releases. hello, is that the cemetery. >> this is the newspaper, we're >> tonight they control huge amounts of land in iraq anders syria. and their influence is growing. washington, some say, has to do more. why hasn't the muslim world defeated i.s.i.l? years earlier, the gop might have won the war, but, nuclear

deal with iran is war. is the white house deceiving the american public, i'm imran garda. >> strength unity and confidence that only american leadership can provide. >> arab countries need to stand united in saying death to i.s.i.s. >> egypt, saudi arabia, jordan, this is their war, they should be fighting it not us. >> these are regional battles, regional actors, regional bad guys. >> will the moderates ever wake up? >> there is no way in hell you can destroy i.s.i.l. without a substantial american component. >> it starts off as local but they're building an international network. >> we need the international help. we have to remember iraq become

such a way because of the occupation. >> we are what we are. we fought alongside al qaeda. >> we have to deal with the consequences. >> we have fawaz, author of i.s.i.s. a short history. and ubay shabanda, annal advisor with the syrian coalition. why hasn't the arab world defeati.s.i.l? >> what certain muslim countries have done, no doubt we have to also look at the question of who does i.s.i.l. target? according to the united nations data those released in the report last year, the overwhelming majority of those killed by i.s.i.s. are actually muslim. we're seeing bombs in mosques,

sunni muslims are being targeted by i.s.i.l. >> why haven't they done more? >> they are doing a lot more than people realize. let's look at islamic organizations in the region. in egypt we have grant sunni muslim muftis, we see muslim leaders -- >> people like bin laden in the past, a recruiting tool for al qaeda they turned to their followers they said these guys are sellouts, they are with the west with the dictators. we have the correct mix. >> which is absolutely true. the flow from the muslim world in central asia and the arab world you do need the support of these local muslim leaders. but also you look at the amount of security actions that have been taken by muslim countries against home grown i.s.i.s.

recruitment cells. the reality is if you want to stop the foreign fighters you have to look at the logistics, within the 5'6" months we are seeing countries in the middle east waking up to this dire threat. >> do you know the percentage of air strikes that have been committed against i.s.i.l. by the united states? do you know the percentage of those air strikes done by the united states? >> overwhelmingly by the united states air force. >> 116 by saudi arabia, uae and bahrain. that is out of 2300, vast majority by the united states. record arms sales to the middle east to these gulf countries which are rich countries. they're among the richest in the world. they have american weapons and european weapons, they've got unlimited money. they claim they want to fight i.s.i.l. so why don't they? why are they still asking the americans to do their work for them? >> certainly we're not seeing an

arab expeditionary force going into syria to fight i.s.i.s. but they are going against the financfinanciers. in syria that are in the league to fighting i.s.i.s. that's the thing you need a local solution. >> i want to tak talk about than a minute but first, fawaz, are you convinced countries in the region are doing enough? >> of course i'm not convinced but my colleague here really misses the big picture. the big picture is the following. i.s.i.s. would not have done as well as it has in the last three years without the geopolitical struggle that has taken place in the middle east. it is part and parcel of the saudi-led, saudi being the most sunni dominated state in the area, this has been the

coalition that has allowed i.s.i.s. to grow as big as it is. i.s.i.s. is the resulting product of the civil wars that are taking place in syria, taking place in iraq. the sunni-shia divide that is baisk poisoning the veins of arab middle eastern blocks. they have provided the sustenance and nourishment. >> how have they in ideology or what? >> between 2012 and 2014, those i.s.i.s -- there was no i.s.i.s. the front the money flooded into syria. not to support the military jihadists, but money from the gulf, money from most muslim countries came to syria and allowed most of the money -- most of the money basically went to militants like el nusra. point two, we estimate that mostly 60%, these are not my numbers these are american

numbers, most of the money comes from turkey. not while turkey has joined the fight against i.s.i.s. now, why it has taken turkey quite more than a year to basically join the fight against i.s.i.s. i now i submit to you that turkey's strategic priority is not to take on i.s.i.s, but the kurds. >> you are the guy you were calling for, quote, ammo, ammo ammo going to the frearmings. to the free syrian army. >> absolutely. [simultaneous speech] >> let's look at actual facts okay? in 2005 where are all the foreign fighters coming into syria and iraq? they were traversing from damascus into eastern syria into iraq well before the 2011 syrian revolution. counterintuitively in the middle east today, secular autocratic governments like the assad

