What’s Wrong with the World

If you wonder what it means, read the most prophetic dystopian novel of the twentieth century, "The Camp of the Saints" by award-winning French novelist, as well as Catholic traditionalist, Jean Raspail.

Given that we have a kind of an obligation toward those fleeing murderous regimes,
and given that Europe cannot simply absorb the population of the Middle east (and Africa) that would prefer not to live under ISIS,
Does this potentially create a proper reason under just war theory for, say, NATO to declare war on ISIS and put paid to that particular festering sore?

(This is not a question as to its prudence. That's a much more involved question.)

The infrastructure of Hungary is simply not equipped to handle those kinds of numbers,

Yep, precisely. Frankly, this cannot go on without Europe turning into something even weirder and more messed-up than it already is, and badly messed-up in new ways. People who just say everyone should be welcome out of love or something are living in an economic fantasy land where everything grows on trees, including infrastructure, food, water, and housing. If you invite everyone in, you ruin whatever it is they wanted to get "in" for.

And that's aside from the Islam problem. Some of these are running from ISIS, while others think there will just be an opportunity to live a better life than they had already in Syria, which wasn't all that great shakes. That doesn't mean that they don't want to impose sharia of some sort, that they don't believe in forced marriages for daughters, or even that they don't support terrorism, just not the Sunni ISIS. Support for Hezbollah, which is Shia, being an obvious possibility. It was one group of Muslim "refugees" who murdered Christians recently off the coast of Italy by throwing them off the boat.

Fraser's point about this being an opportunity to evangelize Moslems is good. But I am doubtful of Tony's application to Just War principle here:
1) Europe could simply close its borders. As many other countries have.
2) It is very doubtful that 2-3 million refugees are such an intolerable burden upon some of the richest societies in the world.
Poor nations such as Pakistan--3 million+ refugees during Afghan wars dating Soviet invasion.
India 6million + refugees from 1971 war of Bengaladesh freedom
Congo-untold million of refugees during various central African wars.

It is curious that this relatively small human movement causes so much anxiety among rich Europeans.

3) Why are the refugees fleeing from Turkey in the first place?. Are they being persecuted there? There are already millions of Kurdish citizens in Turkey. Surely they could absorb some more Syrian Kurds. I see no reason for the Kurds to flee Turkey.

Bedarz,

As far as I can tell the reason they aren't staying in Turkey is because Germany has basically offered them better opportunities. It seems that the Germans actually do want more immigrants, though it remains to be seen whether they will get more than they bargained for. Hungary actually has tried closing its borders somewhat, by building razor wire fences. That hasn't kept anyone out apparently, but we are talking about hundreds of thousands of immigrants over a relatively short period of time in a country with a population of 10 million. And then the Europeans get upset with Hungary for not properly registering them all according to EU regulations. I guess the Germans can handle it, but Hungary was not expecting it nor prepared for it.

Bedarz, why do you suggest 2-3 million?

Syria and Iraq are just the first innings of the ballgame. ISIS explicitly will keep pushing further until stopped. Lebanon and then Turkey. Egypt, Libya, Tunisia. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen. Kurdistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan. All this is on the short list, before we even get to the non-Muslim nations.

In the case of Italy, part of it has to do with the fact that they have a youth unemployment rate of something like 40%. Add to that that their migrants often have no respect for the rule of law in their host country and engage in criminal conduct like the recent brutal murder of a pensioner and his wife during an armed robbery of their home by a few Africans. Vox Day linked to something that said that the cost of "properly housing" a few migrants outside of a camp in Italy was roughly what the average poor Italian makes in a year. It takes not a whole lot of further analysis to see why the "rich Italians" are getting fed up with this crap.

At the end of the day, it comes down to "your failure to build a successful civilization and/or keep it does not constitute an obligation to give you ours." The refugees won't go back home even if ISIS were defeated tomorrow. They won't integrate in terms of language, culture or religion. They'll demand accommodations and "respect" and access to Parliament. At some point, the nations offering refuge or having it demanded will grow completely intolerant of the refugees know matter how desperate.

The image you have embedded is overlapping some of the text. At least on my tablet. Anyone else experiencing this?

Scott, I changed it, I think that should fix it.

But I am doubtful of Tony's application to Just War principle here: 1) Europe could simply close its borders. As many other countries have.

