ISIS is putting high quality counterfeit passports from Syria. ABC News.

A false passport put out by ISIS. Homeland Security Photo/ABC News.

ISIS is putting out high quality counterfeit passports and may be using them to infiltrate the West. ABC News. A Homeland Security report obtained by ABC News shows that ISIS has been printing out the fake passports for the past 17 months. When ISIS captured the cities of Dier Ez Zour and Raqqa they were able to capture the passport offices located in both cities, as well the equipment needed to print new passports. Officials fear these false passports are good enough that they could have been used to infiltrate even the United States. Fake passports have already been found in Europe. At least two of the terrorists during the Paris attacks were later found with fraudulent passports. Sources told security forces that fake documents are so common in Syria, that the people no longer consider it a crime to possess them. Fake passports are easy to obtain and they can be bought for as little as $200. It is unclear if ISIS still has control of the passport making machines, as Dier Ez Zour has been long contested by the Syrian regime and the city of Raqqa is under heavy airstrikes. 

My Comment:

I'm a little late on this post, since I was busy the last couple of days. But this is a huge development. ISIS can obviously use these fake passports to infiltrate into other countries. I would have thought that they wouldn't have been able to get to America with them, but the report made it sound like they are already here. Indeed, these fake passports have been used in the past to infiltrate at least two men into Europe, who then went on to commit a huge terrorist attack. There is no reason to believe that they haven't done so in America as well, though I would hope that our vetting process, and the lack of the utter chaos that is the European migrant crisis, that less would slip through the cracks. But that would depend on our government being competent, and competence is an attribute that our government has in short supply... 

And ISIS isn't likely to lose control of these passport machines anytime soon. Though Dier Ez Zour is still contested territory, Raqqa is not. Indeed, Raqqa is the closest thing to a safe haven that ISIS has. Though it has come under some very heavy airstrikes lately, that doesn't mean that the machines are under any threat. My guess is that the machines and any blank passports have been secured and moved to a safer place. Perhaps one surrounded by civilians, where the US lead coalition would be reluctant to strike. Though the Russians and French are a bit more wiling to risk civilians casualties, I doubt the United States will do anything to fix this problem. And though Dier Ez Zour is contested, the front lines there have been static for a long time, and the regime troops there are surrounded and are only being supplied by the air. The city isn't likely to leave ISIS control anytime soon... 

To be honest there isn't much they could do anyways. Even if they had intelligence where these things are being printed out that doesn't mean they would be able to destroy them. Like I said, ISIS is probably shielding these things with civilians. And even if you did find out where these things were being made, you would have to make sure that you got all of them. Since we have no forces on the ground, and a commando raid is nigh impossible, there would be almost no way to confirm that we destroyed them. And ISIS would have a backup copy in Dier Ez Zour anyways. 

Of course, infiltrating terrorists isn't the only advantage ISIS can gain by putting out these false passports. Indeed, I think they are making a fair amount of money selling them to whoever wants to get out of Syria, or to refugees from other countries that want to be accepted into Europe. Iraqis, Afghans, and many people from Africa, are paying through the nose to get decent forgeries. Most of the people heading to Europe right now are economic migrants, not refugees, so a passport saying they are from Syria is a great way to play the sympathy card. And ISIS will be right their to sell them one. Not only do they get a decent amount of money from the transaction, the flood of false documents will increase the ease that they can get their people into Europe. 

This will probably become an election issue very soon, if it hasn't become one already. The media still seems to be stuck on Donald Trump's statements about barring all Muslims from traveling to America. Though this report is related, I am guessing that they won't want to extensively cover it because it basically shows that he was right. If ISIS is putting out near perfect forgeries, how is our immigration system going to handle them? This is a massive problem and I honestly don't know you handle it without barring immigration and travel from Syria. Though Trump's solution probably went to far, since it makes a lot less sense to ban Muslims from countries without much terrorism, it would fix the problem. Nobody else has put out a solution so far.

