hi. thanks for watching this special edition of the effect of the growing terror threat. big news today. a stream of terror attacks taking place across the world. in france man suspected with ties to isis beheaded one person and injured two others after ramming his car into gas tanks and triggering an explosion. in tunisia 36 people are dead and 36 wounded after a gunman opened fire at a beach resort full of foreigners full of tourists. in kuwait at least 25 people killed after a suicide bombing

at a shiite mosque. isis taking credit. no evidence yet on whether the attacks were coordinated. isis fighters reportedly slaughtered at least 145 civilians in syria yesterday. these shocking attacks remind us not om is the war on terror not over we may be losing it. joining us from washington with reaction to all of this lieutenant colonel ralph peters. a rash three today, one yesterday. seems like coordination. would you push back on that? >> no. actually there was another attack in what used to be syria yesterday. what you are seeing is not perfectly synchronized. this is not the national ballet. what it is is a general order, attack during ramadan. you have attacks such as the one in tunisia, big attacks that make a difference planned a

long time in advance. self-starter attacks like the one in france. you're going to get more. through the holy month of ramadan. holy for muslims. they are going to pull out all the stops because islamic state has had some reverses lately. they're still on the offensive, but they have had setbacks. they want to counter act that image and reach out to their global fan club and convince them they're not only still a viable player but they're winning. >> in france the beheading, the guy, the person the victim was beheaded and left strategically at an american plant in france. you don't think that has significance or you do? >> you have to keep these attacks in perspective. we saw the three attacks we know of today, one really really mattered. the one in tunisia. it came on top of another attack in march on a museum and they're both aimed at the tourist industry. tunisia, the only success story, the sole success story of the arab spring where democraticcy sort

of works. relies on tourist dollars. they barely got through the first attack. the second attack will have killed the tourist century and islamic state wants to destroy it. the events in france, by comparison comparison it was a minor event. i feel we overhyped that one. played into islamic state's hands by making it look like a huge success which helps their recruiting. i'm all for reporting on terrorist incidents but i think we need to be more judicious and cover the big ones as big ones but let's not make the minor attacks into fake successes that actually help the islamic state's propaganda campaign. >> is that what they're doing? are they feeling the pressure, being pushed back so they have to step it up? they're drowning people in cages now, looking for the shock value? is it more of that? are we winning, in other words, by the aggressive nature of their attacks? >> well first of all, no we're

not winning. we're not even playing a strong defense. we're just passive and reacting. until we get truly ruthlessly on the offense, we're not going to win. but you raised a very important point about how their videos have to be ever-more imaginative and brutal and ever-more colorful. islamic state has a brand. it's a global brand, the starbucks of terror. it's like a hollywood franchise. ironman or spiderman or star wars. every sequel has to have more imaginative digital effects to keep the audience excited and coming back. for islamic state, their creative department and they have one, has to create ever-more brutal and savage atrocities because they're trying to keep the punks in the basement. whether the basement is in damascus or dallas. they're trying to keep them interested and hot and bring them over to jihad.

for us these videos are repellant. unspeakably disgusting for disaffected young men, muslim converts jail birds, these videos are inspirational and they want part of the action. >> now we're seeing a couple -- one picked up in colorado this week. there was one picked up in brooklyn this week. our american youth, people who are disillusioned and lost are they latching onto the isis propaganda? >> they certainly are. europe has a much bigger problem with islamist terrorism. we have different sets of immigrants. most american muslims are law-abiding and pretty hard-working. we've got the pediatricians and the physicists. europe got the welfare kings and queens the semi-literate. you can become an american -- >> i am reading today that isis

may be forming groups cells along the southern border hooking up with mexican drug cartels. >> oh yeah. >> we have a very porous southern border. >> i am not saying there is no domestic threat. it's growing. look who we're getting. we're getting the young punks, jailbird converts. our law enforcement deserves more credit than they get. they've stopped a lot of plots. some will get through. we are under threat. we will see americans murdered savagely but europe has a much bigger problem. >> colonel, there was a report yesterday that came out that said -- according to the report americans are more at risk by -- from right-wing extremists than we are by terrorists. do you care to comment on that? >> well i am waiting for the white house to blame today's terrorist attacks on the confederate battle flag. you can spin statistics all sorts of ways but all i can