True, they could. That fairly directly repudiates my first premise, though:

Given that we have a kind of an obligation toward those fleeing murderous regimes,

My question assumes that we cannot (morally) just stick our fingers in our ears and say "I can't see you!" If we have to respond somehow, and we are forced to close borders (or choose to for reasons of prudence, including refusing to try to assimilate millions of Muslims where Christianity is already precarious), does that imply that taking out the regime from which they are forced to flee becomes a "just cause"?

3) Why are the refugees fleeing from Turkey in the first place?. Are they being persecuted there? There are already millions of Kurdish citizens in Turkey. Surely they could absorb some more Syrian Kurds. I see no reason for the Kurds to flee Turkey.

It's unlikely that most of the refugees are Kurdish since the Kurds are a small minority of the population and their location is not that far from Iraqi Kurdistan.

does that imply that taking out the regime from which they are forced to flee becomes a "just cause"?

I think it would fail to meet the Just War criteria here because the Assad regime is actually the least evil faction in the Syrian civil war. At this point, it's a fight between Assad and ISIS with all of the other "rebels" being ISIS proxies and auxiliaries. Odds are significantly lower that we could install a "good government" in Damascus than installing some easily radicalized regime or one that would just ignite the entire country all over again.

It's important to remember that Assad kept the peace against a restive Sunni Arab majority that had no interest in respecting the rights of the various minorities. Under his watch, the various minorities lived with a real measure of dignity, not as dhimmis or heretics.

I think it would fail to meet the Just War criteria here because the Assad regime is actually the least evil faction in the Syrian civil war.

This is a necessary thing to consider in going to war, but it is NOT the consideration of just cause. It falls under other criteria, such as "having a reasonable chance of success".

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.

Tony,
Right now, the western nations are actually engaged in waging war on ISIS in the first place. In the second place, the western nations are directly implicated in the Syrian civil war-they instigated it, they fanned it, they maintained it--Turkey without whose sins of commission and omission, this war would have died down is a NATO member in good standing. There are other observations to be made re: western involvement in Iraqi and Libyan wars too.

Only, their involvement can hardly be termed an instance of Just War.
So, the western nations would do a lot of good just by refraining from what they have been doing so far.

From Rod Dreher's blog today.

Former CIA agent Michael Scheuer is extremely bleak about the situation: He blames the West’s thoughtless military interventions in the Islamic world for this refugee crisis.

The leaders of the western countries are not exactly the people that look for Just War criteria.

Right now, the western nations are actually engaged in waging war on ISIS in the first place.

In a half-hearted, scattered fashion. Not as a full-out war. Probably a bad idea to wage war that way at all, I suppose, but NATO hasn't fully committed to just plain defeating ISIS as a military matter.

the western nations are directly implicated in the Syrian civil war-they instigated it, they fanned it, they maintained it--Turkey without whose sins of commission and omission, this war would have died down is a NATO member in good standing. There are other observations to be made re: western involvement in Iraqi and Libyan wars too.

There is a lot I don't understand about both the Syrian civil war and about the rise of ISIS as an entity (if we can call it that), so that's part of what I am asking. But let's not forget the difference between "we were involved internationally with Syria and Assad and some of those arrangements ended up contributing to the rise of armed factions against Assad", and "we instigated the war ourselves." An example of the latter would be, I don't know, maybe the rise of the Iran revolutionary regime that overthrew the Shah. I don't know that our involvement with the Assad-attackers is parallel with the kind of involvement we had in instigating the overthrow of the Shah.

I have a lot of sympathy for the view that we should keep our hands off politics in the Middle East and let them fight over their own differences. I have somewhat less sympathy for the view that some people take this to mean - that we would therefore have to have no dealings with the Middle East, because (just for example) to have dealings with them means using force (or the threat of force) to enforce contracts with them when 2-bit thug dictators think they can stiff our people, or to convince them otherwise when they send pirates to grab our shipping, and so on. I also have limited sympathy for the notion of keeping our hands off of politics in the Middle East when that is taken to imply not having _any_ dealings at all with the sovereign governments or the people there, as if we could (just for example) maintain embassies and provide the NORMAL embassy support to American business, cultural, etc interests without normalizing relations with said governments, thereby providing implicit support for the regimes that control said governments. Maybe we should not sell the Saudi government jets, but if we are going to treat the Saudi monarchy as the legitimate government we are going to irritate the opposition Arab leaders anyway. And I don't think we should allow revolutionaries to re-work the terms of the conversation so as to confuse "we treated the Saudi monarchy as the Arab government" with "we interfered with Arab politics."

