tv Consider This Al Jazeera September 16, 2014 10:00am-11:01am EDT
detention. >> al jazeera rejects all the charges and demands immediate release. >> thousands calling for their freedom. >> it's a clear violation of their human rights. >> we have strongly urged the government to release those journalists. >> journalism is not a crime. world leaders unite against i.s.i.l. in paris as british intelligence say they have identified the masked man in the beheading videos. the growing controversy facing the n.f.l. and the calls for the commissioner to go. i'm antonio mora, and welcome to "consider this". those stories and more ahead. >> there's a clear indication that this coalition is coming together nicely. >> as the strategy intensifies we are ready to take whatever steps are necessary. >> the arab nations are prepared
to put boots on the ground. >> women can be as radicalized as men. we don't like thinking about women in that fashion. >> it's possible if they train bombers. >> north korea sentences an american citizen for 6 years hard labour. >> i'm requesting help for release. >> this is a decision for scotland to make. >> independence would not be a trial separation, it would be a painful fours. >> ray rice is said to make an appeal against suspension. >> tens of thousands of tourists have been forced into distress. >> hurricane odile makes landfull. >> the vibration was intense. we begin with u.s. efforts to build a coalition to fight i.s.i.l. in iraq and syria as another hostage is savagely beheaded.
officials from 200 countries gathered in paris to discuss what they could contribute to the effort to destroy the terrorist group. 40 nations signalled they'd cooperate, and several arab nations agreed to join the u.s. and france in conducting air strikes against i.s.i.l. >> we have countries in this region, countries outside of this region, in addition to the united states, all prepared to engage in military assistance, requires. >> sunday, british prime minister david cameron vowed to hunt down i.s.i.l. fighters after a video revealed the execution of british aid worker david haines, the third hostage killed in the last three weeks. the video entitled "a message to the allies of america" recollection warns against joining a coalition against i.s.i.l. and features the same man involved in the slaughter of two american journalists, threatening to kill another
british hostage. british officials say they have positively identified the executioner, but have not released his name. >> people across the country would have been sickened by the fact this it could have been a british citizen, a british citizen that could have carried out this unspeakable act. iran's supreme leader ayatollah comeeny said they could never cooperate with a u.s.-led effort against i.s.i.s. phil ittner has beening on the conference. let's start in paris. it looks like the coalition is coming together. arab countries are coming together. there's no clear commitment on militarily. >> that's basically it. what we are looking at is a statement of intent. nothing definitive at this time. we have heard a couple of strong
statements from a variety of nations, arab nations, saying everything needs to be done to counter the islamic state in the region. but it is looked upon as the first step in a process of trying to draw together what various countries are willing to do, what they can do politically, given their various constituencies, but the important thing is coming out of paris, a clear message that there are a number of nations, over 30 at this point, saying that everything needs to be done to counter the islamic state group. >> this barbaric video, the most recent one from i.s.i.l., the beheading of a british citizen bringing focus on what the u.k. will do. david cameron said he'll do what he can, but, again, he has not been all too clear. is that because he's facing the scotland referendum. >> certainly.
the referendum is taking center stage in british politics. it has to be said, what happened over the weekend with the release of the beheading video, it shocked this nation, not least of which because it appears yet again to be an english citizen, or someone speaking with a thick english accent, who conducted the video. british intelligence is centring on that individual. they call him jihadi john in the u.k. we are getting messages from inside the british intelligence community. they are clear who that individual - who that individual is, but the trick now is, of course, finding his whereabouts. finally the beheadings. is this i.s.i.l. sending a clear message that's having an effect, because it also seems to be holding turkey back, because turkey is a crucial part of this, it has a huge border with
syria and iraq. it could really fight i.s.i.l. more easily than anyone else. the problem is they have 49 diplomats held hostage by i.s.i.l. >> absolutely right. one of the many things that turkey faces is the fact that they have a number of their own nationals held by i.s.i.l. but turkey is deeply engrained in the situation. it's very interesting that you draw the paint that the i.s.i.l. video and beheadings are actually making people very cautious about what they do, and that's been felt here in britain and all the metrics are brought into consideration, but most nations who are concerned about i.s.i.l. ultimately say that while they are concerned about the citizens held and at risk, there's a larger issue at hand, and that is a growing sense of power by i.s.i.l. in the region.