tell you is extremists of all kinds are dangerous. right, left i don't care if they're from mars. extremists are dangerous. it wasn't crazy white guys that perpetrated 9/11. >> what do you think of the first level of defense being law enforcement? do we need to get them with more resources? look i see these issues i see france kuwait. the ones that scare me are the ones where they're picking people up in brooklyn and colorado. they're right here home. back yard. >> any of us could be victims. somebody who doesn't like this broadcast tonight. one, we can't live in fear. two, law enforcement, again, they deserve more credit than they get. i don't want to live in a world without good cops. we've got a lot of good cops fbi on down. but ultimately we're losing ground because we don't go after the root of the problem. unless you are willing to accept the fact that yes, there is a military solution and it is the only solution and you are willing to come in with serious air strikes, with special ops,

conventional backup when needed and not worry about -- not worry about collateral damage. we know where they are. we know where islamic state is and don't go get them. that is criminal. >> it's crazy. colonel peters we should put this thing to rest once and for all. thanks. check out ralph's latest novel "valley of the shadow." up next it is apparent president obama's foreign policy is in shambles. are his overseas stumbles leaving us vulnerable at home. stay tuned for more on

in the impact segment tonight. president obama's crumbling foreign policy. today's attacks in france tunisia and kuwait delivered a fresh blow to the white house's strategy. a new fox news poll may give the

white house additional reasons to worry asking if the president is being too soft on islamic extremist. 56% say yes. 36 say no. joining us from palm springs, former u.s. spokesman at the united nations rick grannel. i assume you agree with this poll. 58% saying we're too soft on islamic. we can't even call them islamic extremists extremists right? >> right. i think that's a low number. i think the evidence is out there that this president is not only a disaster when it comes to having a strategy to fight islamic terrorists but we don't even have a diplomatic strategy. you look across the globe, eric at the south china sea, what's happening with the chinese. the chinese hacking us. you look in africa where sudan is starting to be a terrible problem yet again. the south africans were trying to hold the sudanese president. and the south africans have no

support from the americans or from the world to hold this killer. and what we're seeing is the diplomatic strategy as well as the military strategy from the white house, just nonexistent. it's very political in nature. from the beginning this president has said that he was going to bring all of our troops home. he wasn't going to start any wars. and that's a commitment that he has made even in the face of radical islam. and what -- what we're doing is we're messaging to our enemies that no matter what you do the political promise that president obama made in 2007 in the corn fields of iowa regardless of what these islamic terrorists do the president of the united states will keep his political promise to not start a war. that is really taking the threat of military action off the table.

it's a dangerous -- >> he has evolved on many other issues, why can he not evolve on this? talk about what's going on. in a few days the nuclear agreement with iran the deadline will hit, end of the month, tuesday, i believe. shouldn't we be walking away from this deal right now? isn't iran a major threat we're kind of down-playing right now? >> yeah. we're not facing the evidence that iran continues to sponsor terrorists and continue to finance terrorism around the world. they continue to be the number one state sponsor of terrorism, yet we have a president that's trying to cut a deal. i think we have to stop just complaining about this eric. we have to start demanding that the senate and the house, our elected officials, do something. and they need to do something radical. they need to actually stand up and say, we're going to stop the white house on this iran deal by holding other issues back. we can -- we can absolutely

effect the president's plan going forward on a whole host of other issues. i think it's that serious. what we need to do is have the senate leaders and house leaders stand up and say, we are going to stop certain programs from going forward, unrelated to the state department unless the president and john kerry pull back the terrible negotiation. we've even seen people on the president's team this week people who were appointed by president obama have now come forward to say, this deal is a disaster. this deal is weaker than what the u.n. negotiated. when you are weaker than the u.n. you know you have problems. >> the only way a deal could be struck the only way it should be struck is if there was -- i don't even think we should strike a deal but if you're going to do a deal because you are getting pressure from the other five nations negotiating the deal they want the deal because they want to buy iranian