This is why the "refugee crisis" will probably be ended in bloodshed by the native Europeans. The media is focusing on the sob stories like the little boy who washed up on the shore in Turkey, but trying to downplay the fact that a lot of the refugees have not one iota of respect for Europe or Europeans. As I said, Italy has 40% youth unemployment. You really think unemployed Italian youths are going to give one quantum of a damn about the "suffering" of a bunch of Africans and Middle Easterners who are slitting the throats and robbing their elderly whilst competing with them for jobs and social support?

I don't know that our involvement with the Assad-attackers is parallel with the kind of involvement we had in instigating the overthrow of the Shah.

Tony, I've read we did arms running to the "rebels," so yes, it looks like "we" (by which I mean "the Obama administration") bear a pretty direct responsibility.

The media are not just focusing on the sob stories, I am afraid, Mike, they are manufacturing them. Virtually every detail in the story about the drowned toddler is false. He and his family were perfectly safe where they were in Turkey, they had not been denied asylum in Canada not having even applied, etc. The media, however, have helped the father, who is pointing fingers at a "heartless" world to cover up his own culpability, for their own self-serving ends. In Canada, for example, the public broadcaster, the CBC, is using the story to blatantly interfere in the federal election in an attempt to oust the sitting government which it hates for trimming their budget.

At some point, there may need to be some rethinking of our own first amendment on this issue. Corporations cannot be allowed to disseminate blatant lies. It would be interesting to see someone try to call the "news" a product and prosecute a publisher like CNN or Fox for issuing a fraudulent product when it can be shown that their reporting was either on made up facts or facts that they should have known were false.

Interesting theory, Mike. Commercial products don't get first amendment protection. Does commercial supply of entertainment even if in the form of words? Not normally - at least not on quite the same basis, I would think. So wouldn't "infotainment" fail? What if a newspaper was judged to be "primarily" infotainment? Like National Enquirer?

I would be hesitant to suggest that the primary mechanism is a COURT analysis of whether an article was "true" or "not true", though. At least, for the nat. enq., you could argue that the fact that they lucked into a piece that happened mostly to be true is purely incidental to their main focus, which was entertainment.

I do think, though, that society could work on other means to severely punish papers that print false stuff, when they clearly did not respect proper means of making sure they stuck to verified facts. I don't know how that would work, but as it is they get off scot free.

Why should Europe be burdened with these refugees? Why arent they fleeing to the middle Eastern countries? They walked for two months yet have no food now? Also they are mostly young fighting aged men, not just from Syria but as far afiled as Afghanistan and Pakistan...these are not refugees...

Mike laments the often fraudulent mainstream media. I have some sympathy with that.
What's his alternative?
A link to an openly racist and misogynic [women shouldn't have the right to vote!] SF-author who starts his article with the following gem:

At this point, a lot of Europeans are beginning to think that Vlad the Impaler's solution is the correct one to the violent invasion of Western Europe.

Im am living in Germany. There is no 'invasion', most people and all mayor parties welcome refugees from the Near East, Lybia and Afghanistan (all destabilized by the US, you remember?). There is, so far, absolutely no evidence that some (let alone many) of the refugees have a hidden jihadist agenda. Most European societies are shrinking, so, in the end, they will profit by the immigration of well-educated, relatively moderate Syrians etc.

Obviously the Muslims who are just coming in this moment to Germany haven't done anything yet either good or bad. They have just arrived. But the history of Muslim immigration into Germany in recent years and decades does not bode well. There have been acts of terrorism, support for terrorism, and failure to assimilate. It was in Germany that a judge actually attempted to rely on the Koran's permission to husbands to beat their wives in a divorce case. The idea that Germany will simply profit from more mass Muslim immigration and that there is no reason to think otherwise is simply naive.

from the Near East, Lybia and Afghanistan all destabilized by the US, you remember?

I am sure the root source of the destabilization in Lybia is the US. /sarc/

For that matter, all of the Middle East is destabilized by the West, which wants oil and which the Middle East is willing to sell. If the Middle East stopped being willing to sell oil, the West would stop having that destabilizing influence. Of course, then much of the Middle East would naturally sink into the pit of poverty that obtains from having a surplus of sand and a deficit of water. But it wouldn't be DESTABILIZED poverty, mind you.

Grobi, stop lying. You don't live in Germany and you don't know what you are talking about. How do I know this? Because SJWs always lie.

