What to do with the returnees?

[Brenus]

“You're an atheist, nothing is sacred to you.” Human dignity is for me, that is why I am not only Atheist (which means not believing in an In/out Space Creator, no more) but as well anti-religions, as I hate to see people kneeling in front of whatever for whatever reason.
I believed in few things, e.g., Justice (concept), freedom (concept) and reason (even if often disappointed).

[Fragony]

“You're an atheist, nothing is sacred to you.” Human dignity is for me, that is why I am not only Atheist (which means not believing in an In/out Space Creator, no more) but as well anti-religions, as I hate to see people kneeling in front of whatever for whatever reason.
I believed in few things, e.g., Justice (concept), freedom (concept) and reason (even if often disappointed).

If people want to believe in something why bother them as long as it doesn't affect you. And only that long, no further. But why harm what doesn't harm you, and smash it once it does.

[Brenus]

“If people want to believe in something why bother them as long as it doesn't affect you.” And that is why I said anti-religions. They can believe in whatever comfort them and make them feel warm inside, until your second part of your sentence which is coming in a newspaper and killing everybody inside. Or killing others in shop because they feelings were hurt or the people inside the shop were allegedly from another belief system.

Religion is the opium of the masses, it is a pain killer, a medicament (yes, that is what Marx wrote: Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.). However it is a placebo one.

Because the first part of your sentence, we, atheists, or I, atheist, accepted all the time this kind of sentence. But the reality is: it is not true. The addicts want to impose their addiction. They want their addiction to be respectable. And they don’t want to be recognised as addicts, as they can go off when they want. Well, they don’t want, that is…

No one would say that for other drugs.

The greatest anti-depressor is alcohol. But who will tell that if a drunk kill a child on a pushchair the accident had nothing to do with alcohol? The alcoholics could argue that it make them feel warm inside, they can talk to people without been paralysed by fear, etc. But when a drunk kill (an accident, officer, I did drink just 5 pints!!!) someone on the road, he/she’s got jail now. Nobody claims that alcohol has nothing to do with it. Nobody comes that “if people want to drink alcohol why bother” as we recognised alcoholism it as a social disease.

I fall in the trap. I don’t mind people believing in Father Xmas, Fairies, trolls and others, as nobody killed in their names. But I kept for myself listening Presidents and Prime Ministers and others Heads of State offering their prayers to the dead of obscurantist religiously fanatic murderers, and I decided it was enough.

Yes, Religions have a part in the murderers they inspire. Today is the Muslim one, yesterday was the Catholic one, and I can carry-on. So until all Religions will stop to inspire hate of others, gays, women, others religions, until all of them stop to be potential for killings, I will now confront them. I will not just listen their non-sense with a (internal) smile (don’t want to hurt them, do we?), I will challenge it. Politely, gently, nicely, but I will stop to bow to their incredible pretention to be for good. Like alcohol, if consume in moderation, it helps, but like alcohol, in high doses it is dangerous and fatal. But as Religions are concerned, it is mostly for others.

[Husar]

You're an atheist, nothing is sacred to you.

How do you know?

[Gilrandir]

I hate to see people kneeling in front of whatever for whatever reason.

What about kneeling at the grave of a person to give him last tribute and show respect?
What about kneeling in front of a national flag (and kissing it) to take an oath or something? Did you do that in the army?

And that is why I said anti-religions. They can believe in whatever comfort them and make them feel warm inside...
However it is a placebo one.

What if this placebo makes them better humans? Isn't it what you would like to see people become?

The greatest anti-depressor is alcohol. But who will tell that if a drunk kill a child on a pushchair the accident had nothing to do with alcohol? The alcoholics could argue that it make them feel warm inside, they can talk to people without been paralysed by fear, etc. But when a drunk kill (an accident, officer, I did drink just 5 pints!!!) someone on the road, he/she’s got jail now. Nobody claims that alcohol has nothing to do with it.