>> phil ittner from london, appreciate you joining us. joining us from washington d.c. is pj crowley, former secretary of state, now at the university. as we discussed with phil ittner, the arab states are signing on to the coalition. none is promising to take military action. the white house chief of staff admitted air strikes will not be enough to beat i.s.i.l. do you think it will happen, we'll see not just air strikes, but arab forces on the ground. >> it will be important to have overt military participation in a future operation. it adds to the political legitimacy in the region, of what the international community is trying to do. there are multiple dimensions to this. obviously there's a political dimension, military, and a vital economic dimension, trying to
find ways to seal off sources of financial support, you know, for i.s.i.l. and there's a vitally important intelligence element in identifying targets on the ground, you know, in iraq, and potentially in syria. i think that may be one of those areas where you may well have regional forces on the ground to help us understand what is happening there from an intelligence perspective. in the backdrop here, you have strained relations. between iraq and many of its neighbours. none of them like the nouri al-maliki government. they'll give the haider al-abadi government a chance to demonstrate a commitment to a more inclusive form of government. the region why the states are cautious in terms of how much they'll publicly acknowledge of their support for iran. >> given that kind of, say,
discomfort that exists among the nations in the region, one surprising development was that merch officials cautioned that air strikes have to be approved by the new government in iraq, as well as by the u.s. how much of a challenge will it be for what is still a shia-dominated iraqi government to work with the sunni countries and vice versa. >> the other interesting aspect is there appears to be conversations with some of the regional states and iraq itself, it is an encouraging sign. we'll see. i mean, we are focussed on air strikes. there's a lot more to the coalition if the objective is ultimately to end the threat that the islamic state poses to the region, and beyond. there's a lot more to this. in fact, the more decisive elements will be less about air strikes, and more about reclaiming lost territory. obviously on the iraqi side of
the border, that burden will be - you know, most significantly borne by iraqi security forces and the kurdish peshmerga. it will be intriguing for all elements of the coalition, at what point do you move across the border into syria, where you have got very complex, you know, situation, but that is where the region is particularly unified in terms of eradicating the islamic state. >> let's talk about the elephants in the room and who weren't. one is syria. probably the biggest one, because i.s.i.l. has so much territory in syria. it has military bases and oil fields. so there's no way of dealing with i.s.i.l., without figuring out how to deal with syria. >> you add iran to the mix. it may be, again, that the states are going to
do meaningful things. we are hesitant to talk about them publicly because any kind of regional action inside syria will leave the op tick that the beneficiaries of this will be bashar al-assad and iran on the other, sworn adversaries of the major regional players. they'll tip toe forward. perhaps iraq will be a test case of how you can cooperate, and that may well give momentum and confidence when it comes to the syrian aspect. it's very, very complex in terms of, you know, obviously under guarding all of this is the emerging split and conflict between the shia and sunnis. that is a political reality that we have to keep in mind. >> you refer to the other two elephants i want to bring up. russia was in the room. it was there in paris, and made noises about how the u.s. can't
bomb, russia being allied, an ally of the bashar al-assad government. will we get security council approval. will we ignore it if we don't? >> that will be something that i am sure the administration will be looking for and try to figure out how to crack that nut at the united nations, in the coming days. you know, and to see if russia, on the one hand, iran on the other, two of the major backers of the bashar al-assad government, whether the emergence of i.s.i.s. changes their calculations in any way. i think at the present time, based on the statement you just made, it's highly doubtful at this point that russia will change its oppositions to meaningful military activity that would have the potential risk of doing away with the bashar al-assad government. >> iran doesn't like i.s.i.l. because it favors the shia government, in iran, and also -
so it wants - doesn't want the threat against that government or the threat that i.s.i.l. poses to its ally. iran was not invited because the sunni arab states didn't want it there. iran makes harsh comments about never cooperating with the u.s. iran will be a problem. >> iran is a factor in syria. iran is a factor in iraq. on the one hand, as you said, the major sunni states said if iran comes to the conference, we won't. there's a difference between being part of a coalition, led by the united states. the ayatollah took that off the table, versus communication, and some sort of deconfliction because obviously iran, while it continues to support the bashar al-assad government, doesn't want to see the rise of the islamic state as a competitor to bashar al-assad. there's a shared - there's a