Actually, Grobi has commented here for years, and I'm pretty certain he is at least telling the truth about who he is and where he lives. (Note: I do not say this from any insider information but from my own observation of things like the style of his English, his interests and preoccupations, etc.)

Whether he does or doesn't know what he's talking about is another matter entirely. My comment above, though not accusing him of lying, makes it pretty clear that I think he's living in an alternative reality as far as the dangers of mass Muslim immigration, which is of course typical of leftists and that subject, but *that* is consistent with not being a liar in the normal sense of that word.

In any event, our comment policy prohibits mere personal abuse, so bag it, Steve Willy. We do apply that comment policy regardless of the political affiliation of the commenters.

Islam has been working at conquering Europe for some 1,400 years now. It is in the modern era that they have come close to their goal. As you all know, Islam is a movement whose aim is the conquest of the world. They seek domination by any means. One tactic is to flood the target area with Muslim population until the autochthonic peoples become overwhelmed and submit to Islamic control. What is so grievous is that the "elite leadership" of the people seem overjoyed to see the invasion continue and have been happy for them to "immigrate' into their lands. Many citizens see the dangers, which are the snuffing out of their civilization, but without strong leadership, are helpless to do anything. Thus, Europe will go the way of other brilliant civilizations, Persian, Byzantine.

Perhaps America could learn a lesson here, but not with the current administration in control. We need intelligent leadership to steer us clear of the dangers of Islam. To date, Obama has done everything in his power to keep Americans from learning the true nature of Islam and their plans to conquer America. God help us to find strong, intelligent and wise leadership once these minions are out of office.

800k refugees per year, is a significant number when juxtaposed with the demographics of Germany. It doesn't matter whether the "mainstream" parties and much of the public thinks this is an invasion, bad policy or what have you. The fact is that this is a significant importation of people into a country with a dwindling demographic. Intentions simply don't matter here, the fact is that it is very bad for Germany because this is going to radically change the demographics of Germany in a matter of just 5 years if it continues. Germany only has about 18M people between the ages of infancy to 24, and we're assuming for the sake of argument that the percentage that aren't ethnically German are insignificant.

And yet this may be for the best because turning the dial to 11 on multiculturalism in Europe via the migration crisis will ensure that the frog has at least a fighting chance of realizing that the heat is going up quickly.

I want to know how many of these refugees support Sharia law? Letting vast numbers of people into your country who don't share you values mean you soon won't have a country anymore.

Not to mention that apparently a disproportionate percentage of the "refugees" are apparently combat age males.

Another data point...

And I think it's conclusion is correct:

If the choice is between having your children raped and killed or murderous ultra-nationalists, the normal citizenry will choose the ultras every single time. The loudest voices in favor of immigration bans and mass deportations should be the strident anti-Nazis, because the mass migrations presently being enabled by the Western governments is the most certain way to bring the ultras to power

Where I live and used to live in metro DC, there's a palpable fear among most women of going into areas that are heavy on illegal immigrants. And no, it's not a white thing. I've had black and native born hispanic women say they won't even pump gas in such areas even if the coast looks clear if they're by themselves. Both the US and Europe are much closer to having the ultra-nationalists take over than the establishment wishes to believe.

Mike T, I've been trying to make that point for years. If 1) the powers that be are willing to equate ordinary national self-respect with genocidal racism; and if 2) ordinary national self-respect is a normal and healthy default position for the average man; then 3) before long, the average man will come to accept genocidal racism as normal and healthy.

Leftists, who misunderstand so much about people, believe that they can deliberately sow confusion about what are normal, universally-held sentiments without negative consequence. From their commanding position in all the opinion-forming institutions of society, they relentlessly drive home the lie that to love one's people and one's country, and to wish to preserve it, is indistinguishable in every practical way from racist hatred. Then they are surprised and appalled when people take their word for it.

Can others confirm independently:

1) The factoid one is hearing everywhere that 75% of these "refugees" are fighting-age males (which seems bizarre for a refugee population),

2) The claim that these refugees do not include Christians but only Muslims?

If 2 is true, why?

Sounds like the kind of thing that would be pretty hard to verify independently, as it's a question with major implications for how the public perceives the problem--which in turn means that public officials can be expected to lie shamelessly about it (e.g., Rotherham).

On the other hand, confirmation bias will play a big role for those already inclined to see this as a problem for European society and civilization (as I am). There are some really big, consequential axes to grind here, so I'm not sure whom I would trust.