oil. i understand. the only way it could go forward, if there was an anywhere anytime inspection agreement. iran has said no that's off the table. we should be walking because of that. >> you know eric what's frustrating is from the beginning of this negotiation in 2005 when the security council put forward their first resolution against the iranian regime we didn't have unfettered access then. the un inspectors have been frustrated since the beginning that there have been no unfettered inspections. why is the obama team only now, all these years later, throwing up their hands and saying oh we're still working on this anywhere-anytime inspection regime. we've known from the beginning that the iranians were not going to come clean. i have to say that this is again, where the senate needs to stand up and demand in every way possible that this stops.

>> iranians will say, here go ahead. you have unfettered inspection access to these four or five sites or ten sites, whatever it may be a hundred sites. who cares. they're going to build whatever they want to build somewhere else. you have to get anywhere anytime. let me ask you this rick. what positive outcome could possibly come from the obama administration by striking a deal? what are they thinking this deal can bring to them? >> well look i think the president's language has changed from iran will not get a nuclear weapon to iran will not get a nuclear weapon under my watch. i think that the calculation is again, going back to the political nature of susan rice and barack obama. they want to keep their political promises. this is all about looking consistent to the liberal base. this is not about stopping iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i -- >> does the liberal base want to deal with iran? does the liberal base not see

the dangers of iran? >> they do see the dangers. there is an agreement inside the democrat party and all the foreign policy types that this is inevitable. there has been a movement over the last couple years that iran will absolutely get a nuclear weapon. so if that's going to happen it's more about how we manage this process. there is no longer a belief that we can stop this. i think that's where we have a political difference in that many republicans and conservatives think, if you hold fast if you have diplomacy, you can have serious oil sanctions. >> it works -- >> no waivers like the president has given. you could bring them to the knees. the iranians and then go in with unfettered access and try to bring this down. >> we had that. they had one knee down. the other was on its way down. we took our hand off their shoulder. >> right. >> rick thank you very much.

next what should be done about the spreading threat from islamic terrorist? that report when we return.

in the unresolved problem segment tonight, what should be done to squash the mounting terror threat? the latest fox news poll shows it is at the forefront of many americans' concerns. 30% of voters say isis poses the biggest long term threat to united states. how do we actually solve this problem? with so few solutions coming from our leaders in washington? joining us from d.c. lieutenant colonel tony schaeffer from the london center for policy research. what are we doing wrong, colonel? >> first off, we're focusing on a fiction, the idea that this administration somehow believes bagdad needs to be leading the

effort shows the complete loss of contextual reality. there is no bagdad. there is no iraq. the more we have this policy eric of supporting bagdad saying that all the support we send to the kurds has to go through bagdad everything we're doing has to go through bagdad and ignore the concerns of the sunni who were alienated by bagdad it's a wholly owned subsidiary of tehran. we need to set it aside and figure out how to move forward with the pieces we have rather than the pieces we want to quote, make a -- we have to figure out a way to go forward. we have pieces which are winning, the kurds. we were in with senator john mccain ten days ago meeting with he and the kurds on this. the kurds are winning. what better to throw one of people who have the ability and

will to win and figure out a way to set aside what we want to do with bagdad. bagdad will not be helpful here. >> right now, colonel, we did the math on it. there has been 4700 air strikes since we started ten months ago. that comes to 15 per day. i don't know about you, but i remember when desert storm started. we were talking thousands per day. >> that's right. and i think that's the key here to follow on to what i think ralph peters said earlier. you have to be completely committed to winning. that means upwards of 100 or 200 air strikes a day. some of those, eric you're talking about 15 per day, half of those the airplanes come back with the ordnances still on them and didn't drop anything. we put forward the idea of an arab nato. we've invested in foreign militaries in that region for the past 50 years. i was at the army war college this week.