shared purpose here, but not necessarily a shared path. >> it's a shame politics gets in the way. all these people in syria and iraq. pj crowley, thanks. >> my pleasure. the u.s. is busy recruiting nations to join the fight against i.s.i.l., the group is women. >> it's important they come to this place, here you forbid to live among the creatures. i'm joined by mia boom, professor of security studies, and author of "bombshell", a book about this topic. mia, it's great to have you on the show. the fbi reportedly confirmed three young women of somalia dissent from minnesota, st. paul
area left the area to join i.s.i.l. one 19-year-old said she was going to a birthday shower and called her family a few days later admitting she was in syria. last week shannon connell from engaged to an i.s.i.l. terrorist, a guy met online. given the horrors, why are young american women leaving home to ramallah. with reactions from the palestinians. >> well, laura, the reaction from independents is one of two scenarios. either the palestinians were unsure about the procedures to be a meck of the icc, or there was a conscience decision taken at the highest level not to do so now, the first scenario, clearly debatable. for five years, the palestinians have attempted to be members of the icc. and they should be aware of the
procedures, and the state, whether the justice minister or the foreign minister approaching the icc for the palestinian state to be a member and accept the jurisdiction of the icc. the second scenario, that there was a conscience decision not to, and that's what's underdebate at present. i'm joined by the secretary general of the palestinian initiative, and do you think there was a conscience decision not to join the icc at this stage, and why? >> i think there's no decision yet. and there has been a lot of pressure from all political parties in palestine. we all signed a petition, demanding that the head of the plo would sign so we could be members of the national critical court. so we can carry cases against israel and center investigations about war crimes, and crimes against humanity that conflict with
gaza. it's a matter of timing, and i think that the more we wait. and the more dangerous things become, and that's why this issue is coming up in every meeting, and it's a public pressure also demanding that the joining of the icc. and my worry is that i think israel is now trying to build a team to change the international rule. >> i was going to ask you something about that. because our correspondent just mentioned that the fact that israel has now launched it's own examination or investigation actually makes problems should the palestinians now sign the document with the icc because the icc has to let that israeli investigation go ahead. >> we will come in investigation, and we know that israel is the one that committed war crimes. we are not worried about the palestinians doing so. we know we're right on our side. and the problem is that the
first, and if that fails, then go to the icc. >> i think this is useless, waiting is useless, and even if people wanted to wait, they waited and americans responded. they said they're not coming with the initiative, and they're not allowing the security council to take a pox, so there are no excuses anymore. i think it's time to sign their own statute and it's time to join the icc and hold israel accountable. this is a palestinian public demand. and a demand from a all people who support the palestinian cause, and i hope that we will soon join the icc and the public demand will be met. >> thank you very much indeed. the public demand for membership of the icc is there, but clearly no response, according to this report from, the palestinian leadership. >> mike hannah, reporting from ramallah, thank you very much, mike.
now when president obama, and this gets back to some of the statements you made in your opening remarks, he said our objective is clear, we would degrade and ultimately destroy isil through a sustained strategy. now it is clear, we talked about this, this is an army, and i outlined in my opening statement the six differences between
al-qaeda and what we're generally facing there. would you agree with that? >> i would agree they have been using conventional tactics. >> so now you won't agree that strategy we would impose against terrorists would be appropriate today -- >> i agree we have to build the capability and address a counter terrorism strategy. >> secretary hagel, i would like to get in touch with who is in control of the war here. my -- if it's sitcom commander austin, then i feel a lot better about this. is that who is in control? it is now military?
>> yes, as i said in my opening statement, senator, i tried to frame some of that up in -- for example, what i mentioned about general allen's role, initial role as a coordinating role, but i also said that he would work directly in that coordination with general austin as commander, that's why president obama will be with the commander tomorrow to go over the plans. >> sure. mr. secretary, my concern is i don't want people to be under the dilution that this is just another terrorist effort that we're going to be pursuing. asked by a reporter on september 11th to define victory against isil, the white press secretary said i didn't bring my websters dictionary up here with me.
