help? The victims? The victims' families? Future visitors to an area? Americans? It doesn't change the past, it doesn't change the present, and it doesn't change the future. But it gives the terrorist mills yet another data point/goal to encourage its rookies to strive for. What if they just said something like, "This is a terrible incident that we continually endeavor to prevent in the future", and leave it at that? I know it's a minor, and perhaps even silly distinction, but there is meaning to it: don't even give these psychopathic @#%&*ers the explicit validation they seek.

Oh, and let's start killing them all with even more urgency, too.
[EX A]:
Threat