The problem is that ISIS may have used these passports to enter the United States already. If so, then we are closing the door after the cows have already left, assuming that anything gets done at all. It's very possible they are in America, planning attacks. And it's not like fake passports are the only way to get here. Obviously, one of the attackers in the San Bernadino attacks was able to slip through the cracks, and she had perfectly legitimate paperwork. She didn't have to fake her passport to get into the country. The threat is massive and I honestly don't know what we can do about it. Trumps solution would be messy, unpopular (internationally at least) and could have expected and unexpected consequences. Even a half measure like banning immigration and travel from Syria, wouldn't catch everyone. And all of this completely ignores all the potential terrorists that are already here... 

I do have to wonder if Donald Trump had some foreknowledge of this report. I know everyone had suspicions that there were massive amounts of fake documents out there, but the timing of this seems a bit suspect here. It's possible that somebody tipped him off that this report was coming, so he should double down hard on immigration restrictions against Muslims. I wouldn't be too surprised there, many in the government are not happy with our current administration, and I wouldn't put it past someone to send Trump's campaign the information. Still, it all could be a coincidence, and given how little I have heard about this report in the last couple of days, it might blow over anyways...

50 killed in Taliban attack on Afghanistan airport. Washington Post.

An Afghan soldier stands guard after the clash. Washington Post/AP.

50 people were killed, along with 14 attackers, during a daring Taliban raid on an airport at Kandahar. Washington Post. A group of raiders, armed with RPG's rifles and suicide vests charged through the main gate at the airport. A 20 hour battle then ensued, with the Taliban taking the families of the soldiers at the base hostage. Several woman and children died in the attack, along with all 14 of the attackers. US troops use the airport, but no US troops were killed or hurt during the attack. US forces did participate in the battle though. The attack comes right before the Taliban were due to participate in peace talks being held in Pakistan. 

My Comment:

Afghanistan has certainly taken a back seat in the news lately. Iraq and Syria take up most of the headlines, and with ISIS terror attacks happening all the time, it can be easy to forget that US troops are still involved in Afghanistan, and are still at risk. This attack shows that even in a major base like the airport at Kandahar is vulnerable to Taliban attack. Though the "combat mission" in Afghanistan is "over", it's clear that out troops are still fighting there. They don't have to go out on patrol anymore to find a fight. The fight is coming to them. 

I'm not surprised that this attack happened. The Afghanistan security forces have been fighting a losing battle against the Taliban since the US drew down their forces last year. Afghan troops have been taking massive casualties and the Taliban have taken a lot of territory back. They have also conducted quite a few terrorist attacks. Their government is corrupt and they are way too reliant on US forces and airstrikes to survive 

I do think that the only reason that the Taliban hasn't taken over the country is the fact that US troops are still there in some fashion and the fact that the Taliban have split after the death of Mullah Omar. The Taliban are very divided about what they want to do in Afghanistan right now. Some groups want to give peace a chance, while others want to keep the war going. This disagreement has actually devolved into fighting, with no group having a huge advantage. I am guessing both sides will put aside their differences to fight the Afghan government, but they are still in a much weaker state then they would be if they were united. 

ISIS is yet another threat to the Taliban. Many militants, upset with the direction the Taliban is heading, have defected from them and joined ISIS. Though ISIS has nowhere near the power they have in Syria, Iraq or even Libya, they still have a toehold in Afghanistan, and they are getting stronger. ISIS tends to fight everyone, so this isn't necessarily bad news for either the Taliban or the Afghan military. It really depends on who ISIS decides to focus their efforts on. And, even as ISIS grows in strength in Afghanistan, they are still much weaker then they are anywhere else. 