secretary hagel you didn't either. can you define victory against isil. >> i believe when we complete the mission of degrading, and destroying isil. just as the president laid out. >> i understand that. i get a different interpretation, when he said, quote, it will not involve american combat boots fighting on the soil. let me ask you two questions general dempsey, in your opinion are the pilots dropping bombs in iraq, and will u.s. forces will required to provider is. and rescue? >> yes and yes. >> good. well, i appreciate that. and lastly, the last question i
have, because i know i have gone beyond my time. we have been complaining about what is happening with funding and now we're looking at the sequestration, in light of all of this that has occurred do you believe we're adequately funded to take care of all of these things? >> well, two answers to your question, but, no, is the first basic answer, but the budget that we will be coming up here presenting as you know in a few months, will contain what we believe is going to be required to carry forward for the longer term, this effort. but in the short-term, this is why we're asking for the $500 million authority for the training equipment, plus the
president asked a few months ago for a $5 billion counter terrorism partnership fund, plus a billion dollars european initiative fund as well. so i think what general dempsey said in his closing comments in his statement, probably summarized pretty well as you had noted, all of the different pressures that are now coming down on this country, residing a good amount of it at the defense department, one of the things that we have been warning about is sequestration over the last year and a half. so we will come forward in our budget for the next fiscal year with some new requests. >> could i just elaborate on behalf of the joint chiefs because we have discussed this frequently, last year we said that we -- the size of the force
that was projected over the course of the plan was adequate to the task if the assumptions made were valid, and some of the assumptions we made were about commitments and some were able our ability to get health care changes, infrastructure changes, and weapon systems, we got very few of them. so we do have a problem. >> we're listening here to the deliberations going on at the senate armed services committee. you are listening there to the u.s. chairman of the u.s. joint chiefs of staff answering questions from senators there on the obama's administration's plan on the threat of isil. let's bring in our correspondent rosiland jordan. it was interesting to watch that
exchange between the center and mr. dempsey over the question of what exactly would define victory for the united states? there seemed to be earlier comments from the u.s. defense secretary. it does sound like their are preparing for the concept of a much longer military engagement. >> they have been very explicit about that, sammy. chairman dempsey who is the top ranking military officer in the united states military, said that this is a generation's long challenge. this is not something that is going to be dealt with in a matter of months or even several years. they are looking at a very lo - lock -- long-term fight. and we just heard that the funding requests are going to be
coming in right now, there is a current $500 million request on the table for this operation, as well as more requests coming in larger overall budget requests starting later this year. this is a very complicated, expensive program, already the military is spending about $7.5 million a day on all current operations just inside iraq and that is for a country that is not at war in iraq per se, but in fact is now at war against isil. >> it was interesting on that point, while the obama administration has said very clear american forces will not have combat forces, it was interesting to hear him say that the pilots are already engaging in a combat mission. >> that's right. and when you consider the u.s. has been carrying out these
operations since august 8th, it is really splitting hairs to say they are not in combat missions inside iraq, but you see them now actually calling it what it is. >> all right. thank you very much. we'll continue to bring you updates as we get them. the deliberations in the united states. ♪ hello, and let's take you through some of the headlines we have at this hour. the iraqi prime minister has chosen his last two cabinet members. but they have not yet been
accepted by the cabinet. the military in ukraine has been battling pro-russian rebels to try to gain control of towns and cities in the east for months. a ceasefire was signed on september the 5th, but sporadic fighting between the two sides has continued. >> and the u.s. is preparing to send 3,000 military personnel for the fight against ebola in west africa. the virus has already killed more than 2,500 people. syrian activists say fighters from isil have shot down a government war plane in eastern area. eight people were killed when it crashed in a residential area. the syrian government has recently launched several attacks targeting isil. we're getting reports that
at least five children have died after being vaccinated for measles. health workers were carrying out a campaign against the illness in the countryside. a suicide bomb attack has killed at least six people in afghanistan. a car rammed into a military convoy. the afghan taliban says it carried out the attack. fighting between yes, ma'ammy forces and houthi rebels has killed at least 16 people. they have been protesting against the government for more than a month. demonstrators have also been calling for fuel subsidies to be reinstated. those are the headlines. it's "the stream" now.
[ audio difficulties ] >> and that's a fundamental fallacy in everything you are presenting this committee today. secretary hagel, was the president right in 2012 when he overruled half of his security team, and trained his opposition team at the time -- >> i was not there at the time -- >> well, i'll ask general dempsey. >> i'm sorry?