Yet we don't have alcohol on trial - it is people who are to bear responsibilty. The same with religion(s). Bible is full of justifications for all kinds of crap. It is for the person to decide what to steer himself by. So claiming that it is religion/alcohol/drugs etc that are to blame is an attempt to shift or evade responsibility.

So until all Religions will stop to inspire hate of others, gays, women, others religions, until all of them stop to be potential for killings, I will now confront them.

There are plenty of non-religious reasons for some people to hate others, so there is no use to be so harsh on religion. It is just one of the strings to be pulled at to make people do nasty things, at the same time it is equally one of the strings to be pulled at to make people do some good things. It is like saying that hammer is evil, because some people were killed with it. Evil is inside a human, so if he decides to unleash it, any trigger will do.

[Fragony]

“If people want to believe in something why bother them as long as it doesn't affect you.” And that is why I said anti-religions. They can believe in whatever comfort them and make them feel warm inside, until your second part of your sentence which is coming in a newspaper and killing everybody inside. Or killing others in shop because they feelings were hurt or the people inside the shop were allegedly from another belief system.

Religion is the opium of the masses, it is a pain killer, a medicament (yes, that is what Marx wrote: Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.). However it is a placebo one.

Because the first part of your sentence, we, atheists, or I, atheist, accepted all the time this kind of sentence. But the reality is: it is not true. The addicts want to impose their addiction. They want their addiction to be respectable. And they don’t want to be recognised as addicts, as they can go off when they want. Well, they don’t want, that is…

No one would say that for other drugs.

The greatest anti-depressor is alcohol. But who will tell that if a drunk kill a child on a pushchair the accident had nothing to do with alcohol? The alcoholics could argue that it make them feel warm inside, they can talk to people without been paralysed by fear, etc. But when a drunk kill (an accident, officer, I did drink just 5 pints!!!) someone on the road, he/she’s got jail now. Nobody claims that alcohol has nothing to do with it. Nobody comes that “if people want to drink alcohol why bother” as we recognised alcoholism it as a social disease.

I fall in the trap. I don’t mind people believing in Father Xmas, Fairies, trolls and others, as nobody killed in their names. But I kept for myself listening Presidents and Prime Ministers and others Heads of State offering their prayers to the dead of obscurantist religiously fanatic murderers, and I decided it was enough.

Yes, Religions have a part in the murderers they inspire. Today is the Muslim one, yesterday was the Catholic one, and I can carry-on. So until all Religions will stop to inspire hate of others, gays, women, others religions, until all of them stop to be potential for killings, I will now confront them. I will not just listen their non-sense with a (internal) smile (don’t want to hurt them, do we?), I will challenge it. Politely, gently, nicely, but I will stop to bow to their incredible pretention to be for good. Like alcohol, if consume in moderation, it helps, but like alcohol, in high doses it is dangerous and fatal. But as Religions are concerned, it is mostly for others.

The quotes from Marx, while true at the time, aren't all that relevant anymore, the church isn't all that influential anymore. I am not religious but I am not going to make a point out of it. There are sometimes baptists, mostly Americans, roaming around here. I just politely tell them that there is nothing to gain here for them and they politely move on. Believe what you want, just don't impose it.

[Brenus]

“What about kneeling at the grave of a person to give him last tribute and show respect?” How to kneel on someone grave is showing respect. It shows pain, suffering.

“What about kneeling in front of a national flag (and kissing it) to take an oath or something? Did you do that in the army?” Nope. We don’t do these things in the French army. No oath, no flag kissing. We don’t need this to be sure of what and who we defend and why we join. We join to defend freedom and democracy, and to protect, and we do this standing up with our flags rising to the sky (well, and harsh training, sweat and blood. And more training).

“What if this placebo makes them better humans?” But they are not better humans. They show the same attitudes and behaviours than other humans. So placebo doesn’t work.

“Yet we don't have alcohol on trial”: Well, yes we have in Western Europe (in France, advertising for alcohol and Tabaco is banned) and same for other “dangerous for health” products.

