>> thank you, mr. president, 129 people were killed in paris on friday night. >> yes. >> isil claimed responsibility for the massacre sending the message they could target civilians all over the world. the equation has clearly changed. is it time for your strategy to change? >> well, keep in mind what we have been doing. we have a military strategy that involves putting enormous pressure on isil through airstrikes that has put assistance and training on the ground with iraqi forces. we're now working with syrian forces as well to squeeze isil, cut off their supply lines. we've been coordinating internationally to reduce their financing capabilities, the oil that they're trying to ship outside. we're taking strikes against
high valley targets, including most recently against the individual who was on the video executing civilians who had already been captured, as well as the head of isil in libya. so it is not just in iraq and syria. on the military we're continue to go accelerate what we do as we find additional partners on the ground that are effective, we work with them more closely. i have authorized additional forces on the ground who are going to be able to improve that coordination. on the counter terrorism front keep in mind that since i came into office we have been worried about these kinds of attacks. the vigilance that the united states government maintains and
the cooperation that we're consistently expanding with your european and other partners in going after every terrorist network is robust and constant. and every few weeks i meet with my security team and we go over every threat presented. where we have relevant information we share it immediately with counterparts around the world, including our european partners. on the aviation security we have been working so that at various airport sites not just in the united states but overseas we're strengthening our mechanisms to screen and discover passengers who should not be boarding flights and improving the manners we're screening luggage that is going on board. and on the diplomatic front we've been consistently working
to try to get all the parties together to recognize that there is a moderate opposition inside of syria that can form the basis for traditional government and not only with our friends but we reach out to the russians that ultimately an organization like isil is the greatest danger to them as well as to us. there will be an intensification of the strategy that we put forward, but the strategy that we're putting forward is the strategy that ultimately that is going to work. but as i said from the start it is going to take time. and what has been interesting is in the aftermath of paris as i listen to those who suggest something else needs to be done typically the things they
suggest need to be done are things we're already doing. the one exception is that there have been a few who suggested that we should put large numbers of u.s. troops o on the ground. keep in mind that we have the finest military in the world, we have the finest military minds in the world. i've been meeting with them intensively for years now discussing these various options. it is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers that that would be a mistake. not because our military could not march in to mosul or raqqa or ramadi and temporarily clear out isil.
but because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before, which is if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, that they resurface. unless we're prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries. let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into syria, what happens when there is a terrorist attack generated from yemen? do we then send more troops there? or libya perhaps? or if there is a terrorist network operating anywhere else in north africa or in southeast asia. so a strategy has to be won that can be sustained.
the strategy that we're pursuing, which focuses on going after targets, eliminating the capabilities of isil on the ground systematically going after their leadership, their infrastructure, strengthening shia or strengthening syrian and iraqi forces and kurdish forces that are prepared to fight them, cutting off their borders, and squeezing the space in which they can operate until ultimately we're able to defeat them. that's a strategy that we're going to ar have to pursue. we'll continue to generate more partners for that strategy and there are going to be some things that we try that don't work. there are going to be some strategies that do work. when we find strategies that work, we'll double down on those.