Speaking of ISIS, it seems like this attack seems to be taking a play out of their playbook. Though it doesn't seem like they used the "car bomb and light infantry" tactic that they have deployed so effectively in Iraq and Syria, this attack has some obvious parallels to the Paris attacks. In both attacks gunmen armed with suicide vests targeted civilians and caused quite a bit of damage. The attack was slightly more targeted on a military asset, but they still targeted the families of the soldiers defending the base. This is an obvious act of terrorism, and it just goes to show that ISIS isn't the only game in town when it comes to atrocities. 

As Afghanistan descends into chaos, one wonders if withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan was a good idea. The US people were, of course, sick of the war there, and nobody really wanted the war to continue. Withdrawal was probably inevitable, but I am not sure if it was a good idea. There is a very good chance that the Afghan government could fall, and the Taliban could take over. Once that happens they could again become a haven for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Even worse, ISIS could take over as well, making the situation even worse.

My fear is that the Taliban or ISIS will take over Afghanistan and the country will become a terrorist state yet again. Once that happens, we might have to go right back into Afghanistan and start the war all over again. Or just let it fester and then complain when terrorists start using the country as a base... Either way the 14 years we spent fighting in the country would be all for nothing. But that is the way it looks like it is going... 

Switzerland raises their terror alert status due to possible ISIS militants. AFP

Swiss soldiers on patrol last February. AFP.

Switzerland has raised their terror alert status due to reports of possible Islamic State militants in Geneva. AFP. Police were searching for suspects, who may have connections to the terrorist attacks in Paris, France last month. Switzerland also reports a specific threat, and that they are searching for as many as four suspects. Though the suspects appear connected to the Paris attacks, it is unlikely any of the suspects have a direct link to perpetrators of that massacre. At the UN's European headquarters, offices were searched and evacuated while guards with submachine guns were posted at the gates. More officers were deployed at strategic points throughout Geneva. So far, Switzerland has not canceled a major festival to be held this weekend. 

My Comment:

I'm not sure how serious this threat is. Obviously the Swiss are taking it very seriously, and for good reason. The fact that they evacuated the European UN headquarters tells me they had a very specific threat. The UN headquarters would make a juicy target for ISIS as the UN is something that stands for everything ISIS hates. But now that the alert has been sounded, I doubt that will be the target anymore, if indeed the threat is real. 

Terrorists like to hit soft targets, and right now with dozens of cops posted at the UN, I doubt they would hit there. Much more likely are softer targets, like cafes, pubs or clubs. Though security has probably been picked up in those places as well, I would not be surprised if one was hit. There are dozens of other targets the terrorists could hit, so it will be very difficult for the Swiss to protect everything. And it is also possible that the Swiss are chasing after ghosts, or have been deliberately misled. 

Switzerland seems like an odd choice for a terrorist attack. After all, they are officially neutral and have never fought a war since the country was founded in 1815. Quite frankly, the Swiss are mostly harmless, unless you try and invade them. That isn't to say they are helpless, far from it. Most people in Switzerland have military training and the level of weapon ownership, though occasionally overstated by Americans, is much higher then most of Europe. In some ways Switzerland is more of a hard target then other countries in the region. Out of all the countries in Europe to attack, Switzerland seems like one of the most difficult to pull off a successful operation, along with the Czech Republic and a few other countries in Europe with looser gun laws. 

Still, the UN headquarters means that Switzerland is a major target for terrorist attacks. Striking a blow in Geneva would send a message to every member of the UN. Even the center of diplomacy for the civilized world is not safe from ISIS. It would not even have to be a successful attack, as any strike would send the same message. ISIS is strong, and we can hit your very foundations. 

It seems unclear if this particular cell that is active in Switzerland is related to the attackers in France, some of whom are still on the loose. It sounds like none of these people participated in the attack but it also sounds like they had some knowledge. My guess is that they are part of a wider European network that had some contact with each other during the attacks. Both the French cell and this cell must have communicated at some point, otherwise the Swiss would not say that there was a connection there.

