people forever. >> that it is an important documentary that premieres saturday november 28th at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on showtime. chris whipple, great to see you. thank you very much. that's our broadcast. thank you for watching. i'm john seigenthaler. see you back here on monday. have a great weekend. ali velshi is next. gentinia argentinia i'm david schuster. on i.s.i.l. tonight. mysterious group has joined the group to disrapt i.s.i.l.'s bomb line propaganda.

national security has again taken center stage on the presidential campaign trail. in response to last week's attacks in france, contenders from both parties are having great policies. the neocons are back calling for enengagement in the conflict in syria, iraq and elsewhere in the region. it is not just republicans doing the preaching. take a listen to what hillary clinton says should be done. >> our goal should be to achieve the kind of penetration we accomplished with al-qaeda in the past. this would help us identify and eliminate i.s.i.s.'s command and control and its economic life lines. a more effective coalition air campaign is necessary, but not sufficient. we should be honest about the fact that to be successful air strikes will have to be combined

with ground forces actually taking back more territory from i.s.i.s. hillary clinton has joined the republican rival gentlemened bush and marco rubio and calling for dramic involvement in syria. all three call for increasing the number of u.s. ground forces there. all of them support a no flan zone over northern syria, something obama has been unwilling to commit to in more than four years of conflict. at the same time almost all the candidates, all but one, still want to overthrow i.s.i.l.'s biggest enemy inside syria, the regime of syrian president of bashar al-assad. all policy prescriptions cooked up on the campaign trail, these come with a bunch of holidays big enough to drive a tank through. a know fly zone anywhere in syria would be useful for combatting i.s.i.l. who has no aircraft. it would be better tool to shoot down syrian government aircraft

but that might invite a clash with the russian air force which backs the syrian government which is busy backing i.s.i.l. in syria as well as rebel groups threatening bashar al-assad. the phenomenony in all of this-- follow eau in all of this is seen by donald trump. the best way is to coordinate with russia even if that means saying that the regime will stay on in syria. ment holes in the policies are one, but the politics on the campaign trail are something else completely. their decisiveness is in sharp contrast to president obama on syria and i.s.i.l. and that in the end plays very well with voters. more on that michael shaw. is there any down side? >> reporter: coming out of the

debate that was in des moines last saturday, a debate that people thought would be notioned almost primarily on paris, the attacks, i.s.i.l., foreign policy, those sorts of things and it was just a little drop in the bucket of what they talked about. coming out of that there was a demand that democrats articulate a position on this. there is a down side to it which is only if you dig really deep into what hillary clinton is saying. in terms of politics there seems to be only upside. someone talking about something, a position about an issue that voters really want to hear about. they want to hear somebody be decisive and see somebody play in the same area, in the same play pen, play round, whatever word you want to use, as the republicans. democrats want to see that. they dbt hear it from bernie sanders or even hillary clinton that night for her to go to the foreign relations and attack late a plan. i think that is important

when you dig down and deep syria's civil war in the fight against i.s.i.l. is more complex than one might think listening to hillary clinton. she is keeping everything simple. is the main difference between policy and politics >> that may be the only difference. dumbing it down, as she did with three. she made a list of the things she wants to do. priorities. you're speaking in a language that they can understand, not down to them, about an attention span, hearing so much about this. it is smart politics. it's politics that when john kerry was running for president and talking about foreign policy he was criticised for getting too much into the detail for plans and how to address things. it's a smart way for anyone to talk about things so that voters can absorb them and move on hillary clinton is on a tight rope with president obama she doesn't want to offend his

supporters. >> right now, i mean that's really the sort of the most fascinating part of all of this, is disagreeing with somebody. be i disagree with you-- when i disagree with you, i have to once in a while, but when you are running from an administration, whoever you are, just an associated in the party as the president, you want to differentiate yourself from them. barrack obama has taken heat. hillary clinton has to take away from that. she said she won't relitigate the pass. she said there were times when she disagreed with the president, but she had to defer to his guidance also saying that we learned a lot since then. some of the things that we believed then we don't necessarily have to believe now. very important, but it is a tight rope because you do not want to alienate yourself from people who are loyal and devoted to obama she said she does not

believe we should have a hundred thousand american troops in combat in the middle east. no-one is saying that. what is the point of creating a straw man so that sympathy can then knock it down? >> it's overt politics. it's saying something that doesn't exist, saying it sounds bad and have people say that's good if she disagrees with that. it is nuanced, an underhanded slap to the administration of george w bush and the person who put all the troops in there originally. if she ask going to be running against jeb bush, the same toll particulars at the time, then she is saying - differentiating herself but also saying that she is dead serious about this on the republican side there are debates over i.s.i.l. what to do in syria and what to do with syrians and muslims in

the data base. donald trump has said he would have a role in them. >> you ask how it cuts into a republican nomination. until this year i would have said that's crazy. you can't say those things. this is atypical of any race. donald trump atypical of any candidate. can you imagine anybody else saying what trump said about a database, what he said about mexicans being rapists and coming into our country and getting away with it? if any of these people said it they would be out of the race. he sets up an us versus them. it's the language he is speak to his supporters. even if he didn't come out with an initiative, he said it sounds like a good idea, it's the kind of thing that is playing in this race but there's no precedent for it. not hard to say whether it's

good, but for donald trump it seems to be michael shaw. thank you. have a great weekend. politics is one thing. policy is another where i.s.i.l. is concerned. we will look at the reality of a no fly zone over syria. syria.