regimes are not the innoculation against the ideology against al qaeda and iraq and i.s.i.s, they helped catalyze them. the data is very clear here. what eventually became i.s.i.s. was able to grow in the deserts of eastern syria from 2005 to 2010, underneath the wash of the supposed secular syrian military intelligence. the iranians knew this, the assad regime knew this. [simultaneous speech] >> foaz come in. >> before i.s.i.s. there was al qaeda in iraq, al qaeda on iraq and i've written several books on the topic. al qaeda in iraq was defeated in 2010, 2011. when the americans left iraq in 2011, al qaeda in iraq, al zarqawi was bleeding, was besieged was bleeding. numbered not more than 200, 300 fighters.

the question why al qaeda in iraq -- >> the syrian a&m [simultaneous speech] [simultaneous speech] >> where has, to come back, the sunni-shia divide, this is the social nourishment, these are not my words, consensus in the filed field. what does mean the sunni-shia divide imran? , even if it is perceived as sectarian. it has allowed i.s.i.s. to what? to embed itself to insert itself in the local sunni society. >> absolutely not people forget [simultaneous speech] >> it's it's it's it's. >> one at a time, foaz first. >> no one can tell you the extent of the support within the sunni community to i.s.i.s. i've worked for years, and the

numbers go and these are basically it's not just rhetoric here. the numbers grow. most sunnis, most sunnis implicitly, implicitly the local communities, the poor sunni communities view i.s.i.s. as the enemy of their enemy, that is the minority based government. truly correctly. >> against shia imperialism. >> in which i.s.i.s. being the manipulative it has inserted i the itself as what [simultaneous speech] >> i'll come to you in a moment. >> it has exploited manipulated the grievances, of sunni by saying we are your vanguard, we are your soul supporter and defender against the minority-led regimes. most sunnies don't subscribe to

most ideology. it is identity based narrative. >> so ubay, an american listening to this would think, why on earth would i want to get involved in a sectarian civil war in the middle east? we left iraq, this is none of our business anymore. these guys need to sort out their own business. it sounds overwhelmingly sectarian. not our business not our fight. >> it is a very good question. sectarianism is absolutely a factor that helps groups like i.s.i.s. and al qaeda in iraq and the slawctd grow. thiislamic state grow. this is not only saudi arabia vying for regional sectarianism against iran. >> in syria -- >> let me finish. who defeated the prototype for i.s.i.s. the islamic state of iraq?

it was the sunni -- >> absolutely. >> nationalist fighters. who defeated i.s.i.s. in the idlib province this syria? the airbus was absolutely the [simultaneous speech] >> so the americans need to support those who are on the front lines to defeat i.s.i.s. the way you -- the way you prevent the u.s. from being sucked into the region is by empowering those that want to take the heart of i.s.i.s. >> give me some group names. >> sunni, sunni rebel alliance in northern syria the conquest army. you've got another lions in alln aleppo called the el nusra front. >> el nusra themselves have killed druze villages, executed in aleppo. there have been killings from among those 60 u.s. trained fighters, that's el nusra front.

>> clarification, nusra is not part of the conquest army. pushed out by the sunni rebels. there's a great deal of potential -- there's a great deal of [simultaneous speech] >> not just [simultaneous speech] >> it's a wide spectrum. >> let's forget nusra, let's look at ararashram. they just recently put out a message of support and condolence when mullah omar died. >> these are the guys these are the guys [simultaneous speech] >> not the only ones okay? yes they are absolutely problematic and statements like that are absolutely problem take but they are absolutely options in syria in alternatives of sunni airbus that the west can't support. >> some qualifications. no one said that i.s.i.s. or el nusra are just a product of the sunni-iranian fight. you have bloody dictatorship in

iraq and syria. if it was not for the divisive sectarian policies of nouri al-maliki, point one, point 2 the u.s. led invasion of iraq in 2003, allowed islamic state of iraq and the levant in the first place. , this is not to question the iraqi -- this is not an american fight. america should not take ownership of this particular fight. only arab middle east civil societies in the middle east could take charge of this event. if america were to somewhere veen militarily, that's what i.s.i.s. wants. we're not only your defender against the shia, we're your defender against the americans. >> calling for american helps. >> give us weapons give us money

