Are Persons Who Agree With Isis Considered Schizophrenic In The States

What's the difference between schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder?

It can be, but it isn't always.
 
To start with, schizophrenia can be a more severe mental illness than itself.  That sounds absurd, but hear me out.
 
The criteria used to define schizophrenia are very broad, so much so that two people can have almost no symptoms in common and still be given the same diagnosis.  One person might hear quiet, non-distressing voices and become socially withdrawn over a period of 6 months, and they could be diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Another person might be utterly convinced that the Earth is about to explode and hallucinate the voices of a dozen people shouting abuse at them, but be too lacking in personal motivation to even feed themselves.  To make it even more complicated, that second patient could possibly respond really well to antipsychotic medication and live a normal life, while the first patient gets really severe side effects while barely changing his symptoms.
 
For schizoaffective disorder to be diagnosed, a person needs to effectively meet the criteria for schizophrenia as well as those for either a major depressive episode or a manic episode.  Their psychosis can be episodic rather than chronic, but they need to have had two episodes in that case, and they can't have had psychotic symptoms only when they were suffering from mood symptoms; there needs to be at least a two week period of psychotic symptoms without mood symptoms.  Otherwise, the diagnosis given should be depression/mania with psychotic features.
 
On the face of it, since schizoaffective disorder is essentially schizophrenia plus a mood disorder, you would expect it to be more severe.  However, the fact is that both disorders have a broad range of severity, and that range overlaps considerably, so if you were to randomly pick one person with each disorder it's basically an even chance that either one will have a more debilitating illness than the other.
 
The comparison should always be made on a case-by-case basis.

In the Islamic faith, which is considered more sinful: killing an innocent person, or burning the Koran?

Firstly, Force conversion to Islam is not at all approved and the Quran clearly states that


"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion." 2:256

So the sudan government is following its own protocol and that is highly condemnable. (provided that the news stated is true)

In Islam, killing of an innocent human being is considered to be one of the biggest sins  (without a doubt) which is more clear from the answer provided with quranic proof by Username .But just think of Quran ,the sacred book of Muslims.Playing with the feelings of people's belief is definitely not acceptable .It's a shame .  How can anyone justify the burning of a script considered holy by over a billion people in the world.  It should also be highly condemnable.Even burning of other religious scripts are equally condemnable.Theses are very sensitive issues and should be taken care of  as to never happen in future.

ISIS is considered bad because it kills people. Can you tell me which government in the world didn't intentionally kill innocents?

It is a matter of degree and interpretation.

Firstly, what is “innocent”? It is impossible to apply this term and have everyone agree. It is easier to use the term non-combatant which has a relatively clear definition.

Any warfare that involves areas that contain non-combatants will always kill some of them. Everyone knows this but pretends that it should never happen. We excuse it by using terms such as “collateral damage” and “the fog of war”. However, in every conflict, it is going to happen and everyone knows it going in. However, there are generally efforts made to limit the number.

In total war, this limitation goes out the window. Fire bombing of cities in WW2 by Axis and Allied powers alike were specifically aimed at non-combatants and their infrastructure. The “collateral damage” was fully intended. The use of nuclear weapons in WW2 was arguably the epitome of that clear intent.

ISIS appears to be different because of its adoption of a total war targeting of non-combatants in what the Western nations think is a limited war, and its publicising of clearly brutal means of oppression. It effectively says that for them, there is no limit. They are not playing by the rules in the eyes of their opposition, which makes them bad. In our eyes.

How can a schizophrenic know what he hears and sees are real and not imaginary?

The method for verifying your perceptions is the same no matter what suspicions you may have about their veracity. You look for evidence to confirm your senses. If you can see something, can you hear it it smell it or touch it? If you hear something, can you visually or tactilely identify the source of the sound?

Always look for confirmation of perceptual data through multiple forms of perception and measurement. If data from multiple senses all confirm the same story, it's likely to be real, but if the senses don't provide confirmation of the same story, there is reason to remain skeptical of what one perceives.

In addition, it helps to compare the story of ones senses with past stories one has experienced in similar situations. If there story is too different, that's more reason to be skeptical.