I really don't think it even matters that much since even if it were the normal 49/51 divide between men and women, 800k refugees flowing into Germany means 400k or so males and if 50% of those are 13 to 40 (perfectly reasonable given the younger demographic profile of the Arab states), that means 200k fighting age males. To put that into perspective, the entire Bundeswehr has 180k active duty personnel and 40k reserves. If #$%^ gets real in Germany, it will require a joint invasion by the French and Polish.

Just thought of this, but if let's say the global economy were to hit another major stumbling point and Europe erupted, it would present Putin an incredible opportunity to divide the West. Russia has a military that could easily help any Eastern or Central European state stamp out a Muslim uprising. In fact, I dare say a lot of those countries might turn desperately to the Russians if their own militaries fail.

And Facebook is actively censoring anything that could be construed as less than welcoming of the migrants now...

Garbage like this is why I am inclined to believe that when the public has had enough of the SJWs, elites, etc. it's going to make the French Revolution look like an argument between two Quakers.

Lydia:

#1 I can definitely confirm. Fighting-age males en masse. The reason for the bizarreness is that the media lumps together "refugees" with "migrants", and fighting-age males are also working-age males who are the most viable economic migrants who can easily drop out of their old life, wander into a new town and look for a low-skill job doing physical labor.

This seems like a possible reason for #2 to be partially true: Muslims throwing Christians overboard en route.

I was at the border of Hungary and Serbia yesterday and saw some of the last refugees come across before the Hungarians closed the border. It was definitely NOT 75% fighting-age males. It looked more like what you would expect: men, women, and children, with families together. I took some photos and video on my phone which I haven't looked closely at, but I'm curious now to analyze it. I'll just say that I wasn't struck by a disproportionate number of fighting-age males. I'm also curious where Erik got his definite confirmation from, and what border crossing it was at.

Supposedly a lot of Muslims from the Balkans are exploiting the situation to try to get to Germany. That may well be where that's coming from since they're probably analogous in behavior to our Mexican problem (where you see a whole lot of single men).

Microcosm:
"Hungarian police have arrested the driver of a lorry found on an Austrian motorway with the decomposing bodies of 71 people, including a baby girl, inside. Austrian police said of the 71 dead, 59 were men, eight women and four children, including a baby girl."

Macrocosm:
The New Face Of EU Immigration Is Young, Fit And Overwhelmingly Male
"Yes, there are families in the throng at Keleti. Plenty with young children. But if you stand and take a rough count it is hard not to come to the conclusion that young men are in the overwhelming majority."

And then there's various pictures like the ones in this gallery, where you'll notice that pictures of women and children don't have more than 3-4 at a time, whereas e.g. picture #15 shows something on the order of thirty men and one woman out of those whose sex I can make a reasonable guess at. #21 similarly appears to be a boat carrying maybe twenty men and two children, and the composition of a boatful I expect is somewhat more resistant to manipulation and various selection biases than finding a sympathetic-looking family such as the one in #7.

Well, the Hungarian government just took it up a notch...

Looks like even people on the ground are disagreeing about the statistics, but the 70% statistic is not just coming from nowhere:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/16/state-of-emergency-hungarian-police-fire-tear-gas-at-rioting-migrants-trying-to-break-through-border/

Mike T, I did hear about the rioting, which is why we aren't going back to Röszke this week.

Lydia, I would point out that there's a difference between "70 percent men" and "75 percent fighting-age males." The former might be closer to accurate. Maybe 60-70 percent male, but not all of those are fighting-age (although I guess what constitutes fighting age in some places may differ from my understanding). At the same time, based on the experiences of our team, media reports of what's going on are highly unreliable. We have seen reports coming out of Röszke that did not resemble at all what we actually saw on the days we had people there, and I suspect there are some in the media with agendas to 1) embarrass the Hungarian government (which is very conservative compared to most of Europe), and 2) the usual sensationalism and click-baiting. I'm not downplaying the possibility of militants taking advantage of this situation, I expect that probably is happening. To what extent it's happening is, I think, very hard to say. I will also say that I don't think Hungary is as safe as it used to be.

I figured my previous comment was being held in moderation for having several links to the sort of report I had in mind, but with it now being several hours hence and the site minders commenting, I guess my comment has been eaten. Sic transit. Here's a single example, then:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/28/more-than-70-dead-austria-migrant-truck-tragedy
"Austrian police said of the 71 dead, 59 were men, eight women and four children, including a baby girl. The girl was between one and two. The three other children were boys, aged between eight and ten."