please help us. >> 2003 that's exactly the same call, come in iraq intervene in iraq [simultaneous speech] [simultaneous speech] >> are united states can do a great deal. by assisting arab and middle eastern societies. >> that i agree with. >> america's power if america and america can do a great deal have written a book on barack obama and the middle east two years ago. united states should use its leadership its resources to bridge the gap, to gi get rid of the. >> on that point i'll take a break and. >> the united states needs to help where it can. >> you broke it you own it, so be a part of the solution. >> first do no harm. as we've learned it -- >> later on,. >> the premise that all women

somehow share the same view on abortion is wrong. >> you have very tone deaf comments that just play into creating a sort of rhetorical volcano that keeps the whole machine moving. >> and in field notes, fighting fire with felons, what our correspondent learned on the front lines of california forest fires. >> this did not feel like an episode of oz, this did not feel like i was going to get sharchgd in twshankedin two minutes. whatever they're doing is clearly working. "inside story". only on al jazeera america.

>> 62% of americans support sending ground troops to fight i.s.i.s. >> we're going to have to put boots on the ground my fren fri. >> somebody has to be done. >> it's not our problem. >> it is our fight. this is not a sunni versus sunni problem. this is i.s.i.l. versus man kind. >> welcome back. joining us now is douglas ol olivant, who served in iraq and afghanistan, was the architect of the iraqi surge. as i mentioned you were one of the searkts of th architects ofe of the reasons given for the need of iraq and syria, colin powell said you broke it you own it. so be part of the solution in iraq and syria.

it is a police. united states is the superpower, help. >> it is a mess and the united states needs to help where it can but it needs to help with a hippocratic oath. first do no harm. as we've learned -- >> too late for that. >> more harm can always be done. as we've learned the hard way, in syria in iraq in libya all over the world things can always get worse and for the united states to intervene with the heavy hand can have all kinds of political consequences. the outcome of which we can't foresee. we certainly didn't think al qaeda of iraq was going to be an outcome of our 2003 invasion. we didn't see that. we didn't see the original al qaeda coming from you're support of the afghan rebels against russia. we need to be cautious and supportive of the aid we give. being carefully supportive of the administration in their fairly light touch supporting where they can in iraq, giving

intelligence air power and otherwise saying this needs to be settled 50 people who live here. >> here are the syrians sayings, two existential threats, i.s.i.l, help us. >> with all due respect to my friend ubay, we have the baath and the people in iraq who are unable to help themselves. >> are there moderates? >> we like to think so. >> he obviously thinks so. it's hard to see who is a moderate. we don't know how deep the support goes. even a moderate can be turned into an extremist when they think only an extremist is there

to protect them. it is a chaotic country. sunny can be allied between el nusra and the islamists. there are no birth certificates, we don't know who the people are there. >> assad is a huge liability for the syrian people. if assad falls today, el nusra front would fill security vacuum. let me finish please let me finish. our hearts are with the yrches people for the 40 -- the syrian people. basically refugees or displaced people. we know what has happened. the question is how do you empower, how do you strengthen the moderate, not the moderate but the nationalist position? that's the weakest ling. that's why i.s.i.s, the american strategy combat the central question it should do more in terms of resources in terms of training in terms of training in

temps of civil society, the most important thing that the united states can do now is to stand more capital in trying to really help broke a political settlement difficult as it is. and i see movement on this front we're just seeing the united states much more engaged with the russians hopefully bring saudi arabia and iran in order to have a traditional government with assad shoved aside, said than done, at this stage throwing military might into syria would aggravate and complicate the situation. >> how do you have a political settlement? >> very simple. truly the most importantly thing is if our reading is correct -- >> of i.s.i.l. raping young yazidi girls how do you negotiate? >> if the region, saudi arabia, qatar and hezbollah on the one hand. the syrian factor is the least

important. the regional war by proxies, what you need to do by now you need to basically work on the regional powers [simultaneous speech] overnight three were able to help broker two major ceasefires. >> it was broken. >> it was broken, and still this is where the united states is not doing enough. we should do more on the dploim humanitarian question. in order to bring about the exit of assad militarily, if assad is i mean i hope my stand is very clear, if assad collapses today, there is no al qaeda. there are no alternatives. >> the big picture is to solve the saudi iranian cold war. >> absolutely not. i.s.i.s. did not rise because of the conflict between tehran and saudi arabia. it exists because it fed sectarianism in places like iraq. it would bomb shia mosques and

it would bomb sunni mosques. that vicious signing helped give it a cadre it could develop over the years. it is not just a broadly geopolitical fight. we look at the chaos of the assad regime it is fomenting. the blear barrel bombs that are dropped every day, those individuals that are suffering every day we are your protectors you have got to give them the alternative, the alternative is sunni nationalist groups. >> olivant is the sunni nationalism possible at all? >> no. nothing in the middle east is mono-causal. both of them are right. does i.s.i.l. have roots np [simultaneous speech]

