[1] is from Russia Today, so I'll abstain from commenting [2] is true, but it should be noted that this is standard procedure in the West, since citizenship is

[1] is from Russia Today, so I'll abstain from commenting [2] is true, but it should be noted that this is standard procedure in the West, since citizenship is considered one the most inalienable rights (in Germany, loss of citizenship only occurs through taking another one; in the US, it's only possible for naturalized citizens to lose their citizenship if they commit terrorism within 5 years of being naturalized). [3] the article does not say that djihadis will be welcomed. [4] is standard procedure in the West. You can't detain people who don't even stand accused, unless you're the US and have absolutely no concern about egregiously violating your constitution (and human rights). And tracking 15,000 people is beyond what any police force can do. [5][6] it is generally not a good idea to comment on criminal trials, since you have access to very little compared to the judges and jury. It's also unclear that detention is a good solution to the problem anyways. [7] is perfectly correct. [8] it is considered prosecutable, this person is on trial. Also see [6], and again, unless you have a very good reason to think the accused actually knew he was hosting terrorists (which the judges, who have access to far more information that you do, don't), there's nothing visibly wrong about that trial. Finally, > Anyway I could simply have started my post with a question, like you did: did you ever had a friend got shot in a terror attack? > > I guess not, otherwise you would not just speak about numbers. It's not with strong feelings that you'll make good policy. It's very sad that people die, but it's no good reason to drop all common sense.