>> thank you, mr. president. a more than yearlong bombing campaign in iraq and syria has failed to contain the ambitions and the ability of isis to launch attacks in the west. have you under estimated their ability, and will you widen the rules of engagement for u.s. forces to take more aggressive action. >> no, we have not under estimated our abilities. this is precisely why we're in iraq as we speak. and why we're operating in syria as we speak. and it's precisely why we have mobilized 65 countries to go after isil. and why i hosted at the united nations an entire discussion of counter terrorism strategies and curbing the flow of foreign fighters, and why we've been putting pressure on those countries that have not been as robust as they need to in
tracking the flow of foreign fighters in and out of syria and iraq. and so there has been an acute awareness on the part of my administration from the start that it is possible for an organization like isil that has such a twisted ideology and has shown extraordinary brutality and complete disregard for innocent lives, that they would have the capabilities to potentially strike in the west. and because thousands of fighters have flowed from the west and our european citizens, a few hundred from the united states, but far more from europe, that when those foreign fighters returned, it posed a
significant danger. and we have consistently worked with our european partners, disrupting plotteds in some cases, sadly this one was not disrupted in time. understand, one of the challen challenges that we have in this situation is if you have a handful of people who don't mind dying, they can kill a lot of people. that's one of the challenges of terrorism. it's not their sophistication or the particular weaponry that they possess, but it is the ideology that they carry with them and their willingness to die. in those circumstances tracking each individual, making sure that we are disrupting and preventing these attacks is a
constant effort and vigilance and requires extraordinary coordination. now, part of the reason that it is important what we do in iraq and syria is that the narrative that isil developed of creating this caliphate makes it more attractive to potential recruits. so when i said that we are containing their spread in iraq and syria, in fact, they control leicester tore than they did last year. and the more we shrink that territory, the less they can pretend that they are some how a functioning state, and the more it becomes apparent that they're simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations. that allows us to reduce the
flow of foreign fighters, which then over time will lessen the number of terrorist who is can carry out terrible acts like they did in paris. that's what we did with al-qaeda. that doesn't mean, by the way, that al-qaeda no longer possesses the capabilities of potentially striking the west. al-qaida in the peninsula that operates in yemen, we know has consistently tried to target the west, and we are consistently working to disrupt those acts but despite the fact that they have not gotten as much attention as isil they still pose a danger as well. and so our goals here consistently have to be to be aggressive and to leave no stone unturned, but also recognize this is not conventional
warfare. we play into the isil narrative when we act as if they are a state. we use routine military tactics that are designed to fight a state that is attacking another state. that's not what is going on here. these are killers. with fantasies of glory who are very savvy when it comes to social media, and are able to infiltrate the minds of not just iraqis and syrians, but disaffected individuals around the world. when they activate those individuals, those individuals can do a lot of damage. and so we have to take the approach of being rigorous on
our counter terrorism efforts and consistently improve and figure out how to get more information, infiltrate these networks and reduce their operational space even as we also try to shrink the amount of territory that they patrol to defeat their narrative. ultimately to reclaim territory from them is going to require our ending of the syrian war. which is why the diplomatic efforts are so important. and it will require an effective iraqi effort that bridges shia and sunni differences, which is why our diplomatic efforts inside of iraq are so important as well. jim? >> thank you, mr. president. in the days and weeks before the paris attacks, did you receive warning in your daily intelligence briefing that an
attack was imminent? if not, is that not call into question the current assessment that there is no immediate specific credible threat to the united states today. secondly, if i could ask you to address your critics who say that your reluctance to enter another middle east war and your preference of diplomacy overusing the military makes the united states weaker and emboldens our enemies. >> jim, every day we have threats streams coming through the intelligence. every several weeks we sit down with all my national security intelligence and military teams to discuss various threat streams that may be generated. and the concerns about potential
isil attacks in the west have been there for over a year now. and they come through periodically. there were no specific mentions of this particular attack that would give us a sense of something that we need--that we could provide french authorities, for example, or act on ourselves. but typically the way the intelligence works is there will be a threat stream that is from one source, how reliable is that source, perhaps some signal intelligence gets picked up. it's evaluated. some of it is extraordinarily vague and unspecific, and there is no clear timetable. some of it may be more specific, and then folks chasing down that
threat to see what happens. i'm not aware of anything that was specific in the sense that would have given a premonition of a particular action in paris that would allow for law enforcement or military actions to disrupt it. with respect to the broader issue of my critics, to some degree i answered the question earlier. when you listen to what they have to say, what they're proposing, most of the time when pressed they're describing things that we're lord doing. a maybe they're not aware that we're already doing them. some seem to think that if i were to be more bellicose in
expressing what we're doing that would make a difference. because that's the only thing that they're doing, talking as if they're tough. but i haven't seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference. now, there are a few exceptions. like i said, the primary exception are those who would deploy u.s. troops on a large scale to retake territory either in iraq or now in syria. at least they have their honesty to say that's what they would do. i just addressed why i think they are wrong. there are some who are well meaning, and i don't doubt their sincerity when it comes to the issue of dire humanitarian situation in syria who call for