>> no we need the short term military solution. there is a problem in iraq and syria that we cannot wait for a civil society solution for. we need a military solution, i think first in iraq because our partners are certainly more reliable in iraq and then eventually in syria. but in the longer term -- [simultaneous speech] >> i'll get to that in the longer term we need to look very, very hard at the real root causes. the promotion of islamism in the region, the lack of any other legitimate means of political support in all these deep state style regimes and the total lack of economic opportunity. we aren't fixing these tomorrow but that's one -- >> jeb bush wants to embed iraq with military troops, is that insane? >> not insane but bad idea. >> your record has been dismal when it comes to state building and the rule of law. if you look at the records of united states in the last 60 or 70 yeerps approximatel70 years.

this does not speak well for us at the end of the day. the arab region you're talking about state building, we have also established that assad is responsible, we have established that nouri maliki is responsible, you have to empower civil soats, this is social and ideologically and military i agree you need in order to stop the massacre by i.s.i.s, too academic. by the weigh it's a complex [simultaneous speech] >> develop in a vac up a. >> but you see you have to rebuild the institutions and rebuilding institutions cannot be done militarily as we have learned in iraq. the idea is we invade iraq, we destroy the state we establish the democracy -- >> how do you rebuild institutions when the allies of the united states and the west for want of a better word are military dictators like -- >> that's a question --

>> like syria and egypt? >> this is a long historical strugglinhistoricalstruggle. millions of arabs, what was the rallying cry? freedom justice dignity. why because they were aborted and derailed by counterrevolutionary forces by the regime and the old powers. >> this seem academic to you? >> the united states had an option when the civil revolutions were taking place before it became militant to do something to stop the slaughter. the slaughter was one way. people forget. why did these extremist groups existed from the very beginning but arab spring was led by society groups there were absolutely some islamicists but some students. it was not an armed uprising. i.s.i.s. took advantage of the chaos and of the vacuum that was foe amendmented 5fomented by ses

like bashar al-assad. >> no one said sectarian we said it was derailed and aborted by bloody regimes. you're repeating this -- of course the regional powers whether it was iran are or saudi arabia, saudi arabia fought very hard for egyptian regime. this is a [simultaneous speech] [simultaneous speech] are out there but i think syria gives us a microcosm of the problem of the region. we have given people of the region in a situation where all they have to choose from is some authoritarian regime or some radical islamists. unfortunately in syria i don't see how we fix that problem right now. in the larger region we have time to try the find solutions. >> we have run out of time

unfortunately fawaz. , thank you, fawaz, obaz and douglas, thank you for joining us. the "third rail" panel is next. >> they're slamming a technology that could be used to solve problems for people who desperately need it. >> they get exited about technology whether it's in their phone or in their car, so why is it so weird on their plate? >> something's going into food that shouldn't really be there. >> techknow investigates. >> you could not pay me to fake data.

>> this was the worst civil engineering disaster in the history of the united states. >> 10 years after hurricane katrina. >> it was like a nuclear bomb had gone off - everything smelt like dead bodies. >> one constant. >> music has been the essence of this city. >> inspires a community to rebuild its city.

>> we gonna bring this city back one note at a time. >> and overcome hard times in the big easy. >> we are bigger, we're better, we're stronger. >> on the next "third rail," more than 150,000 americans are treated gun assaults every day. getting back to this week's show we're going to shift our discussion of why the muslim world hasn't defeated i.s.i.l, to, gail a senior fellow, and dave, co-author of the partisan divide, congress in crisis and valerie plame, a former cia ops

officer. gail let's start with you. i.s.i.l. controls large parts of iraq, large parts of syria. not only using violence for violence sake but using it as a tool as do other groups around the world, other governments as well. it governs to some extent. at what point do we have to accept them as not just i.s.i.l. but the islamic state? >> look i think they're trying too upset the international order. not trying to become part of the international order. when they took over afghanistan they wanted the u.n. seat they had regional ambitions. these guys are trying to create an entirely new international order, that makes it very difficult to come to the argument of when do you recognize these folks. >> they wanted a new international order right? but the united states invaded afghanistan, it didn't invade the taliban. the taliban was de facto