That is bad fieldwork for these ISIS operatives. Though there is something to be said for cooperating to pull off larger attacks, once the Paris attacks happened, the cell involved should have broken up and not contacted anyone else. After all, they put the suspects in Switzerland in danger of being caught and may have completely disrupted an attack in Geneva. I am guessing someone screwed up and screwed up badly. If so, then this is a stroke of luck for everyone fighting ISIS. It's also possible that they did go silent but intelligence was gathered anyways after the attack. 

 I would not be surprised if there was another attack in Europe before this month is over. ISIS has been on an absolute rampage lately and major terrorist attacks seem to happen every couple of weeks. We might be due for another attack soon, and given all the activity in Europe right now, I would not be surprised if they were the ones being hit. To be fair, right now it seems like anyplace in the world could be hit by ISIS...

I also think the chances of a lone wolf attack happening are through the roof. Given all the massive coverage ISIS is getting in the media, and the way the US media has completely lost their minds over Donald Trump's recent comments, Islam and terrorism are in the news.  It would not be surprising if people are watching all this and are thinking to themselves that now is the time to attack. That's not to blame Trump for any attack that could occur, but you have to admit that he's brought the issue to a new level of relevance. I'm actually worried that the terrorists themselves might take a shot at him as well, but the threat goes way beyond just him. Indeed, just last week, a lone wolf terrorist stabbed some people in London. Fortunately, nobody died in that attack, but the next lone wolf attacker may be more successful...

Finally, I have to say that I haven't seen people this nervous about terrorism since 9/11. After the attacks happened, I got the impression that terrorist attacks would become an almost weekly happening. Due to the way Al-Qaeda planned their attacks, that did not come to fruition. But ISIS seems to be much more reckless and active then Al-Qaeda ever was. We really are to the point where it seems like there is a major terrorist attack, almost anywhere in the world, every couple of weeks. Sure, that was always the case in the various tinderboxes in the Middle East, but it wasn't really true globally. ISIS has uttered in a new age of much more effective terrorist attacks, with a much shorter cooldown between attacks. Part of me thinks that this rate of attacks can't possibly continue, but so far I have been wrong... 

Iraqi military takes back part of Ramadi from the Islamic State. AFP

An Iraqi soldier with an RPG fighting in the outskirts of Ramadi. AFP.

Iraqi soldiers have retaken parts of the city of Ramadi from the Islamic State. AFP. Iraqi forces have taken the southern district of Al-Tameem, after battling ISIS for months. The Iraqis have gotten quite a bit of air support from the US led coalition, which has launched 45 airstrikes in the area this week alone. Iraqi spokesmen said that Al-Tameem has been completely cleared of ISIS fighters and claim that they are getting closer to taking the entire city. Though al-Tameem has been cleared of fighters, many dangers still remain. ISIS has continued to use their preferred tactic of planting bombs and booby traps in cities they have been forced from. Iraqi forces are now working hard at clearing these traps. 

My Comment:

It's too soon to say that Ramadi will fall to Iraqi security forces. But at least some progress is being made in the area. Iraqi forces have been dragging their feat in taking back the city. Ramadi was taken in large part because of incompetence by the Iraqi security forces, so it makes sense that they would have trouble taking back the city. They never should have lost it in the first place, but taking it back would be a major victory against ISIS. 

To be fair to the Iraqis, fighting in a city is about the most difficult thing you can do. City fighting is brutal, and greatly limits what you can do. Due to concerns about civilian casualties, you can't really use airstrikes or heavy armor in cities. Doing so isn't effective and can cause a horrible toll on the civilians unlucky enough to be caught in the crossfire. The Iraqis would also like to keep the city relatively intact. ISIS won't help with that but sending in airstrikes and tanks will level the city and mean that there is nothing worth saving after taking the city. ISIS may end up destroying much of the city anyways, due to their obsession with explosives and traps. 