a no-fly zone or a safe zone of some sort. this is an example of where i will sit down with our top military advisers and painstakingly go through what something like that would look like. typically after we've gone through last planning, a lot of discussion and really working it through it is determined that it would be counter productive to take those steps. in part because isil does not have planes so the attacks are on the ground. a true safe zone requires us to set up ground operations. and true result comes not from
regime bombing but because of strategies, who would come in, who would come out of that safe zone, would it become a magnate for further terrorist, and how many many personnel would be required, how would it end? there are a whole set of questions to be answer there had. my point is this, jim, my only interest is to end suffering and keep the american people safe. and if there is a good idea out there, then we're going to do it. i don't think i've shown hesitation to act whether it's respect to bin-laden or with respect to sending troops to afghanistan or keeping them there if it is determined that it going to actually work. but what we do not do, what i do
not do is to take actions either because it is going to work politically or it is going to some how in the abstract make america look tough. or make me look tough. maybe part of the reason is because every few months i go to walter reed, and i see a 25-year-old kid who is paralyz ed or has lost his limbs, and some of those are people i've ordered into battle. i can't afford to play some of the political games that others may. we'll do what is required to keep the american people safe. i think its entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious
debate about these issues. folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. if they think that some how their advisers are better than the chairman of my joint chiefs of staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, i want to meet them. we can have that debate. but what i'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of american leadership or american winning or whatever other slogans they come up that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the american people and
to protect people in the region who are getting killed and to protect our allies and people like france. i'm too busy for that. jim? >> thank you very much, mr. president, i wanting to back to something that you said to margaret earlier when you said that you have not under estimated isis' abilities. this is an organization that you once described as a jv team. that evolved into a force that is now occupied territory in iraq and syria, and is now able to use that safe haven to launch attacks in other parts of the world. how is that not under estimating their capabilities, and how is that contained? a lot of americans have the frustration that they see that the united states has the greatest military in the world and the backing of almost every country in the world in taking on isis, if you'll forgive the
language, why can't we take out these bas bastards. >> i just spent the last three questions answering that very question. i don't know what more you want me to add. i think i've described very specifically what our strategy is, and i've described very specifically why we do not pursue some of the other strategies that have been suggested. yes, the--the--this is not, as i sidsaid i said a traditional military opponent. we can retake territory. as long as we leave our troops there we can hold it. but that does not solve the underlying problem of eliminating the dynamics that are producing these kinds of violent extremist groups.
and so we're going to continue to pursue the strategy that has the best chance of working, even know it does not offer the satisfaction, i guess, of a neat headline or an immediate resolution. part of the reason, as i said, jim, is because there are costs to the other side. i just want to remind people, this is not an abstraction. when we send troops in, those troops get injured. they get killed. they are away from their families. our country spends hundreds of billions of dollars. and so given the fact that there are enormous sacrifices involved in any military action, it is best that we don't shoot first
and aim later. it's important for us to get the strategy right, and the strategy that we're pursuing is the right one. ron allen? >> thank you, mr. president, i think a lot of people around the world and in america are concerned because given the strategies that you're pursuing, and it's been more than a year now, isis' capabilities seem to be expanding. were you aware that they had the capability of pulling off the kind of attack that they did in paris? are you concerned and do you think that they have that same capability to strike in the united states? and do you think that given all you've learned about isis over the past year or so, and given all the criticism about your under estimating them, do you think you really understand this enemy well enough to defeat them and to protect the homeland?
>> all right, so this is another variation on the same question, and i guess--let me try it one last time. we have been fully aware of the potential capabilities of them carrying out a terrorist attack. that's precisely why we have been mounting a very aggressive strategy to go after them. as i said before, when you're talking about the ability of a handful of people with not wildly sophisticated military equipment, weapons, who are willing to die, they can kill a lot of people, and preventing
them from doing so is challenging for every country. and if there was a swift and quick solution to this, i assure you that not just the united states, but france and turkey and others who have been subject to these terrorist attacks would have implemented those strateg strategies. there are certain advantages that the united states has in preventing these kinds of attacks. obviously after 9/11 we hardened the homeland, set up whole series of additional steps to protect aviation, to apply lessens learned. we've seen much better cooperation between the fbi, state governments, local
governments, there is some advantages to geography with respect to the united states. but having said that we've seen the possibility of terrorist attacks on our soil. there is the boston marathon bombers. obviously it did not result in the scale of death that we saw in paris, but that was a serious attempt at killing a lot of people by two brothers. and a crock-pot. and it gives you some sense of the kinds of challenges that are going to be involved in this going forward. so again, isil has serious capabilities. it's capabilities are not unique. their capabilities that other terrorist organizations that we track and are paying attention to possess as well.