Finally, one can compare the story one thinks is likely to the stories of other people. If other people's stories are too different, there's reason to be skeptical. However, people sometimes go along with each other's stories because they sometimes have a greater need to agree with each other than to have the story supported by the evidence. So the evidence of ones senses, if they all agree, is more reliable than the evidence of what other people say. Legally, it's called hearsay, and it often isn't supposed to be considered by juries.

The more verification of the same story you can find, the more likely you can safely say that story is real. If there is any disagreement between the stories of your senses, that is good reason to be skeptical of your story and to look for other evidence to confirm or deny the hypothesized story.

Why is ISIS not recognized as a legitimate state?

Because ISIS has no regard for the existence of other authorities except it's own type of Islamic guided.  To the Sunnis, you have to be elected to form a Caliphate.  To the Shia, you have to be ordained.  To the West, you have to go through a legitimate process.  ISIS is way out of all these and worse - they are not Wahabis...cold shoulder for any Qaedateinment.  But then ISIS type of Islam and practice is






haram to most Muslumas (sp) in the Arabic world and the whole of Middle East. 

They are not Suni, they are not Shia and rather than call them DOGS, most people in the Arabic world call them Karawajhi (sp) or Karavaja (sp)   It is a term that defines them like: stepping into the spotlight to be noticed or grabbing attention to be seen". 

They wanted to do a SALADIN, hence the idea of a Caliphate.  But then Saladin himself was a KURD.  Levant, Syria, Tikrit and Mosul are just markers.  

Al Qaeda rejected them because they are Wahabis and are more or less against the descendants of Mohammed.

Nobody likes them.  Nobody is willing to give them a state, so this is an apocalyptic reality show for them.

Is it possible to bring a mentally ill person to the USA as a permanent resident?

Just having a mental illness by itself is not a problem.  Most people have a mental illness at some point in their lives (and if you think that is weird, or that it shouldn't be that way, ask yourself why you think that the mind should be so much more intrinsically healthy than the body; surely you would agree that most people have a physical illness at some point in their lives). 

However, if, in addition to being diagnosed with a mental illness, there is a behavior associated with that illness that makes the individual a threat to themselves or others, then that does pose a barrier.  Generally speaking, anyone involuntarily confined to a mental institution is going to meet that threshold.  In the situation described in the question details, you would need documentation from your mother's physicians that she is not a threat to herself or others.  You would undoubtedly need to consult with an immigration attorney about the nature of this paperwork.

Having a mental illness may indirectly cause other problems, like the ability to qualify for certain visas (e.g., employment, school, marriage).

How do American people feel when they see anti-USA propaganda?

I am not American but I think viewing this question from the outside may yield some insights that an American may not notice about themselves.

I live in China with a bunch of other foreign teachers at a university and I have noticed that the Americans tend to be far more touchy when it comes to criticism of the USA or US endeavours. A good example of this is the usage of nuclear bombs at the end of World War II. The American was speaking with at the time asserted that she was sick of hearing people criticise the use of the bombs, likely expecting me to agree with her. I, however, am someone that questions everything even when I agree. Instantly, even though I didn't necessarily state flat out that it was wrong but merely voiced why others may believe it was wrong, the American became aggressive and tried to make arguments that disparaged British history in the world (entirely off topic).

This kind of thing has happened a few times on a few topics with different Americans. I believe this is because Americans tend to be more patriotic and dislike hearing criticism from anyone that isn't American. This can be especially volatile in China because the Chinese can be very blunt and Americans are often the individuals with the most to complain about when it comes to Chinese policies, which all amounts to potential explosive arguments. Fortunately moat have the good sense to smile and shrug off conflict on Chinese issues with Chinese people, but then complain to the rest of us.

So in all, quick to criticise but they have little tolerance for criticism themselves. This is absolutely a generalisation and is based on only those I have met in China. There are plenty of others who are more relaxed and easygoing.

Is schizophrenia a "devil possession" or a mental illness? If there’s supposed to be a "devil" or demon and it does possess people, what make the "spirit" choose a certain person?