The Iraqis have also taken quite a bit of territory from ISIS lately. ISIS used to control a huge portion of central Iraq, but the Iraqis have taken most of it back. ISIS only controls Ramadi, Fallujah and Hit in central Iraq, and all of those cities are largely cut off from the rest of ISIS forces. They aren't really in danger of losing those cities any time soon, but defending them will be much more difficult for ISIS unless they can open up their supply lines. 

Still, ISIS is in a strong position in Iraq. Most of what has been taken back from ISIS is small towns and villages, not major cities. That control is also dubious at best, while ISIS fighters are still able to operate and move through the territory they have taken back. And they still control Mosul and most of western Iraq. Though the Kurds have taken back Sinjar, there had been little other movement in the northern part of the country. And, of course, ISIS still controls much of Syria as well. As long as that is true, ISIS will be able to conduct operations and terrorist attacks throughout Iraq. 

I wonder how much US airstrike have effected the outcome of this battle. I already  mentioned that it's hard to use airstrikes in cities, but it seems like US forces are doing so anyways. Those 45 airstrikes seems to have given backbone to the Iraqi fighters. Though airstrikes can in no way win a battle alone, they can improve morale for the troops on the ground, who are the actual guys that won the battle. Indeed, one of the reasons ISIS was able to take Ramadi in the first place, was because a lack of US airstrikes do to weather conditions. Without US support, the troops on the ground broke and fled. Now that we are backing them, they seem to have improved their performance. I think the morale boost given to the Iraqi forces is probably a larger factor in the battle then the actual damage the airstrikes have done to ISIS. 

As for ISIS, losing Ramadi won't effect them all that much. There was  a point where they could have used the city as a jumping off point to attack Baghdad, but that time has passed. ISIS lost momentum during the summer, largely because fighting in summer in Iraq is a terrible idea. That killed their offensive dead, so Ramadi doesn't really matter all that much to them anymore. I don't see them advancing to Baghdad anytime soon. 

ISIS does care about taking and holding territory, but they are unique in that it doesn't matter nearly as much to them as you would think. Their main goals are damaging the Iraqi army and bringing in as many enemies to fight as possible. Losing Ramadi won't hurt either of those goals. And like I said, they still have massive stretches of territory in Iraq, Syria and Libya.  They will lose a tax base and an area for recruitment, but I'm not sure that holding it will be worth the costs for them. Better to withdraw, after leaving behind many snipers and traps, and attack other places.

Also, in the past ISIS has launched counter offensives after losing territory. ISIS main strategy, which is fairly basic if you think about it, is to hit the enemy where they weak. Losing Ramadi won't have much of an effect if Iraqi forces are weak enough elsewhere that they lose a different city. Right now the Iraqis are concentrating forces in south-central Iraq, where Ramadi, Fallujah and Hit are. Perhaps ISIS will launch a new offensive in north-central Iraq? 

Still, taking back Ramadi would be good news. It has been awhile since there has been a major victory in Iraq. Yes, the Kurds took back Sinjar, but that was the Kurds and not the Iraqi military. Taking Ramadi would be a huge morale boost for the Iraqis and may hurt the morale of ISIS. The Iraqis really need this win. Their morale has been destroyed, along with most of their army, due to the loss of Mosul and Ramadi. Taking back Ramadi won't fix the Iraqi Army. But it might give them back some of their pride... 

Donald Trump calls for a total ban of Muslims traveling to the United States. Reuters.

Donald Trump speaking in Iowa. Reuters. 

Republican front runner Donald Trump has called for a total travel ban for all Muslims entering the country. Reuters. The shutdown would apply to all Muslims and would last until "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Trump has gone further then other Republican candidates, who have largely rejected President Obama's plan to bring in refugees from Muslim countries. Trump cited a poll that said that 1/4th of Muslims thought violence against America was justified. Trump has come under withering criticism for his remarks, from both parties and the media. 

Donald Trump's statement can be found here. 

