coalition with the united states. it's the matter of knowing what are the targets that we wish to strike and the targets that we must not strike to coordinate the exchange of data and your second question on the oil right? destroyed in turkey, the g20 held in turkey. i showed photographs that were taken at an altitude of 5000 meters. the trucks that are carrying the oil, form a column that goes over the horizon. it looks like a living moving oil pipeline with industrial quantities of oil a comes from
syrian territory in the hands of the terrorists. the oil comes from that territory and from our aircraft. we can see where these still trucks heading. they're helding into turkey. i can imagine turkish officials no nothing about this. that's difficult to believe. but in theory it's possible. but it doesn't mean that the turkish authorities must not put a stop to this elicit trade and in fact, as they do security council resolution, that bans the purchase of oil from terrorists because these fuel trucks that don't just contain fuel but also the blood of our
servicemen because the terrorists buy weapons and then they cause attacks and bombings in our cities. if the turks are destroying the fuel efficiencies saying these are industrial quantities, it would take plans to destroy this. if the turkish officials have no knowledge of this they need to discover it. maybe it's due to corruption or it's a conspiracy but they must realize what's going on because we see this from our aircraft that there are fuel trucks full of oil that go to turkey and then they come back empty into syrian territory held by the
terrorists. turning now to the other part of your question, should the turkish president resign? that is of no concern to us. it's the turkish people that must decide that. we have no intention to interfering in that. let me add that these past few years, in fact 10 years, we had a very good level of cooperation with turkey with not only our neighbor, it was a friendly almost alley. very sad that this situation should end such a sad way. >> i like to answer the question asked of him to give a french view. there is an existing coalition already for several months now. france is part of this.
it's the reaction in iraq. with the iraqi government, very important to provide them with the necessary support to fight the isis organization and terrorism which unfortunately is such a horrible thing in iraq. that coalition broadens geographically to syria france and intervening with syria in conjunction with that coalition. since last september, now through strikes. we are participating. we know the terrorists that attacked we're trained and prepared to do the entire
attacks in raqqa. now we want there to be coordination. it's in-- this coalition must be a cooperation. a call for this commission. i salute the european countries that have already shouldered their responsibilities. if they want to be effective and that's the second point i want to touch upon, we must strike isis where it has training centers, where it is organized. organization of a terrorist
army. but strike at their sources the supply their income, their oil. one item, it is to strike these oil trucks, there are large number of trucks that pick up oil and then sell it to the highest bidders providing resources to isis. i can give you this information. we are going to be continuing air strikes against these oil vehicles and areas where oil resources are being used for isis as funding. lastly, i've also stated we must support groups locally that can make it possible to win back territory.
for us in france, along with the coalition countries, we are going to be fostering those groups so they can act against isis. and destroy that terrorist organization. >> the fact that the turks didn't recognize, that's not possible. they have marks on them. it was clear these were our aircrafts and not anyone elses. second point, we forwarded preventive information to the americans regarding the presence of our aircraft and exactly where they were flying and at time. so the coalition knew, turkey
was a member of the coalition. how is it possible that it should be otherwise? >> had it been u.s. plane, no. absolutely not. just excuses. it's a shame. it's a shame to hear that rather than to work seriously in order to avoid a repeat of such an incident. it's really a shame to hear those explanations. it's not our choice, thank you. if you just joined here, good evening to you. we've been listening to francois hollande and president vladimir putin about forming a broader coalition in syria.
bring us analysis. if there been any real change in position, either the french or russian position regarding the site of syrian president bashar assad. >> reporter: at the end of this diplomat marathon by the french president, the two coalitions are still very much distinct, still very much working on their own. there is no grand single coal licks against -- coalition against isis tonight. that has not happened tonight. tonight, president putin said we have our own coalition if others are not ready to join that, we will continue to do what we're doing. that was the gist of it. this is exactly what the gist of president obama's comments were
a couple of days ago when president hollande went to the white house, president obama said we have 65 nation coalition. russia is welcomed to join us. essentially if it's not ready then we will continue to work as we're working now. so we have a mirror image of the same rhetoric. the two coalition very much a part and absolutely no change on the issue bashar assad. also hollande repeating here that president asad shouldn't have a future if syria. he was robust who said the alley against isis on the ground is the syrian army. according to putin there is no other credible alternative to any kind of force against isis.