we're going after all of them. what is unique about isil is the degree to which it has been able to control territory that then allows them to attract additional recruits. and the greater effectiveness they have on social media and their ability to use that to not only attract recruits to fight in syria, but potentially to carry out attacks in the homeland, europe, and other parts of the world. so our ability to shrink the space in which they can operate combined with a resolution of the syria situation which will reduce the freedom with which they feel they can operate, and getting local forces who are able to hold and keep them out over the long term, that ultimately is going to be what is going to make a difference, and it will take some time, but it is not something that at any stage in this process have we
the overwhelming majority of victims of terrorism over the last several years, and certainly the overwhelming majority of victims of isil are themselves muslims. isil does not represent islam. it is not representative in any way of the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of muslims. this is something that has been emphasized by muslim leaders, whether it's president erdogan or the president of indonesia or the president of malaysia, countries that are majority muslim but have shown themselves to be tolerant and to work to be inclusive in their political process. so to the degree that anyone would equate the terrible
actions that took place in paris with the abuse of islam, those kinds of stereotypes are counter productive. they're wrong. they will lead, i think, to greater recruitment in the terrorist organizations over time if this becomes some how defined as a muslim problem as opposed to a terrorist problem. now, what is also true is that the most vicious terrorist organizations at the moment are ones that claim to be speaking on behalf of true muslims. and i do think that muslims
around the world religious leaders, political leaders, ordinary people have to ask very serious questions about how did these extremist ideologies take root even if it's effecting a very small fraction of the population it is real and it is dangerous, and it is built up over time. with social media it is now accelerated. so i think on one hand non-muslims cannot stereotype, but i think the muslim community has to think about how we make sure that children are not being infected with this twisted notion that some how they can kill innocent people, and that that is justified by religion. and to some degree that is
something that has to come within the muslim community itself. i think there have been times where there has not been enough push back against extremism--there has been--there are some who say, well, we don't believe in violence, but are not as willing to challenge some of the extremist thoughts or rationales for why muslims feel oppressed. i think those ideas have to be challenged. let me make one last point about this. then unfortunately i have to take a flight to manila. i'm looking forward to manila, but i hope i can come back to turkey when i'm not so busy. one of the places that you're seeing this play itself out is on the refugee issue both in europe and i gather it started
popping up while i was gone back in the united states. the people who are fleeing syria are the most harmed by terrorism. they are the most vulnerable as a consequence of civil war and strife. they are parents. they are children. they are orphans. and it is very important, and i was glad to see that this was affirmed again and again by the g-20 that we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence, and some how start
equating the issue of refugees with the refugees with the issue of terrorism. in europe, i think people like chancellor merkel have taken a courageous stand to say if is our moral obligation to help people who are in such vulnerable situations. i know that it is putting enormous strains on the resources of the people of europe. nobody has been caring a bigger burden than the people here in turkey with 2.5 million refugees, and the people of jordan, lebanon, who are also admitting refugees. the fact that they kept their borders open to these refugees is a signal of their belief in a common humanity. so we have to, each of us, do
our part. and the united states has to step up and do its part. when i hear folks say that well maybe we just admit the christians and not the muslims, when i hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person is fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that's shameful. that's not american. that's not who we are. we don't have religious tests to
our compassion. when pope francis came to visit the united states and gave a speech before congress, he didn't just speak about christians who were being persecuted. he didn't call on catholic parishes just to admit those o who are the same religious faith. he said protect people who are vulnerable. and so i think it is very important for us right now particularly those who are in leadership, particularly those who have a platform and can be heard not to fall into that trap. not to feed that dark impulse inside of us. now, i have a lot of disagreements with george w. on policw. bush on policy, but he
was clear this was not a war on islam. the notion that some of those who have taken on leadership in this party would ignore all of that, that's not who we are. on this, we should follow his example. it was the right one. it was the right impulse. that's our better impulse. whether you are european or american or, you know, the values that we're fighting isil for are precisely that we don't discriminate against people because of their faith. we don't kill people because
they are different from us. that's what strait separates us from them. we don't feed that kind of notion. that some how christians and muslims are at war. if we want to be successful defeating isil, that's a good place to start. but not promoting that kind of ideology, that kind of attitude. in the same way that the muslim community has an obligation not to in any way excuse anti-western or anti-christian sentiment, we have the same obligation as christians. we are--it is good to remember that the united states does not have a religious test, and we are a nation of many peoples of different faiths. which means that we show compassion to everybody. those are the universal values