the front runner hillary clinton moves to the right in her approach to i.s.i.l. in syria. there is a difference between

politics and policy. in the political world being more aggressive now in the wake of the paris attacks could serve clinton well, particularly in a general election next year, but in the policy world her plans for i.s.i.l. in syria could be a mixed bag. turning to peter fhan president of fhen commune groups. he supports hillary clinton's campaign and backs her campaign of no fly over syria. if we have a no fly zone and russian and syrian aircraft break it should u.s. forces shoot it down? >> i don't think that's likely to happen. the plan that she has in place is to work with other groups to make sure that they are also part of this and to take out some of those i.s.i.l. places especially in northern syria. so i don't foresee a dog-fight as they say in the air with russian aircraft

you would acknowledge that there's a clear difference between russia's interest in syria. they want bashar al-assad to stay and u.s. wants him to leave. what happens in russian aircraft support bashar al-assad break this no sflee fe fly p zone? >> that could be a problem if you have no communications between these aircraft, but the hope is that what you would see from the russians is the same thing that you'd see from our coalition partners on this and that is to take out i.s.i.s. and to make sure that they don't have staging grounds, that they're not moving a large amounts of in the case especially in other parts of the aarea oil out of there and to the black market. so you know i think what we're talking about here is it's not an alliance even an unholy alliance between us and the

russians, but part of our goals are the same here and that is to get rid of i.s.i.s. and to stop their movement that's true, and i'm going to try to hammer you on this one more way. the goals may be somewhat the same, but the priorities are different. the big question is what is more important to democrats. is it getting rid of bashar al-assad or i.s.i.l.? >> you know, i have to tell you, to be honest about this, i think sell years ago he was clearly getting rid of bad. he was gassing his own people. he was a terrible dictator. it was a horrendous situation. i don't think anybody is up there on the democratic side cheering bashar al-assad here, but at this point it's a question of going after i.s.i.s. and making sure that that threat is taken care of and that hillary clinton says we destroy him and that we prevent them from spreading their venom not

only throughout the middle east but obviously in france and western europe and even into the united states on that point, then, is there an openness between hillary clinton and the democratic party that support of supporting her to say russians want bashar al-assad to stay there in order to enlist others in targeting i.s.i.l. bashar al-assad can stay there but let's unify in order to target i.s.i.l. does that make sense? >> i'm not sure it's quite going that far. i think that there's no question. we've got issues with putin and the russians, absolutely, but i think what you're talking about is what is realistic policy at this time. realistic at this time is that bashar al-assad isn't going any place next week, but overall hope and the overall desire of u.s. policy is that we have a stable country in syria that we

don't have a government that gasses its own people, but that the immediate threat right now is definitely i.s.i.l. thank you. i'm going to try and trip you up here at the end. i'm telling you that from the start. >> it's easesy to trip me up hillary clinton has said and she said in her speech that she has vast experience, but republicans have said look, travel experience is not the same as having success. so for you as a hillary clinton supporter, can you identify what you would say are three of her successes at secretary of state? >> i think that there is absolutely no question that her involvement in pulling us out of iraq, sending that up was key as secretary of state that's one >> there's no doubt in my mind in terms of economic policy,

international economic policy she was unbelievably strong as the secretary, and two >> sorry no. you've named two. one more. you can do it. >> yeah. well, look, i think strengthen the relationships with western european allies was important too and involving them constantly in being a part of this. we're not a go it alone country. folks felt with hillary clinton they were part and parcel of the world you've just done a better job of articulating that of hillary clinton has or some of other own top advisers. i think that gets to the points that republicans are making. a discussion for another day. peter, always good to have you on the program. thanks for joining us >> it's a pleasure coming up i.s.i.l. takes a page right out of the nazi propaganda play book.

our world what it is.

i just had a horrible nightmare. my company's entire network went down, and i was home in bed, unaware. but that would never happen. comcast business monitors my company's network 24 hours a day and calls and e-mails me if something, like this scary storm, takes it offline. so i can rest easy.

what. you don't have a desk bed? don't be left in the dark. get proactive alerts 24/7. comcast business. built for business. i.s.i.l.'s war reaches far beyond the battle field. the group also fights for recruits and its biggest weapon might be a sew aniesty indicated-- sophisticated machine. >> reporter: the attacks in paris were immediately seen on screens around the world, caught

in this video published. heard live during this sbn broadcast of a football match. violence captured on video has become its own language. >> translation: you are the followers. it is-- followers. >> reporter: i.s.i.l. has deployed that language endlessly. professional looking videos like this one released a day after the attacks. often with subtitles and news experts and flashy transitions. >> reporter: propaganda is not new, but it is becoming more effective >> it reached it's nefarious period when gobels became the minister of propaganda for the nazi party. >> reporter: he says there are two common threads throughout history. >> it comes in two forms.