My Comment:

Talk about a controversy! It's pretty clear that people are losing their minds about Donald Trump's comments. I'll get into that criticism in a bit, but I have a few comments about that criticism that I feel is unfair. Don't worry, I think there is plenty of room for criticism here, but the way people are attacking him is stupid. First, anyone calling Trump a racist for this is stupid as Islam is a religion, not a race. Not all Muslims are Arab, and they can be White, Black, Asian or any other race. You can definitely argue that Trump is bigoted against Islam, but you can't possibly say that he is racist against Islam because it isn't possible to be racist against a diverse group of people made up of many different races and are only united by their beliefs. Anyone that says it's possible to be racist against Muslims either doesn't know what racism means or doesn't know that there is any racial diversity in Islam, thus showing a rather alarming amount of ignorance and prejudice themselves. You can argue that Trump is bigoted against Muslims or that he is racist against other groups, but you can't say he is racist against Muslims. 

Second, I don't think it is fair to call Trump a fascist. It helps if you actually know what fascism is. But that's the problem. Nobody knows what fascism is! As early as 1944, George Orwell said that the word fascism had lost any actual meaning. He said that it is basically a synonym for "bully" and I think that is more true now then it was back then. I'd go further and say that calling someone a fascist is just another way saying "I disagree with this person and don't like him". Generally, whenever anyone invokes fascism in their criticism of  someone, I stop listening to what they have to say.

 As for Trump, unless he starts spouting lines from Mien Kamph, it's stupid to call him a fascist. He's a populist, not a fascist. And outside of immigration, he's actually a political moderate. Compared to the rest of the Republican Party, some of which are willing to risk war with Russia over Syria, of all things, he's practically a pacifist. Economically he doesn't have much in common with the Republican Party either, as he isn't in favor of getting rid of social security and even said that de-funding Planned Parenthood is a mistake! Hardly a fascist, Trump is much closer to the center then anyone, including him, is willing to admit. Criticism him for his political beliefs if you so desire, but you should actually know what those beliefs are! 

As for Trump's comments, I have to disagree with him. Not for the reasons that the media disagrees with him, mind you, but out of pure practical concern. I don't think it is legal or even possible for Donald Trump, even if he was president, to stop all Muslim travel. Immigration, yes. Maybe even casual travel. But he can't get rid of all of them, and trying to do so is probably unconstitutional. Even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be worth it for the massive fight in congress and the courts that it would cause. There would be dozens of lawsuits that would pop up, and congress would fight it at every step of the way. I just don't think that there is anyway that Donald Trump could possibly pull this off. 

I also think that it goes to far. In my last post I said that there is a major difference between the two major sects of Islam. Sunni Islam is responsible for almost all Islamic terror attacks and Shia Muslims are much more moderate in comparison. Though they have similar beliefs, it's always been clear to me that Shiites are much more acceptable then Sunni ones. Though I am no fan of Iran or Hezbollah, they are much less likely to attack America then most Sunni terror groups. I think the worst thing a Shia Iranian would do in America is espionage, and that's a threat that is universal throughout all countries. That isn't to say that there aren't problems with the Shiite interpretation of Islam, but I think it's clear that they aren't the same as Sunni Muslims. To lump Shiites in with Sunnis is unfair and I think it is very right to criticize Trump for not recognizing the difference. Though I would agree that the Sunni branch of Islam needs to be criticized and criticized severely.

And I really don't think that banning tourists would do all that much anyways. I don't think that all that many terrorists would infiltrate via tourism. I think this is due to purely tactical concerns. It's fairly hard to plan a terrorist attack, and I think you would need to be in a country for much longer then the average tourist comes for. And it has some obvious downsides as well. Banning tourists and business people from coming to the country would have a major impact on our economy, and I doubt it would stop any terrorist attacks. It reminds me a lot of gun control. A whole lot of stupid ideas that would do nothing to stop the actual problem. The bigger threat by far is immigration, either through refugees, or other forms of visas, like the marriage one Tashfeen Malik entered on. And it's more of a long term threat as the 2nd generation born here in America is a much larger threat then the tiny amount of terrorist that manage to make it through our screening process. Banning immigration and/or taking refugees from countries where ISIS or other major terrorist groups are active would be a much more defensible position but unfortunately Donald Trump didn't take that position. 