“So claiming that it is religion/alcohol/drugs etc that are to blame is an attempt to shift or evade responsibility.” And claiming they have no blame is to ignore reality, just for the pleasure to do so.
So a drunk killed someone, but it has nothing, no relationship whatsoever on the fact that he/she drunk alcohol? Really?

“There are plenty of non-religious reasons for some people to hate others” True, so no need to create more.

“Evil is inside a human, so if he decides to unleash it, any trigger will do.” And Religions are good at it.

[Fragony]

But any trigger will do, it doesn't have to be religion, Marxism certainly qualifies as a contender.

People do horrible things because they just can't take it that others disagree, what they disagree with can be anything.

[Brenus]

"it doesn't have to be religion" Indeed, and Marxism (or its Communists avatars) fit the bill. However, none will deny it. None will tell that Marxism has nothing to do with Stalinism. Only Religions think they can claim that their ultra-fanatic followers are just wrong (well, they've got a point, but, you know, it is not a thing to do, even if they understand why, you'd know, offended they were... There are limits, you'd know, and they want to put them). And, in my knowledge, no one was killed because offending the feelings of Marx and his prophet Angels (joke). To joke about Stalin (or Mao) was probably deadly mind you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How do you know?

Because the concept of "sanctity" is a form of superstitious fear, our ancestors saw fast running rivers they were afraid to cross and to justify their fear they declared these rivers "sacred" bariers their Gods prevented them from crossing.

You said you were an atheists, so no sanctity (superstitious fear) and no belief (assertion from ignorance) for Brenus.

[Husar]

You said you were an atheists

I did? I do not remember. Might be my fault though.

[Brenus]

"You said you were an atheists, so no sanctity (superstitious fear) and no belief (assertion from ignorance) for Brenus." These are your definition of atheism. I am atheist: I don't believe in a ET as a creator. Full stop. I have my own system of beliefs, based on hope and faith (which I know mostly hopeless) in Humanity.

@ Fragony: Marxism (or others political/economical ideologies) doesn't claim to be out of criticism and out of time. So when an aspect of it becomes clearly outdated, it is just abandoned or adapted (Marx couldn't foreseen Mobile Phone and macro-waves. Jules Vernes might)
Religious texts claim to be given by all mighty creature, so a-temporal and for ever valid. And this ET should have known that slavery was bad, and genocide bad, and rape of young girls bad, etc. Religious books are blocked from evolution and adaptation by their own claim to be God's words. The Gods can't make mistake, can't contradict themselves, you know, kind of "ell, when I said don't kill, few years ago, just to be clear, what I meant was don't kill the faithfuls, you'd know, people believing in me. Now, the others following the other one, the false one, the usurper, these are fair game as slaves (have fun with their daughters) and for slaughters. I am clear?".

[Gilrandir]

“What about kneeling at the grave of a person to give him last tribute and show respect?” How to kneel on someone grave is showing respect. It shows pain, suffering.

It may show both.

We don’t need this to be sure of what and who we defend and why we join. We join to defend freedom and democracy, and to protect, and we do this standing up with our flags rising to the sky.

It is so inspiring! Especially from the one who more than once claimed that, in fact, NATO armies (including the French one) were doing anything but defending freedom or democracy.

“What if this placebo makes them better humans?” But they are not better humans. They show the same attitudes and behaviours than other humans. So placebo doesn’t work.

Sometimes it does. I know plenty of examples when criminals changed their attitudes and behavior after being converted.

“Yet we don't have alcohol on trial”: Well, yes we have in Western Europe (in France, advertising for alcohol and Tabaco is banned) and same for other “dangerous for health” products.

Advertising may be banned, yet their selling is not. You can't blame an inanimate thing for what humans do using it. Do you blame cars in accidents? If you do then you sure must ban their advertising and stop using them.

“So claiming that it is religion/alcohol/drugs etc that are to blame is an attempt to shift or evade responsibility.” And claiming they have no blame is to ignore reality, just for the pleasure to do so.
So a drunk killed someone, but it has nothing, no relationship whatsoever on the fact that he/she drunk alcohol? Really?