one is raising the awareness for consciousness, the pay trow on theism-- pay trow on theism-- p arcs triotism, working towards the enemy to try to take away their will to win. it's both terror and celebration. >> reporter: i.s.i.l.'s propaganda pursues those goals. they're trying to look good and appeal to recruits while also frightening their enemies. it's worth noting that u.s. military recruitment videos use the same visual play book. they offer the chance for heroic and display the fire power of the united techniques >> the techniques they use are drawn from media. this is a video they put out in 2014. they go on to execute a pilot. in the lead-up to interviewing

him they do all these graphics that set up the story and they're quite familiar. later on when they're actually talking to him, there's this sort of affect where they are both interviewing him and then zooming out on the maps above him. it looks very familiar. that's because you see it all the time. for instance, in video games. here is 2009 call of duty. it's a series of games, one of the most popular of all time. it's that flashing in on the map. it's worth noting here also that later in this game you're called upon to basically shoot up an airport, execute civilians, a whole crowd of them. you can get through the scene without actually doing this, but you're certainly given the opportunity to. western media puts out this imagery all the time. the difficulty with this is i.s.i.l. is actually doing this stuff, but it's no wonder that their propaganda mirrors what we put out in the media.

>> it's using many of the camera techniques, sound techniques, store development technical in particulars. -- techniques. we're used to seeing this in our entertainment industry. at the same time it should be haunting to ourselves because no-one more than the united states has, despite the objections of parents and school teachers and psychologists and everyone else, no-one about the united states has violence in cinema and movies. >> reporter: i.s.i.l. is also following a very effective rule of publicity. keep supplying the media with fresh info. al-qaeda put out only sporadic footage, but every week i.s.i.l. offers something new for journalists to pick up. in a world steeped in our media, the difficulty for the audience is being able to tell the difference between fiction and reality

the fight against i.s.i.l. is escalating, not just on the battle field but also on line, computer hackers are going after i.s.i.l. on the web, groups like aanonymous. the activity on line is being chased by an editor, american research from intelligence on terrorism. she joins us now. for security reasons she does not want us to reveal her location. we hear a lot about i.s.i.l.'s use of social media and it's often described as savvy, but how effective is it in your view. is it really that good? >> it is the key cornerstone for their whole push in both militarily speaking and idea logically speaking the group aanonymous say they're up for the challenge. they want to disrupt i.s.i.l.'s activities. what would that look like?

what could they do to block i.s.i.l.? >> in isn't new. anonymous has been doing this for a long time. they declared war on the islamic state almost immediately as soon as it producing mass propaganda on line. their effectiveness is not much more than being able to keep the fan club busy in other words, what do you mean keep the fan club busy? >> it takes a lot of time to create a new twitter account, youtube channel, facebook. if you're constantly being taken down, you're also trying to keep coming back up. they do. they pop back up as soon as they are taken down. their effectiveness in the fact that they're keeping people busy that could be doing something else with their time, but otherwise they're just playing wakam ole every time i.s.i.l. pops up something you new it is knocked

down. how does anonymous do that? >> they do it across board. they have cell strategy just like they do with other hacking things that they do. they have a widespread network worldwide that focuses on certain things. they have people focusing on report on the youtube, focusing on daily video sites and trying to get algorithms to pick up certain accounts so that it will automatically be taken down. they report to twitter on a regular basis. it's an endless effort for them to constantly send emails and constantly harass other businesses in order for them to take action and take these people down this harassment, how does that compare to the cyber warfare that the u.s. government and other agencies are doing so far as trying to target

i.s.i.l.? >> i can't speak to what the u.s. government and other agencies are doing in terms of targeting i.s.i.s. we know that they're able to intercept communications and go very deep within certain networks, but they don't make that public. i believe that they just are able to intercept messages in between communication hubs per se we saw a piece about the value of propaganda on both sides. how crucial is non-mass in terms of boosting the psychological moralee of people thinking about great, they're going after them. how is it important to both psychology on both sides? >> it bolsters the anonymous which is a large volunteer cyber army, but i don't think it does much to combat the messaging of islamic state.

just as your piece before pointed out islamic state does messaging across the board on every kind of topic. they never really know what's going to switch a recruit to their side. so they do everything from ice cream socials all the way to execution videos and everything in between. they put them out on every platform there is imaginable. right now we don't have an effective counter narrative in any one topic much less all the broad speck drums of topics out there the editorial of terrorism research. thanks for coming on. we appreciate it. >> thank you so much for having me that is our show for today. thanks for joining us. the news continues here on al jazeera america. era america.

anytime, anywhere. more on every screen. digital, mobile, social. visit aljazeera.com. follow @ajam on twitter. and like aljazeera america on facebook for more stories, more access, more conversations. so you don't just stay on top of the news, go deeper and get more perspectives on every issue. al jazeera america. on america tonight hostages taken in a french-speaking capital. is it tied to the horror of i.s.i.l. or is another force at work?