All that being said, I do think that Donald Trump is on to something here. His policy is wrong, but his reasons for it are sound. I think that he is ahead of the curve and his kind of thinking will be much more common and politically correct in the future. Why? Well, just look at the problems Europe is having with their Muslim populations right now. They have had a very difficult time integrating their Muslims and that has lead to a large increase in crime, to say nothing of the threat of terrorism. For anyone paying attention to the news lately, it's clear that Islam has a problem with violence right now, and bringing in thousands of people from regions where such violence is occurring just does not makes sense. People are sick of the threat and the fact that right wing parties are having quite a bit of success in Europe right now tells me that more people agree with Trump then the media would ever admit. And that number will increase as the problems and attacks get worse... 

Is Trump wrong for blaming the actions of all Muslims on just a few terrorists? Absolutely. But isn't it also wrong to endanger everyone by not properly vetting the people that are coming here? Is it unconstitutional to have a religious test for bringing people into the country? Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to let them in either. Does Trump go to far? Sure, but it seems like nobody else is taking the threat seriously. If the only options are either doing nothing or doing too much, I think people will probably want to do too much. That's not rational thinking, but the appeal is obvious. 

Does this hurt Trump? Quite the opposite really. People are extremely upset about immigration in general and are also rather afraid of terrorism. I think there is a large portion of the American electorate that would be happy with a complete stoppage of all immigration, regardless of anything else. And people are rightly concerned with terrorism. They are seeing what is happening in the Middle East and Africa, and what is starting to happen in Europe, and don't want it to happen here. Trump's solution to the problem is unfeasible and probably illegal, but at least he recognizes that there is a problem. Everyone is tired of people apologizing for Islamic extremism. If only one candidate is going to take the issue head on, even if his solution is dumb, it's going to help him. And it's not like Trump's comments have hurt him before... 

I also think that the media is blowing this out of proportion. From the headlines you would think that Trump is calling for putting all the Muslims in camps or something. He is going further then anyone else, and I think you can criticize him for that, but the absolute hysteria going on in the media is not justified. If you actually read the statement he's calling for a temporary measure while congress tries to come up with some kind of solution to the current crisis. I think that goes too far, but the situation is almost bad enough that it could be justified. Should we have another 9/11 attack, or a Nuclear/Chemical/Biological attack, or even an attack that was successful as the one that hit Paris recently, some of the things Trump would do will happen no matter who the president is... 

Personally, it doesn't really change my opinion of Trump. I agree with Rand Paul much more then I agree with Trump, but I still think that he is acceptable as a candidate, even if he is bigoted against Muslims. Bigotry probably isn't justified, but he's much stronger on foreign policy then the other candidates. He's not a war hawk, but he also isn't a mewling wimp like Bernie Sanders. He won't get us into a war with Russia, which is starting to be my number one foreign policy question I have for the candidates. And I will do everything in my power to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. If it means I have to vote for someone who says mean things about Muslims, many of whom are kind of assholes anyways, then so be it. He's far from a perfect candidate, but in my eye, he may be the best of bad options, and the only real threat to a third Clinton presidency... 

I do think that it would be wise for Trump to revise his position. His position here is going to get him a lot of criticism and may even make mainstream Republicans take action against him. If he wants to win the election, he can't fight against both the Democrat and Republican party. He needs Republican support and I think he should at least modify or clarify his position to get the party off of his back. He's made the point that he will take action against the threat that immigration from predominately Muslim countries can cause. It's not worth pounding that into the ground.