And if a sober person killed someone, how is it better from drunk murder? And if a person killed someone with a knife, must we blame the knife since it definitely has some relation to the murder?
The point is: if a person has a seed of evil in himself, he will find a way to let it out. You may ban religions, alcohol, cars, knives - it won't help you. The ban itself doesn't ensure you have a crime free society. Japan doesn't ban anything yet crime there is very low. Some muslim countries ban alcohol and let religion flourish - and they have low crime. The USSR almost banned religion and overflowed in alcohol - and crime rate was high. There is no universal recipe to improve the society. In each one there must be a different approach.

None will tell that Marxism has nothing to do with Stalinism.

Forgetting the time frame you confuse cause and consequence. It is Stalinism that has something to do with Marxism. One may say that Stalinism is applied Marxism. Though in fact, I don't know how much original Marxism was twisted while being implemented by Stalin.

[Pannonian]

Double nationalities is relatively easy - they should loose their (usually) Western one when they decide to prance off to the 1500's.

Those without - a lot harder. Part of me thinks that the point of the MI6 etc is to collate evidence and ensure that they don't come back. Just quietly killed in battle rather than monitor them across the whole of Europe to then have to spend money on due process. We're not talking about collaborators in an occupied country where people play lip service for safety, they've spent a lot of effort to get to Paradise and I say we help 'em.

Otherwise, there's nothing we can really do. There will never be the evidence required to try them (as has been pointed out, circumstantial isn't hard evidence) and so we can flap about worrying about the few that do decide to become sleepers and spend loads of money integrating the others.

All we ask in the West is that you join in with the culture we have and most places in Europe have a very broad definition of what this is and practically all cultures and religions manage to do so - bar a very small minority of Muslims. I don't say what we do is right / the best but it is what we do and is our norms. Rather than continue to spend resources on those who clearly don't want to be, get rid of this few and spend the time integrating everyone else.

Recognise the Islamic State. Anyone who goes there is assumed to become a citizen of said state. Remove the western citizenship of anyone who goes there. Anyone who has any kind of sympathy for that state has next to nothing in common with the vast majority of us.

[Pannonian]

Everybody here seems to agree that if there's sufficient evidence they committed crimes of some sort (i.e. aiding an armed insurgency against a recognised government) they'll have to face charges. If there's no evidence of this sort, you can't really do anything. I'm not sure what your problem is.

I suppose you could invent a criminal offence for people like Brenus mentioned, who only travel there because they want to live in rebel-held territory and willingly associate with them in some way. But I foresee trouble with coming up with a definition that excludes journalists and humanitarian workers (not really relevant in the case of IS, but moreso for other conflict zones). And creating a new criminal defintion obviously won't apply to current cases.

All western citizens who wish to remain western citizens should not travel to the Islamic State. Anyone who is found there can be assumed to either a sympathiser of said state, in which case they can give up their western citizenship and become a citizen of the IS. Or they are travelling there on their own accord. In which case, hand them over to the IS and let them do with them as they will. If they want to get along, let them become citizens of that state, while if they don't want to get along, wash our hands of them. The only exceptions are anyone explicitly and formally authorised by a western government, signed off by the head of the government so there can be no argument.

[Husar]

I linked a reporter earlier who went there solely to find out how the situation is there and how these people think and go about their lives. I find it incredibly brave and worthwhile. Should he have been stripped of his citizenship just because he went there?

What about people who go to North Korea or China or other states that murder innocent people?

I find such blanket statements strange, it always depends on what you do there, not just where you geographically go.
And if the head of the government has to sign off every single reporter who wants to go somewhere, that would also be/allow censorship of the press.

[Fragony]

All western citizens who wish to remain western citizens should not travel to the Islamic State. Anyone who is found there can be assumed to either a sympathiser of said state, in which case they can give up their western citizenship and become a citizen of the IS. Or they are travelling there on their own accord. In which case, hand them over to the IS and let them do with them as they will. If they want to get along, let them become citizens of that state, while if they don't want to get along, wash our hands of them. The only exceptions are anyone explicitly and formally authorised by a western government, signed off by the head of the government so there can be no argument.