that we stand for. that's what my administration intends to stand for. all right? thank you very much, everybody. >> president obama speaking in turkey, he has been there for the g-20 leaders summit. he said that the leaders are united against the threat posed by isil. i want to bring in mike viqueira, mike, the crux of the questions during the question and answer period from the journalists was basically questioning obama's strategy in syria, and whether the paris attacks should have changed that strategy. we did not hear president obama say that it would. >> you know, a fascinating defense of his policy from president obama. i thought he got very intense perhaps even emotional at the end when he was talking about the need to stay away from the anti-muslim and anti-islam inflammatory rhetoric that have been heard in the wake of
strategic events in paris. a stout defense of his policy president obama dismissing the idea that there needs to be american boots on the ground. he encapsulated his policy this way. he said we have the right strategy, and we're going to see it through. there has been a lot of talk including from american officials. you heard obama say that they're going to intensify their existing military strategy. they're going to squeeze the pie line and hit oil facilities, they're going to continue to hit high value targets. the president in many of his aides have noted the strike against the jihadi john recently. but the president said as far as boots on the ground, sure the american-led coalition or any coalition could go in, a march in raqqa, vanquish isil and then
take back that territory and then what. he linked that as some treating isil as a state unto itself. as a political entity unto itself. he said that's part of the problem that a lot of people are approaching this problem of fighting isil with. clearly with all of the bellicose talk as president obama has said with françois hollande, who asked president obama was talking, was speaking before the french legislature said he would he was going to be taking a trip not only to washington but to moscow and visit with president obama and individual individual, he said now is the time to stay the course. many call this an act of war. president obama said that we're carrying out a war but we're not going to escalate to the point where there would be boots on the ground. >> mike viqueira in turkey. mike, as you said, french president hollande is speaking before a joint session in parliament and said that we must
do more to keep the country safe from attacks. >> france is at war. the attacks committed friday eden in paris are acts of war. there have been at least 129 dead and numerous injured. it institute constitutes an action against our country, against our values, against our youth, against our lifestyle. daesh, isis, who are fighting because because france is a country of freedom, because we are the country for the rights of man. >> as the world debates how to address the isil threat, françois hollande speaking before a joint session of congress, he has called the paris attacks an act of war. we're going to have more analyst analysis after this short break.
>> this is one of the most important sites in the century. >> this linked the mafia and the church. >> why do you think you didn't get the medal of honor? >> i can't allow you not to go into that because that is your job. >> we gonna bring this city back one note at a time. >> proudest moment in my life. >> if you have a handful of people who don't mind dying,
they can kill a lot of people. that's one of the challenges of terrorism. it's not their sophistication or weapons they possess. it's their ideology that they're willing to die. >> he said it would be a mistake according to his closest military advisers to put u.s. boots on the ground as part of his strategy in syria to combat isil. i want to bring in senior fellow at the center for american progress and assistant secretary of defense under president reagan. lawrence, good morning and thank you for your time. first of all. president obama really pressed about whether his syria strategy is on track, and, indeed, he said that progress has been made i think a lot of people have
been wondering whether this had been an attack in the united states whether he be taking a different tack towards syria. >> i don't think so. as he pointed out. basically we do not want to put u.s. or western boots on the ground there because then it will feed into their narrative. they have been making progress on the ground. last week it got oh over shadowed by what happened in paris when you had the peshmerga cut off root 47 between raqqa and mosul, which i think will enable us to make progress there. you're right, there is always the tendency to overreact. president bush was right to say it was not a war against muslims. he was right to go into afghanistan, and then you go into iraq, and that had nothing to do with it. i think he was really eloquent in defending it. would it be harder politically? yes, it would. it's much easier for people
outside to criticiz criticize. i would have done this. the no-fly zone. isil doesn't have an air force, and then they want a no-fly zone. >> he sapped it woul--he said it would be counterproductive to have a no-fly zone. i saw you shaking your head in this strategy. so you disagree. >> it was almost like he was analities and observer. i look at him as the eyes of the commander in chief and what he's doing in that regard. it's almost as if he is doubling down on doing nothing. i think addressing his critics at this point is not something that the leader of the free world should be doing. he's either speaking specifically about what we're going to do more besides just
defending security at airports. but when he is trying to defend specific parts of what he's doing like saying let's put troops on the ground, no one is saying put 100,000 troops on the ground, but work towards this coalition that we all know has to happen. >> a coalition of ground troops. >> absolutely. if it's decided that isis holding land is something that we can't stand for, that will take ground troops to get them out of there. >> lawrence, why aren't we hearing article 5 being invoked in france or turkey, which is a nato member. why aren't we hearing about some international ground force to combat syria. >> well, you have forces on the ground. you may remember two weeks ago the united states forces when we had one brave young american who got killed, aided the peshmerga in ask yo rescuing hostages.
