I'm wondering if the purpose of all the migrations is less elaborate than many are claiming it to be. This is just a theory so don't take this as me preaching about something.

What if NATO countries agreed to expedite refugee migrations because they are preparing to go into all out war in the area? The Iraq war lost steam quickly once Americans lost focus of the reason for war and then started to learn about the spending, civilian casualties, and soldiers lost in battle.

In this day and age, information is easier to disseminate due to the Internet. This works both ways as NATO countries engaged in war could be scrutinized for the same issues that made the war in Iraq and Vietnam such national disgraces.

If they import refugees, then they drastically lower the amount of civilian casualties at the site of war. They also get to defend themselves from criticism by pointing to the number of refugees they've accepted. NATO then gets to run amok throughout the middle east as a result.

Perhaps the chaos that many theorize as a result of refugees being accepted in mass numbers (skirmishes/civil war) is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As liberal SJWs try to cover the rapes and violence committed, nationalists exploit them. A constant power struggle exists at the top of leadership. The sidebar claims that Red & Blue are one in the same, but you have a direct contradiction in that the Red team has a candidate claiming that refugees will be disallowed.

Maybe that's why current US leadership doesn't want to acknowledge "Islamic Terrorism". Doing so, legitimizes the fear of refugees coming in and can lead to serious consequences at home in their pursuit for all out war in the Middle East. A war taking place at home and abroad is something that could collapse the US. But maybe that's the plan all along...