It isn't all that easy in some situations, the IS is not a recognised state so there are some complications.

Different question on this subject, what to do with refugees from IS territory. Who says that who is declared dead is actually dead.

[Gilrandir]

Recognise the Islamic State. Anyone who goes there is assumed to become a citizen of said state. Remove the western citizenship of anyone who goes there. Anyone who has any kind of sympathy for that state has next to nothing in common with the vast majority of us.

What if they go there to pick up family members who wish to leave it? What if they go there to collect the remains of their property however insignificant those may seem to the government of your countries? What if they go there to pay ransom for someone?

[Pannonian]

I linked a reporter earlier who went there solely to find out how the situation is there and how these people think and go about their lives. I find it incredibly brave and worthwhile. Should he have been stripped of his citizenship just because he went there?

What about people who go to North Korea or China or other states that murder innocent people?

I find such blanket statements strange, it always depends on what you do there, not just where you geographically go.
And if the head of the government has to sign off every single reporter who wants to go somewhere, that would also be/allow censorship of the press.

I don't think journalists can say much more about that place than we need to know. If you reckon that the government shouldn't have to sign off on every reporter who goes there, because of freedom of the press issues, then equally we shouldn't be bothered if they go there of their own accord and get into trouble. They make their bed, they can lie in it.

[Kralizec]

Recognise the Islamic State. Anyone who goes there is assumed to become a citizen of said state. Remove the western citizenship of anyone who goes there. Anyone who has any kind of sympathy for that state has next to nothing in common with the vast majority of us.

I can see the attraction of letting IS/Daesh exist to function as some sort of sinkhole that will attract people who don't want western society and who can therefore be missed like a sore tooth. Kind of like the world's toilet.

The problem is: "we" are never going to recognise Daesh as a sovereign entity for fairly obvious reasons. They claim territory from states that we do recognise and they're sure as hell never going to treat other states as peers, which is kind of a prerequisite for diplomatic recognition of any kind. This, and the fact that they're a bunch of murderous savages and all that.

I don't really see much value in stripping citizenship as a criminal punishment, anyway.

[Pannonian]

I can see the attraction of letting IS/Daesh exist to function as some sort of sinkhole that will attract people who don't want western society and who can therefore be missed like a sore tooth. Kind of like the world's toilet.

The problem is: "we" are never going to recognise Daesh as a sovereign entity for fairly obvious reasons. They claim territory from states that we do recognise and they're sure as hell never going to treat other states as peers, which is kind of a prerequisite for diplomatic recognition of any kind. This, and the fact that they're a bunch of murderous savages and all that.

I don't really see much value in stripping citizenship as a criminal punishment, anyway.

I don't see stripping citizenship as a punishment. I see it as a measure of protection from them, so they can never legally return here. If they sympathise with that lot, they will never have much in common with me, and will more than likely be a threat (the 7/7 bombings and the attempted bombing a few weeks later were in areas I frequent, just not on that particular day). I'm not going to interfere with their life over there, and I don't want them to interfere with my life over here.

As for claiming territory from sovereign states, they began life after we interfered in the likes of Iraq and latterly Syria, removing the dictators who were keeping their like in check. Saddam's gone, but Assad's still around, and it's not like any western government will be weeping if he complains about IS being recognised on his turf. Recognise them both, and let them duke it out for supremacy without involving us. Anyone who takes part will be fighting on behalf of one side or another whom we don't support. Whichever side they join, we'll be well rid of them.

[Fragony]

But they can come back Pannonian, you are not legally allowed to take of citizenship if someone will remain stateless. It are the laws people thought would be a good idea. It wasn't my idea to make that legally impossible.

Krazilic can probably explain why but I am not kidding you.

[Brenus]

“It is so inspiring! Especially from the one who more than once claimed that, in fact, NATO armies (including the French one) were doing anything but defending freedom or democracy.” Who? If you claim that it is my position, you surely had problem in reading text (or understanding).