>> was the president right in 2012 when he overruled his secretary of state and refused to train and equipment the moderate opposition forces in syria, which according to your testimony we're joining today. >> senator you know i recommended that we train them. and you know for policy reasons the decision was taken in another direction. >> thank you. are you concerned, secretary hagel about our southern border. we received testimony from our homeland security people that our border is porous and the people who are now free to travel to the united states and also other radical elements right cross our southern border to attack the united states? >> i'm always concerned about -- >> i mean is that a serious concern? >> i think we always have to look at these things --
>> do you think we have to improve our border security? >> we can improve our border security. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator nelson? >> senator mccain you are aware there were published reports of covert training. >> i am aware of it, and i am also aware of the scale of the training required, and i'll also aware that 192,000 people have been slaughtered, a lot of them with these so-called barrel bombs which are -- and use of chlorine gas, which he has caused a humanitarian disaster of unprecedented proportions, yes, i'm aware of that.
>> general dempsey are you aware of the covert training? >> we don't comment in public about any aspect of covert training. >> mr. secretary, as you know, i believe that the has the constitutional authority to go on and attack isis. this is going to be for the long hall. and eventually this issue will have to come to congress for authorization for the use of military force. and you all have an appropriations request right now. my question is if congress does not approve, and i have heard some members of congress say that they are not going to vote to approve this $500 million request, if they did that, and
refused before we adjourn to go home for the election, what kind of message do you think that sends? >> well, i think that message would be very, very seriously misunderstood and misinterpreted by our allies, our friends, our partners around the world, and our adversaries. this is a clear, clear threat, what the president has talked about, the threat to this country from isil. and what his request is and reaching out to the congress for partnership as he has done in consultation with many, many members of the congress to be
partners in this effort to protect this country, and if the congress would not agree to that request, it would be a pretty devastating message it would send to the world. >> i happen -- all right. all right. would you please -- would you please not take advantage of the freedom of this place! and will you please remove this lady from the room! this disruption is not helping! [ shouting continues ] >> out of iraq, out of syria, stop the bombings! >> as you know, mr. secretary, i have taken the position that i think he has the -- he, the president has the constitutional authority to go on and attack inside syria. the fact you are making this request and as you have
testified here today that you will train up 5,000 over the course of the next year, does that basically mean any kind of coordinated effort on the ground in syria is delayed for a year? >> if we don't have ground capability in a moderate opposition, yes, it affects a rather significant dimension of the overall strategy. >> as you know, some people are saying that attacking isis both in iraq and syria is playing into their hand by then them using that to divide muslims against us. what is your opinion? >> this is why the coalition including out front publicly muslim arab countries is so
critical to this. and i noted that in one or two of my answers this morning, as well as in my testimony. >> can you shed anymore light as isis as one of the two of you have testified recedes into an urban area, and takes shelter there among a civilian population, how in iraq, for example, can the iraqi security forces be able to root them out of that civilian territory? >> well, this again is why we need the people. why we need the people themselves in iraq, in syria, to support a unified unity, inclusive representative government in iraq to help them do that. the sunni tribes are critical to this. what has allowed so much of this
to happen, senator, as you know, as you visited many times, the last government in iraq over the last five years have actually exacerbated the effort and intentionally destroyed the capability of a unity government to bring in the sunni, shiite, kurdish populations to a go they could trust, that they could have confidence in, that they knew would work in everyone's interest, so your question cuts directly to the overall effort here of what the president talked about in a new inclusive unity government, which we have some confidence in, but we believe that the body will do, and so far in his appointments
to his cabinet, we have seen evidence of that inclusiveness. >> thank you senator nelson. senator whik -- wicker. >> thank you. here is how i view it, president obama rejected the advice of many of his top military leaders to leave a residual force. our administration did not make every effort that it possibly could to gain the status of forces of agreement in iraq, so we completely withdrew, and now isil is there wreaking the havoc that the president is responding to. i am willing to help the president and to help you gentlemen take this hill again
if i believe there is a plan that will work and be successful if training 5,000 troops in -- at the -- by the end of one year, is going to help us be successful against something that is already metastasized at 31,000, which is the size of isis now, i want to help if we can be convinced it will work, and also if we can have some assurance that we will not throw away our gains this time, as we did after the surge worked. general dempsey in answer to the question by the chairman of this committee, do you support the president's strategy, you have say that you do. now the "washington post" reports that mr. obama has rejected the recommendation of his top military commanders that u.s. special operations forces