accepted as the governing -- >> not accepted but recognized. >> is it ever going to lap with i.s.i.l? >> i don't think it's going to happen any time in the future. it is not trying to learn to live with i.s.i.s, it's trying to learn to upset that world view which they are embracing and espousing and incredibly effectively spreading via social media. >> valerie we're not talking about recognizing them. but do they have to be accepted and maybe accepting them as a court of governing authority goes a long way to defeating them? >> let's look back at history, there have been a number of countries that have been whether it's bolsheviks, or others, gail is absolutely right, there is no way at this point in time that they will be ultimately

accepted. first of all a nation state in our typical understanding of it, needs to deliver services. while they have done a little bit and from what my reading, they are providing some pok pocs of stability is that going to be enough? i don't see that -- and who do you call? who do you call if you want to have any sort of interaction? al baghdadi is such a shadowy character we don't know really if he's alive or dead. how can you have any kind of interaction with this amorphous state? >> what if they keep this land say they have no further gains but they keep this land for ooh another ten years, at what point do we say okay okay we're going to deal with you? >> if they want to be content with this piece of land, they might have to change a little bit but at this point they see no point in doing this and i don't see them going anywhere, more of the same. either they get defeated and

knocked out. look they don't acknowledge international law or boundaries of anybody else. they're going to have to change if they ever want to get recognized and there's precedent for that. you have countries that start off this way and sooner or later find a place they're comfortable with and get recognized. they are going to have a radical way to view the world if they want any kind of recognition. >> a way to look at them in a sense are the shock troops of the millions of sunnis that are feeling disenfranchised. in iraq they are completely disconnected from the shia governing body and you see that throughout region. so yes we are going to have to deal with them. and i'd like to see our allies step up in a much more robust manner than what they have been doing so far. >> which allies in particular? >> saudi arabia, jordan for starters. >> it's hard to planning their ambitions or speed being saitedd

though. i talked to administration officials, the de facto position is containment. i think we see the pliments of that policy, into that policy emerged with speed and real ambition the i.s.i.s. situation we have now. >> okay let's move on. congress is still debating the iran nuclear deal but is the obama administration using a hard spim to sell the agreement? >> the white house turning up the heat on the rhetoric to get the iran deal passed. >> the choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. >> if congress sab tadges this deal -- >> once we get, would only increase. >> valerie we just saw you in that video. >> with jet black i'd like to -- >> your group is joining the white house in endorsing the deal and telling people come on you've got to support this deal. but aren't you almost mirroring

the opponent's popgd her opponeh says the alternative is war? >> there are those that are opposed to the deal have no better option. the notion that sanctions can be reimposed is fanciful. russia and china have reached the limit of what they can do. the rest of the world is eyeing iran very eagerly to get back involved in trade with them. i do see it as a very stark choice because -- and furthermore there's an enormous disparity. those that are opposed to the deal have put into it tens of millions of dollars of propaganda to make this seem be like they're absolutely unhinged. where those that are in favor of it have a very low budget to get out the word that -- >> aren't you responding to propaganda with propaganda? if i was zarif or rouhani, they are saying if they don't strike

a deal there's nuclear war. >> it's all about a message, you're getting it a message on one side. not one republican is going to vote for this deal or could they survive if they did vote for this deal. people are looking at their base constituencies, from the administration's deal they have to rally their deal. if it splits or splinters too much then it's in jeopardy and a lot of things happen. >> tom do you agree that those particularly republicans, there are others but those who are saying the deal itself gives iran obomb are lying? do you agree with that? >> there's exaggeration on both sides, you get a lot of hyperbole when you get into debates often these things. >> the stakes are so high. >> the passions so high. >> it might be the right thing today but anything iran does with over the next ten years with the money they're getting out of this, they could be held

accountable. there are a lot of risky votes, i voted for the iraq war little knowing how they would conduct warfare and how bad it would turn out for everybody involved. >> why don't you want the deal? >> look it goes back as a renal, look back -- a republican, this is the guy who negotiatewith bergdahl, you just don't -- negotiated with bergdahl. giving iran this slew of money when their economy was weakening because of lower oil prices -- >> wouldn't this help stabilize the country, stabilize the region? >> that's the gamble but they might send this out to promote terrorism around the area which they've done. >> gail when you read the spin we call it and maybe the counterpropaganda do you truly believe the alternative is war? >> i mean you're relying on really the enforcement mechanism