absolutely no budging on the issue of bashar assad from both presidents here. >> no real meeting of minds concerning that president. equally the grand coalition will see what happens. some key objectives have come out of this evening. walk us through some of them. >> reporter: what came out was really has been sort of indicated by french authorities in the last few days. which is there's going to be more coordination with the russian military. more exchange of information i should say between the two that's already happened and there was a three-point memo that hollande and putin agreed on. the first was to increase and exchange information. between the french and russian military the second point was to step up strikes against isis and the third point was they
agreed that they would be careful about who would be targeted by bombings. president hollande elaborated on that. he said that we have to be very careful not to target those who are fighting against isis. that was very much a criticism of russia which has been accused of bombing militias that are opposing bashar assad. neither leader gave any details of any sort of list any agreement in detail of what these groups are. there's no common list of targets and no common list of militia groups to avoid. we can the juice from that, the two sides are still very far apart as to who they believe the terrorists actually are and who the alleys are on the ground. >> you touched on the criticism
there. some came from president putin as well. accusing certain countries of playing a double game. saying it's likely to be hugely damaging. >> reporter: he was not diplomatic at all president putin about to ourkey. to ourkey -- about turkey. when it kime to the questions he really laid on thick. talking about the incident where turkey shot down russian plane and saying that it was impossible that the turks didn't know that this was a russian jet. that was a question which came out of an interview an exclusive with president. he claimed that the turkish side didn't know that this was a russian jet. president putin said that was
simply impossible because russian jets have a clear markings. putin said that he had given the americans information about russian flights and where these jets were going. he said, turks is a part of that coalition. there was no reason for them not to know. perhaps more generally, he kept really putting the pressure on turkey keeping a very strong sort of line against this turkish shooting down of the russian jet and accusing turkey of basically turning a blind eye to fuel sales by which isis makes money and of course that activity funds it terrorist attacks in paris and elsewhere. he said in his characteristic sort of -- what's the word -- very kind of down beat. if turkish officials don't know
about these fuel cells they should discover them. he was very ironic about turkey, apparently not knowing that isis fuel was going on through turkish territory. really sticking very much that idea of turkish double game and essentially turkey is not a reliable partner in this coalition that was very much the gist of vladimir putin. >> keeping us up to date with putin and president hollande conference earlier. thank you. launching air strikes against the islamic state will make us safer. the message from the you u.k. prime minster. addressing the house of commons david come ran -- cameron tried to address the common house.
>> reporter: in the wake of the paris attacks, at the house of commons, the british prime minster made his case stating the is group pose a series threat. >> we have to ask ourselves whether the risk of inaction is rather the risk of taking action action. >> reporter: labor leader jeremy corbin agreed that the group had to be stopped. it's a terror campaign in the middle east. >> without credible or acceptable ground forces, isn't the logic of an intensified air campaign, and western boots on the ground? can it today rule out the deployment of british ground
forces to syria? >> we are not deploying for british combat force. we think the presence of western boots on ground will be counterproductive. >> reporter: the british prime minster stressed moderate forces should play a crucial role. >> we know there is a process and not an event. i'm clear it can't be achieved through a military -- it requires the removal assad. >> reporter: the british prime minster repeat of 2013 when lawmakers opposed his call for military intervention in syria. following reports that bashar assad used chemical weapons.