In pictures of large queues, of boats crossing the Mediterranean, in attempted counts, in reports of particularly notable groups like the above truck or the contents of one camp, I'm seeing the same thing over and over again: Great majority of working-age males, the demographic element that has the easiest time packing bags and moving. Economic migrants being lumped in with war refugees by unscrupulous heartstring-yankers, and reports of mass production of false Syrian papers for denizens of the Balkans looking to move to a nicer part of Europe. I expect you'd see a lot more women and children anywhere that has some degree of filtering for refugees proper.

Erik,

Sorry, I don't know why your comment got held up, but I didn't notice it until I saw your most recent one so I tracked it down and published it.

All I can say is that I was actually at the border. The problem that I'm seeing is that everyone seems to have an agenda when they select photos to publish, or write articles that paint things in a certain way. This seems to be true both on the right and on the left. Yes, there are young males. There are also old males, women of all ages, and children. I guess the thing is Lydia asked for "independent confirmation" and you have linked a few articles in the media. I think you have to be careful about seeing what you expect to see and perhaps in a sense want to see. Sage's comment about confirmation bias was, I think, to the point.

Croatia's prime minister says his country cannot hold down migrants who wish to move on toward Western Europe.

Zoran Milanovic said Thursday that "our resources are limited." He adds that "we will not and cannot keep them in Croatia and no one will make us do that."

Well, that's worth a good 95% on the ol' bullsh*t-o-meter. "We can't hold them down" means "we don't want them staying here, so if they want to go, we will do everything in our power to make sure they feel free to move forward."

They could, of course, not let them in to begin with. My preference, though, is to let in the Christians and (pointedly) not let in the Muslims. Later, if enough pressure is brought to bear that they cannot keep out all the others indefinitely, let in mothers with young children, but only on the explicit signed agreement that the children will be taught to respect Christianity as the dominant religion and culture which gave them refuge from extremist Muslims, and will be raised to respect Western law about such things as women's rights to own property, to move about without male "protection", and (especially) that when a man rapes a woman is a crime punished upon the man, not the woman.

Actually, it's a good thing that some of these governments are making it clear that they WILL NOT let their territories be used as country-sized border checkpoints for Germany. The knowledge that Croatia's security forces will only be preoccupied with ensuring that the migrants don't stay and commit crimes against Croatians will help put some fear into the German government that it cannot control the influx of people.

Yes, I think Germany is doing something extremely foolish, and it has no right to hold the other countries hostage to its own foolish ideas. Some assertion of sovereignty from those countries that realize that this is out of control is all to the good, IMO.

Well, the fact that Germany closed their border with Austria on Monday (in contravention of Schengen and after heavily criticizing Hungary for just enforcing their border, which contravened nothing) shows that they realize they made a big miscalculation. Croatia's grandstanding bothers me, since they have nothing to lose not being part of the EU and knowing full well that the immigrants just want into the EU. But I guess that's sort of a "gimme" for any politician. But they would have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by refusing entry to the Syrians. This is really going to give a lot more momentum to nationalists. All because of Germany's sheer stupidity.

But they would have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by refusing entry to the Syrians.

Is that clear? I'm not sure I follow how that is the case. Maybe it would be better for everybody if Croatia didn't send them through in the first place. God knows, that region has had more than its fill of Christian-Muslim conflict in the past decades. It's no wonder if Croatia doesn't want hordes of otherwise unsorted Muslims coming into their country, even if allegedly on their way to Germany. After all it's not as though it is cost free for a country to be a thoroughfare for large numbers of people in this situation even if they *are* only on the way to Germany, as Hungary itself has discovered!

And how many who are "on their way" to Germany will end up not finishing their journey? You have to assume that once they are in the country, you no longer have full control over getting them out.

I guess I was wrong, Croatia announced yesterday they are closing their border crossings from Serbia. It's going to get interesting.

This is really going to give a lot more momentum to nationalists.

As well it should since the nationalists are on the correct side of the issue. The "Christians" who are on the side of the self-proclaimed humanitarians are guilty of the moral equivalent of treason to their countries by urging acceptance of the migrants in the name of charity. And I for one, will have no sympathy for my so-called brothers and sisters in Christ who have chosen to side with the migrants over their own people if and when the secular nationalists come after them next.