“Sometimes it does.” And sometimes it doesn’t, as placebo effect does.

“Do you blame cars in accidents?” You should more about Car’s company blamed for accidents due to a default. So, yes, when a car is involved in an accident, we can blame the car. Then, do you deny the car was part of the problem, or you just pretend that it nothing to do with the car, as the killer had been on foot, it would have been the same result?

“And if a person killed someone with a knife, must we blame the knife since it definitely has some relation to the murder?” Who spoke of blaming game, excepted you? Yes, if I kill someone with a knife, and if this knife was designed to kill, yes, the knife is part of it: without the knife I can’t stab someone. I may strangle him/her, but I can’t stab. So, what is the part you still don’t understand?

“The USSR almost banned religion” Never, that is legend: From Wiki: “The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited.”

“Forgetting the time frame you confuse cause and consequence” ? What are you talking about? Cause and Consequence? Stalinism is not a Consequence of Marxism, but the consequence of Russian Revolution. However, Marxism is part of Stalinism as Stalin shared, or embraced, the Marxist way of thinking

You should really make effort to read and understand instead to knee-jerk reaction at everything I write. Well, perhaps it too much to ask…

[Kralizec]

I don't see stripping citizenship as a punishment. I see it as a measure of protection from them, so they can never legally return here. If they sympathise with that lot, they will never have much in common with me, and will more than likely be a threat (the 7/7 bombings and the attempted bombing a few weeks later were in areas I frequent, just not on that particular day). I'm not going to interfere with their life over there, and I don't want them to interfere with my life over here.

As for claiming territory from sovereign states, they began life after we interfered in the likes of Iraq and latterly Syria, removing the dictators who were keeping their like in check. Saddam's gone, but Assad's still around, and it's not like any western government will be weeping if he complains about IS being recognised on his turf. Recognise them both, and let them duke it out for supremacy without involving us. Anyone who takes part will be fighting on behalf of one side or another whom we don't support. Whichever side they join, we'll be well rid of them.

It's not going to happen. Either of them.

People more versed than me in international law or diplomacy could probably list a string of reasons of why IS isn't going to get any recognition, whatsoever. I'll just say that nobody is willing to accept a group like IS as a durable (quasi-)state that will last decades, let alone centuries. Even if it's going to take ten years and a series of genocides, IS is done for sooner or later. Assad's government is a vile regime, but from a geopolitical standpoint its existence is at least tolerable.

The future Iraqi and Syrian governments aren't going to award these people with citizenship, either. Why should they? That leaves them with a bunch of stateless criminals that they can't deport anywhere, meaning they're stuck with them. Aside from the human rights aspect, that's one big reason why there are treaties against statelessness and why countries can't just denaturalize all of their undesirables.

[Slyspy]

The EU made us get rid of hanging for treason :(

Strange thing, but if the EU made us ditch it (in 1998) then you'd have thought that the last execution would be more recent than 1946.

[Brenus]

Read an article in a French publication: Apparently the number of returnees is by hundreds. And the number of executed potential returnees in the same kind of number. Apparently, IS doesn't like freedom of movement.
The article describe a very difficult situation of the returnees as
1 They fear retaliation from IS
2 The local population doesn't trust them (nor police and others law enforcement agencies.
So they have no where to go, and nobody really want to talk to them

However, they still show/see themselves as victims, refusing to acknowledge they choose to go and to support a Nazi kind of ideology, based on aggression, slavery, racism and discrimination. What they said is it was not as they imagined it, and the conditions of living awful.
What were they imagine is far from my understanding...

[Fragony]

Not that hard to understand, they thought they were going to fight against Assad, swept up by the idiotic notion of an Arab spring. They can be forgiven for being so naive but they are just a security-risk. Before IS became what it is Assad's regime did horrible things, so it's understandable.