be deployed to assist iraqi units in fighting the rebels, is that report correct in the "washington post"? and where do you come down on that recommendation? >> no, that report is not correct. and where i came down on the recommendation in terms of having advisors accompany -- this is the issue we're describing, whether advisors who are already there, and generally resident in headquarters whether they would accompany the iraqi security forces into combat, i have not come to an occasion where i believe that is necessary. they are doing fine, we are -- >> who is doing fine? >> the iraqi security forces and the person mare ga, but if i get
to that point i'll make that recommendation. >> i appreciate that. let me submit for the record, a column in today's post mr. chairman, by mark thesan, where he talks about general lloyd austin, and to quote mr. thesan, in 2012 he advised the president against withdrawing all troops from iraq, to prevent a terrorist resurgence. had obama listened to austin's counsel, the rise of the islamic state could have been stopped. why do you come down on that? >> well, we don't debate anything in the military. we provide options and let our
elected officials make their decision. it's well-known that all military leaders felt we needed to leave some forces in iraq to continue the development of security forces. there is a dedate about whether he tried as hard as we could to leave it there. but i thought we should have left forces there. i traveled to iraq and i was the chief staff of the army at the time. look, i don't know how history will exactly describe this. let me describe maliki as a very difficult partner most of the time and particularly on that issue. >> i think anybody that has really observed the situation would acknowledge that a government -- a united states government that can go into iraq today and persuade the prime minister to step down could
certainly have mustered the skills to get them to sign a status of forces agreement, so it's obvious to me that we didn't try very hard. and let me just reit tait to you, i want us to win. i want us to defeat isis, but i want a plan that can be successful. and i'm not sure that 5,000 trained in a year could be successful against 31,000. one quick question to you secretary hagel. in reading your testimony about what the coalition partners are going to do, i have no idea specifically what we're asking of them, or what their -- what we can expect. they have expressed their willingness, they have indicated their readiness, they want to help to do their share, begin making commitments, take measures to suppress the flow.
i have no idea, based on your testimony, what our coalition partners will expected to do or even what we want them to do. >> senator, my intent was not to give you that inventory this morning and go through that. >> are you able to? >> we can do that privately in closed session with a number of countries. that's what we're doing right now. we're in the process of doing that right now. as i mentioned over the last two weeks we have been building the coalition and organizing the coalition. we have all finalized that effort. we have a list of over 40 nations who we have talked to, most have come us to, who have volunteered specific areas of expertise, what they would do. we'll make specific requests, but that's ongoing right now.
that's part of the -- >> will saudi pilots and saudi jets be involved -- you have been listening to the testimony on capitol hill concerning the situation with isis or isil in iraq. the defense secretary, talking just a moment ago, explaining these barbaric acts cannot continue. asked about the 5,000 soldiers, saying this is just the beginning, adding he wants to do the right thing. and if isil gets its way, israel could be in its sights soon. before all of this, we want to take you back to what happened. self-protests at the hearing. anti-war protesters interrupting the proceedings. senator levin asking to have
themmest cored out. lisa this all boils down what the president asked for, and what the president is going to get. is congress going to give the president what he wants with regards to isil. >> well, the president has said he doesn't believe he needed continued authorizations for the ire strikes he is making in iraq and hopes to make in syria, but he has asked for $500 million to help train a moderate group in syria. he has in iraq the iraqi forces and the peshmerga, but who does he have in syria? so he wants to train the free syrian army to do the fighting for the u.s. on the ground, the fighting against isil. there was a lot of scepticism about that mission to do that
training. what the military told congress was that they would train about 5,000 members of the army a year, as senator mccain pointed out, isil already has 31,000 fighters. so are you really going to make a dent. so congress saying they want to support the president, they want to defeat isil, but there is scepticism about whether what the white house is proposing will be enough? >> lisa stark for us on capitol hill this morning. thank you very much. again, the divide being between a president who campaigned on getting america out of two entanglements, and now forced to go back into iraq to deal with the threat of isil. the iraqi security forces will be trained as well, but that is just the beginning of the debate. we want to thank you for
>> announcer: this is al jazeera. ♪ hello welcome to the news hour, i'm jane dutton in doha. going after the islamic state in iraq and the levant, the u.s. says it will also target fighters in syria. ukraine's parliament grants rebellious eastern regions greater autonomy. and a fresh warning about the seriousness of the ebola sr