and you're hoping for the time line right? you're hoping that you're buying more time, where you are buying your time where this option is much less likely. but really it's the enforcement mechanism that everybody is betting on. i had a republican say to me it seems like their version of you're with us or against us. everybody has -- >> absolutely. because you know the crazy thing is that in fact, in bipartisan nuclear policy experts are pretty much in agreement. there is a consensus that this is the best deal we're going to get at this point. it's not perfect, everyone acknowledges that. but there is a lot of nonpolicy experts that are speaking out against it because of the political aspects to it. >> so valerie again going to this idea of war or no war, maybe something far more rooted in realities are the fact that a strengthened iran with $100 billion would be allowed to be

more powerful in syria, in supporting assad, tha not an apocalyptic nuclear war? is that the heart of it? >> setting iran back one to two years and then what is it? >> do you think they want the bomb? >> oh yes, yes. clearly their actions prior to this have demonstrated that. but as president reagan showed you don't have to trust your enemy to deal with them. the prime example being the deals he cut with the soviet union. you have to monitor as gail is saying with enforcement mechanism robust inspection to be able to have these snap back sanctions. >> that's in the deal, robust inspections so what's your problem with it tom? >> the problem is you're giving them a slug of money at this point to export terrorism. there is no hint they're going to change regime in any way,

shape or form. >> there's been a huge change from the ahmadinejad days, right? does that change your mind? >> i'm wondering their stand over the next decade. >> is this factor the benjamin netanyahu stance, thereby triggering the sort of wart you're talking about? >> i can't speak to that. he has made his rationale and his position extraordinarily clear before the united states congress. so what we have now is i think the best deal we have going forward. because look at the flip-side. if congress turns us down, and somehow they're able to override president obama's veto, what will happen without a doubt is, iran will say, okay, we've tried, and we're going to go toward a nuclear package. >> you no longer have the sanctions. >> it's dissipated.

>> to that extent the president has really boxed in his opponent. it's not an either-or at this point. iran gets something even if this is turned down. >> let's turn to another subject. the first cause of actio caucus. >> you have called women fat pigs dogs and disgusting animals. >> there was blood coming out of her wherever. >> future generations will look back at this history ever our country and consider us barbarians for murdering babies. >> ripping up their body parts and selling them like they're parts to a buick. >> we saw donald trump and what he said about meghan kelly, jeb bush half a billion dollars towards women's health issues, marco rubio against abortion

exceptions. what's going on here? are they alienating half the country? >> their premise that women share the same view on abortion is wrong. you have a lot of pro life women a lot of pro choice men. what's happened with planned parenthood, even hillary clinton has expressed her feelings about that, the pro-life groups are an important part of the republican constituency. people who feel strongly have already sorted themselves out. if you are pro-choice and that's your only issue you're going to be a democrat. >> aren't we being a bit patronizing to assume that all women would be against those statements? they have a base, they have supporters. >> every time you have that subject, it is rhetoric that looks out of touch. now if you look at the reality there are some incredibly powerful and strong voices among

women in the republican party and they are the first to tell you that all of these conversations are not helpful to them because they would like to move well beyond every one of these discussions but they know that we like them. in the media right? and they also know that they are good tv. and so you have really substantive issues that get lost in a lot of rhetoric. and i also think we don't acknowledge how many women are already playing very strong roles in the republican party and you have very tone-deaf comments that just play into creating a sort of rhetorical vehicle that keeps the rhetoric moving. i still feel very difficult to imagine it, i think when you talk to those republican candidates governor kasich or governor bush, they don't find it helpful having these discussions going on about issues they would rather not discuss. i don't think you're going to

seize the most extreme candidate -- >> vallary, are these representative of the republican candidates? >> after the defeat in the 2012 presidential election, they themselves came out with a damage assessment what just happened? one very clear evaluation of it is that we really need to do a better job being inclusive of women and minorities. exhibit savment donald trump. >> they screwed up with todd aiken and now doing with 2.0? >> people forget this, that planned parenthood not all that long ago was completely supported in a bipartisan fashion. now it is so hyperpartisan which is unfortunate. if you are outside of a given party stance, you're bucking that tide, in fact it should be