[Husar]

Read an article in a French publication: Apparently the number of returnees is by hundreds. And the number of executed potential returnees in the same kind of number. Apparently, IS doesn't like freedom of movement.
The article describe a very difficult situation of the returnees as
1 They fear retaliation from IS
2 The local population doesn't trust them (nor police and others law enforcement agencies.
So they have no where to go, and nobody really want to talk to them

However, they still show/see themselves as victims, refusing to acknowledge they choose to go and to support a Nazi kind of ideology, based on aggression, slavery, racism and discrimination. What they said is it was not as they imagined it, and the conditions of living awful.
What were they imagine is far from my understanding...

Yeah, so I wonder what their education usually is and how old they are. I somehow doubt that most of them are 30 year olds with a doctorate or thereabouts.

[Fragony]

Yeah, so I wonder what their education usually is and how old they are. I somehow doubt that most of them are 30 year olds with a doctorate or thereabouts.

Yeah, naivity is the best of sins anyway. We should really reconsider how we deal with the hardcore though. We know who they are, we know where they live. Just take them out, Nobody is going to notice it with the current liquidations between north-african penoza. Hardly a day goes by without someone in Amsterdam or Brussels getting killed, use that. Let's not even start about Marseille and Nice in France.

[Gilrandir]

But they can come back Pannonian, you are not legally allowed to take of citizenship if someone will remain stateless.

In the USSR it was just the case. Some dissidents (for instance, Solzhenitsyn, Rostropovich) had their Soviet citizenship taken away and were deported from the country. After that they received another state's citizenship, but for some time they had none.

“It is so inspiring! Especially from the one who more than once claimed that, in fact, NATO armies (including the French one) were doing anything but defending freedom or democracy.” Who? If you claim that it is my position, you surely had problem in reading text (or understanding).

I don't have problems with understanding/reading texts, perhaps I can't always detect irony and sarcasm. In live communication one can figure this out by intonation and facial expression of the interlocutor. Since in your post I had neither (and you didn't give any other clue) it is quite understandable that I could misinterpret the message. If you aim at clear understanding, make sure others get your intention.
Yet if it was sarcasm, it doesn't reflect great credit upon you. For a significant part of your life you have been doing what you despise. Talk of hypocrisy.

“Do you blame cars in accidents?” You should more about Car’s company blamed for accidents due to a default. So, yes, when a car is involved in an accident, we can blame the car. Then, do you deny the car was part of the problem, or you just pretend that it nothing to do with the car, as the killer had been on foot, it would have been the same result?

“And if a person killed someone with a knife, must we blame the knife since it definitely has some relation to the murder?” Who spoke of blaming game, excepted you? Yes, if I kill someone with a knife, and if this knife was designed to kill, yes, the knife is part of it: without the knife I can’t stab someone. I may strangle him/her, but I can’t stab. So, what is the part you still don’t understand?

You know perfectly well that there are accidents in which cars functioned alright and knives meant for killing are not always the ones used in murders, yet you go on being childish in blaming objects for what humans do. The same as kids hitting some tool or thing which through mishandling hurt the owner. So keep kicking the rake that struck you after you stepped on it and shout "Bad rake!"

“The USSR almost banned religion” Never, that is legend: From Wiki: “The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited.”

Keep quoting wiki which tells me about the life in the USSR. I LIVED IN THE USSR AND I KNOW THE WAY IT WAS.
When I was baptized (at the age of five) I was told to keep it deep secret and not to breathe even my friends in the kindergarten a word about it. My godfather had to keep it secret as well because he was a Communist and the chief engineer at a building company. If you were spotted attending a church (even on a holiday such as Easter or Christmas) your boss - at the instigation of the communist party chapter of the enterprise you worked at - would severely reprimand you and your future career advancement was forfeit. Because of this very reason my godfather wasn't even present at the procedure of my baptism, so all the neccessary rituals were attended to by his wife (so, strictly speaking, his wife IS my godfather). Priests were supposed to report on the flock to KGB. So the Soviet freedom of faith you try to convince me in was true only for people after 60. If you had any aspirations in your life you could see the church only from the outside (and from a safe distance too).