>> jonathan paris is a london-based middle east analyst. good evening to you. david cameron said very clearly in the house of commons today that bombing islamic state target are make life safer. is that all about convincing people and do he believe that? >> reporter: what's really going on now, i think your television station put it best. they have a live interview with putin and hollande and two days ago, hollande is with obama and where is the u.k.? where the united kingdom? france is in the headlines on syria and the u.k. is left behind. i think what cameron basic argument is, we cannot be a free rider. we cannot let our alleys do the heavy lifting. inaction, if we don't do anything, it carries big risks.
above all, britain's reputation. finally, i think he made a very good point. if not now when? if you can't fight isis directly in their headquarters, which is syria and not iraq. raqqa not some place in ramadi, when can you step up to the plate after the horrific attacks in paris? >> the u.k. opposition leader labor party seeking a assurance that the u.k. won't get trapped into a ground war. cameron thinks that's not going to happen. can this war be fought without boots on the ground? >> reporter: you need boots on the ground. right now the idea of david cameron is we're going to use kurdish boots or use rebel boots. by the way the idea that there are 70,000 moderate rebels came under question from a number of
mps, that was a figure in the cameron report, it wasn't quite accepted. my view is this, you don't need -- cameron doesn't need to make the case that joining the bombing with coalition, with the united states and france, against isis in syria is going to defeat isis. he's not making that case. he's saying, now, at this point we have to take this next step. leaving open who may happen or may not happen in the future. right now president obama and prime minster cameron both believe that there should not be any need for boots, french boots or american boots on the ground other than a token number of special operation forces. >> no u.k. boots on the ground at least for now. what is a u.k. intervention likely to look like? are we thinking reconstruction
work in addition to the air strikes? >> reporter: there maybe a whole host of things that the u.k. does. u.k. has a very diversified and flexible military. of course on a diplomatic level, they can be a major player in the vienna talks led by john kerry. on the military level, they do have certain expertise in flying and identifying targets. all the thing that go into these attacks, that certainly would be enormously beneficial to the americans and to the french. hollande today, asked the british to join the coalition in attacking syria's isis capital and other bases. i think it's a no brainer. we'll have to see what happens next week with the both. the scottish nationals appears to be against this. therefore, cameron needs some
labor and peace to join him. that remains to be seen. how the labor party will work this. we'll have to stay tuned. i think it's pretty clear that cameron will not call a vote unless he's pretty sure he's going to win the vote. he doesn't want -- >> final question we've been hearing today about strikes having incremental effect as opposed to a strong effect that's straight away. are we bracing ourselves far long war against the islamic state? >> reporter: i don't know if it's going to be a long war. the afghanistan war. i think it's not going to be a short war. i think it's clear now that the tools that the coalition is using against isis relying mainly on air attacks with some boots on the ground from some syrian forces, kurdish and
other, is not going to defeat isis. however, you can see incrementally, some progress. they cut the rope between iraqi bases and syrian bases of isis and take over of sinjar. that was a pretty big deal. the key is is to keep the pressure, financial propaganda and military as well as diplomatic on isis. keep them on the defensive so they don't have time to make horrible attacks like they did in paris. >> jonathan paris you're london-based middle east analyst, thanks for your time. time now for media watch. an -- emma jeans joins me. we've been talking on the fall
out after taking down that russian war plane? >> reporter: interesting to see what kind of angles people are focusing on today. the guardian is focusing on why did it take turkey just 17 seconds to shoot down that russian jet? what he say this is an message from turkey. normally it expect warning shots to be forced to leave or to land. they say these are tense times. what the guardian said, the response to be so rapid and the fast ball that it was ordered by himself that the aircraft be shot down, their feeling basically turkey was waiting for this to happen. so they can send a very strong message to russia that wouldn't be acceptable. interestingly, they have dug up a clip from 2012 when a turkish jet was shot down in syria. a short term violation can never
he best opportunity indicates to get congress and the american people to address the question of what to do about puerto rico, not just in the next few months but to resolve once and for all the issue of the island's status. amy: juan gonzalez on puerto rico's debt crisis, economic collapse of america's biggest colony and what can be done about it. all that and mor