if we put, and we put troops in special forces into syria. you do not want to make this a struggle between the west and the islamic world. at some point the people in that region have to take charge of their own security. you have to get a political solution in syria, if you do that everyone can focus on isil. ic what happens when you put large numbers of western troops on the ground in that ring, they accept the isil narrative. >> mike, quick on that to address lawrences point. what about the arab, are they viable. >> he can get them off the bench
and moving towards that way. again, that's where the planning has got to start from the strategic perspective. we seem to be focused on what syria looks like 18 months from now when it's burning right in front of our eyes and not focused on the short term. sure we want solution in 18 months but no, sir is not going to solve anything if we can't figure out the security situation. >> thank you both. we're going to take a short break, and we'll be right back.
>> i've been asked to keep my voice down cause we are so close to the isil position >> who is in charge, and are they going to be held to accout? >> but know we're following the research team into the fire >> they're learning how to practice democracy... >> ...just seen tear gas being thrown... >> ...glad sombody care about us man... >> several human workers were kidnapped... >> this is what's left of the hospital >> is a crime that's under reported... >> what do you think... >> we're making history right now... >> al jazeera america >> in light of the attacks
alabama's governor said he will not accept any syrian refugees. he does not want to put the people there in the slightest possible risk of an attack. the governor of michigan said that his state will no longer accept any syrian refugees. just a short time ago the governor of texas sent the government a letter saying that syrian refugees would not be welcome in that state either. we go to mike viqueira, who join us from atalya, turkey, the president said that this is not the right values, and these refugees are the most vulnerable and we should continue to welcome them into this country after they have been vetted. >> slamming the door in their face says president obama is not who we are as americans, as a people. that is echoing what we've heard over the course of the last few days from presidential aids who are here in antaylia, turkey.
if this becomes a christians versus islam or christian versus muslim dynamic here in the united states or elsewhere, it feeds into the narrative that isil is trying to propagate. it might enhance the recruitment. and white house officials will tell you as military progress is made on the ground in syria and isil, then you're going to see isil striking out in western europe or whatever targets they can find. the president very careful on that point and very clear that he does not want that dynamic to start to take hold. >> mike viqueira reporting from turkey, mike, thank you. that is our coverage of the world's response to the paris attacks. president obama saying he will stay the course with his strategy in syria. thanks for watching. i'm stephanie sy. stay with us. the news continues next live from doha on the paris attacks.
a few days ago. >> and a global view. >> now everybody in this country can hear them. >> getting the story first-hand. >> they have travelled for weeks, sometimes months. >> what's your message then? >> we need help now. >> you're watching al jazeera america. >> billions spent training afghan forces. >> there was a bang... i said, "get down". >> after 15 civilian deaths. >> according to the sources that we spoke to... the civilians that weren't killed in crossfire... >> "faultlines". >> what do we want? >> al jazeera america's hard-hitting... >> today the will be arrested. >> ground-breaking... >> they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> emmy award-winning, investigative series.
[ gunfire ] >> police carry out raids across belgium and france searching for suspects linked to the paris attacks. a minute of silence for the victims, president hollande proposes extending the state of emergency. >> live for our studios in london the next 30 minutes audi led forces capture yemen's third biggest cities. and days of rains raise fears that iraqis left