Rather than entertain the possibility that some people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia are actually possessed, it makes more sense to me that people in the past described as being possessed actually had undiagnosed schizophrenia. 

The earliest medical descriptions of the disease process that was later named schizophrenia were not until the 19th century, but that does not mean the disease suddenly sprang into existence then.  It was simply interpreted differently, based on the level of knowledge and understanding at the time.  2000 years ago, when any understanding of how the body and mind work at a cellular level was beyond comprehension, it is perfectly understandable that people would try to explain the inexplicable by blaming it on the supernatural, just as early humans attributed lightning to the anger of the gods.

I am not aware of anyone who still thinks lightning is a supernatural rather than natural phenomenon.  Our understanding of schizophrenia as a natural process has come more recently, and so it not as widespread, but one day the idea that it is supernatural will be as absurd as the idea of an earthquake being caused by the stomping of a giant.  In addition, rather than being something that is only perceived externally like lightning is, schizophrenia influences the feelings and reasoning ability of those who suffer from it, making them believe in all manner of delusional ideas.  Thus, if a person with schizophrenia tells you they are possessed, it cannot really be taken as fact.

In addition, as many others have answered, it makes no sense that demonic possession could be treated by giving chemicals that block dopamine receptors.  But somehow, those work in schizophrenia. 


Just hypothetically, if there WAS a devil, and it was choosing people to possess, it seems to mostly pick people aged 15 to 35 who have a family history of schizophrenia, and a history of using mind-altering drugs, from lower socio-economic groups.  You know, the same risk factors as for developing schizophrenia.  He's a wily one, that devil.

Does ISIS defend Muslims?

It seems that terrorism is a project through which the enemies of Islam are trying to weaken Islam and Muslims. Nowadays, the terrorist militants such as ISIS fight against the Islamic governments and states to weaken Islamic countries, not to defend Islam or Muslims. During the past two decades, hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslim civilians have been killed by the terrorist fighters in Iraq, Lydia, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is clear that this war has been waged against Muslims, which resulted in the destruction of Islamic countries and the weakness of Islam and Muslims.

If we study the Holy Quran this divine book says that “Prepare against them (i.e., the enemy) with whatever force and trained horses you can in order to frighten thereby the Allah’s enemy, your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows them.” [1] The Holy Quran tells Muslims to defend Islam and Muslims, but not to kill them, or frighten them through terrorist and suicide attacks. Quran commands Muslims to be strong enough against their enemies empowering themselves through knowledge, technology, weaponry, etc. to protect Islam and defend Muslims against their enemies.

But, unfortunately, nowadays the pseudo Islamic Jihadi groups pretend that they fight against American and western forces in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen or Iraq without having powerful weaponries as compared to the most advanced war technology and weaponries the western forces have. In fact, the terrorist groups such as Daesh made the Islamic countries as battle fields for non-Muslim forces to test their most updated war technologies upon Muslims’ houses and buildings destructing all the buildings, roads, bridges, factories. As a result, nothing remained from the countries except for the completely destructed cities.

Notes:

[1] Chapter 8, verse 60. وَأَعِدُّواْ لَهُم مَّا اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن قُوَّةٍ وَمِن رِّبَاطِ الْخَيْلِ تُرْهِبُونَ بِهِ عَدْوَّ اللّهِ وَعَدُوَّكُمْ وَآخَرِينَ مِن دُونِهِمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَهُمُ اللّهُ يَعْلَمُهُمْ وَمَا تُنفِقُواْ مِن شَيْءٍ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ يُوَفَّ إِلَيْكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ لاَ تُظْلَمُونَ

Who is to blame for the Bosnian war?

Serbians from Serbia and Bosnia. They were determined to have a Greater Serbia state that would include all Serbians in Bosnia and Croatia. They engaged in a policy of "ethnic cleansing" to achieve this. And the extreme extent to which they were willing to achieve this is seen in their concentration camps, where women were raped and prisoners were starved and killed; and the mass butchery of Srebrenica, where over 8,000 captured prisoners of war were murdered.