a completely separate issue altogether. what we're seeing with trump and the others it's not helping the gop brand. >> the election is over a year away. the republicans will get their nome knee. i doubt it will be donald trump. likely to be more mainstream or pro-life. that's not a killer. as george bush was. >> even if it's not donald trump many can marco rubio says if a woman is raped she should be forced to keep the baby. forcing someone like hillary clinton -- good if that were the only issue yes. but elections are it's a patch work quilt of other issues. rising to the four different campaigns, different years have a different issue matrix. if this were the only issue i'd say yes. but there are other issues that people are concerned with. a candidate that doesn't emphasize this put it out front i don't think it's going to hurt

them. if you have someone like donald trump out there it's going to be damaging. >> do not emphasize i think the key, because republican candidates would like to move on. democrat candidates would like to put this back up, it's greatly for fundraising, it's also great for the story from the media side. >> lot of eye balls on it. >> it's hard to move on from these conversations but you'll see reasonable republican candidates trying to. >> you sure we're not going to be talking about this -- [simultaneous speech] >> they're facing this put there is about the republican primaries you're talking about where you do have a significant part of the party just is very strong on this issue and candidates are trying to show their bona fides to these groups. republicans woan mention it it will be the democrats that will bring it up. >> okay, that's all the time we have.

gail, tom and valerie, thank you for your time. why are prisoners putting their lives on the the line for people they have never met? >> some of them, little redemption do something that betters their own lives that also saves others. >> there's a lot of lives at stake, a lot of innocent people. >> how many are still locked up? >> the integrity of the criminal justice system is at stake, plain and simple. >> "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. >> we have to get out of here.

>> everyone has a story... >> everyone has a story...

>> more than 4,000 wildfires have burned through california since january and 10,000 men and

women bravely fight to save acres of land. 40%, 4,000 of those firefightser are prisoners, "america tonight's" sarah hoye joins us here in new york. these are prisoners right? i wonder what motivates them to go out and fight fires. >> the actual inmates who volunteer to do this work, what motivates them is they're actually able to have some redemption, do something that betters their own lives, savers forests but saves people, giving them a true sense of purpose if you will. >> did you get a sense of purpose there? >> i absolutely did. and with the two gentlemen we spoke to at length, the sense of they were almost embarrassed to talk about what got them there right? these were real people who happened to do a crime but yet they're paying for that crime right? they're locked up. but now they have this chance to better themselves.

one of the gentlemen we met he is a father, he has two children and this is something that doesn't just say, i'm criminal i did something bad but look at what i'm doing now. >> we'll look at an excerpt of your report. >> what are you in for? >> assault with a deadly weapon and 211. >> what's 211? >> robbery. >> in for assault with a deadly weapon, a firearm. >> these two gentlemen are charged with a low level felony. >> these cal fire people are just thankful. >> learned to help their captain but also one another. >> politics, on our crew when we leave this yard we're a team. it doesn't matter what color you are, all these guys right here are my brothers and i'll do whatever i need too do to make

sure they get to go home to their families. >> sarah, in your larger report, you looked like a summer camp. did it feel like you were with prisoners in a prison? >> not at first. when we pulled up you kind of looked around like where are we right now? >> it's beautiful right? >> it is but it did look like a summer camp. that is a legitimate observation. as soon as you step through the door to the main kind of entrance area if you will you knew you were dealing with a corrections facility. >> now this saves california millions of dollars. clearly it helps putting out fires. but does it help rehabilitate these guys. >> absolutely. the recidivism for these on the fire crews is very low. not only it's a tangible skill but the issue of keeping you from return, i'm a human, i don't have to do this. once you take away someone's helplessness and despair you are

able to succeed. that's what this does, like being in the military if you will, similar comparisons, there's something like this teamwork this brotherhood they have that changes the outlook of how they see the world. >> you think other than brother brotherhood, everyone for themselves, that is not here. >> i didn't feel like i was going to get shanked in two minutes. very forward-thinking, what they're going to do when they get out. whatever they're doing is clearly working. >> sarah, that's wonderful, great to feature your report on "third rail." that does it, but the conversation continues on our website, aljazeera.com/thirdrail and on facebook.thirdrail. i'm imran garda, good night.

this is al jazeera. this is al jazeera. >> hello there i'm julie mcdonald, this is the newshour live from london. coming up: a bomb explodes in bangkok killing at least 19 people and many others are injured. one of south sudan's two warring leaders signs a peace deal, one hints at sanctions, the other says he needs more time. the u.n. protection chief calls