we have foreign officers attending university there. why don't we call in our investment. we've invested in the egyptians and jordanians and the saudi arabians. let's organize them for their own victory, their own defense into an arab type nato. what we're calling a red sea treaty organization. >> i'm not sure which side it would fall on colonel. the three-state solution sunni, shiite and kurd may not be such a horrible idea. >> exactly. that's our point here. you have to find a way -- you guys were talking about the iranians. we have to have something that counters the iranians quickly. so you have the basically the sunni crescent that can actually kind of organize the egyptians, jordanians and saudis. they have plentsy of money. we've trained them. if our training is not good what good is it? and allow for the three-piece partition to come into

existence, if you will. by the way, if we don't work with it to happen it will happen without us and then we'll have even more problems. >> do we risk under that scenario with the isis group from syria in that portion of iraq will they eventually try to work their way into the other two regions? will the kurds be more at risk if that happens? >> you have to consider the fact that if you don't do anything and sustain the current action the current course isis will spread like a huge ebola virus for terrorism, if you will. we have to be clear on this. our tactics must be focused on stopping isis and then strategically looking at how we can stop -- settle the whole region perhaps considering the breakup of the traditional boundaries and reradderadicalize the muslim faith. >> you might have hit upon a solution but they've been

trying to figure that out for many years. >> president of egypt says the muslims must have a reformation which says to be a good muslim you must get rid of violence. i have been working with a number of folks in england who are trying to work with us on this. they see a lot of benefits a will the of muslims have made regarding british society being jeopardized by this radicalization. many muslims recognize the danger to their faith. >> why don't the secular muslims take care of the extremist muslims muslims? >> part of it has to do with the fact that the radicals are much more effective in their messaging. let's face it. they kill people. you've got to be able to find a way to defend those who are trying to basically -- president al sisi is under constant death threat for saying what he did. this is where we can be helpful.

we can't do it for them. but the long-term solution first stopping isis and its spread. secondly looking at how we can settle the region. third, bring those elements of the muslim faith together to help them deradicalize their own faith. >> it strikes me that that's the only solution to it. al qaeda becomes isis becomes the next thing unless the secular muslims put the heat on the extremists. >> absolutely correct. >> it doesn't feel like they're doing it. >> that's why we need help. there are folks we can ally with. the more the white house denies the fact that radical muslim is the problem, the more time it will take to resolve this. >> i hear this colonel schaeffer. thank you. >> thank you. >> plenty more ahead. u.s. veterans from the iraq war say they're headed back to the middle east to join the fight against ice.sis. we'll hear from one of the vets

what up wheels! mr. auto-mo-deal! hey, it's the wheel deal! hey, hey, the duke of deals! i know a few guys in the rental car biz. let's go, 'wheels'. rental car deals up to 40% off.actor."

for headlines log onto foxnews.com foxnews.com. in the flashback segment. a group called veterans against isis are about to launch a fight on their own. bill spoke with the founder of the group. >> you guys have a group, all americans, mostly veterans mostly combat guys and you're going to go on your own to syria

to fight isis? is that it? >> well our primary mission is to liberate iraq under -- from under isis control. >> how many guys you got? >> we've got nearly two dozen veterans right now. i'm talking to a lot more recently. >> two dozen is not going to liberate anything from anything. if you go over with just a few, don't you run the risk of being kidnapped and beheaded by isis? i mean certainly they're looking for americans to hold hostage. >> we'll be working with various locals over there. i'll put my teams against four times the number of isis. they're not -- they don't have nearly the amount of training that we have. >> but you must acknowledge the dangers. so you're going over to a foreign nation and the u.s. government doesn't want you to go by the way, but they can't really stop you. you're going over there, and then you're partnering up with some people who you really don't know that well right? i mean they're supposedly anti jihadist but you really don't know do you?

>> well the peshmerga is a decent group. they're talking in congress right now about sending them aid, although it doesn't -- >> kurdistan, not syria? you're going to kurdistan first? >> we're establishing connections in both iraq and syria. the kurds are in both areas. >> all right. the kurds i trust more than -- if you drop into syria you get sold out. you know how dangerous it is over there. >> it will be dangerous regardless. >> it will be but i don't want to see your head on a stick, all right. american is worth a half million dollars over there. so matter how many guns you got. >> if they take me they are going to take my dead body. it ain't going to happen. >> you understand though the danger of dropping yourself into a war zone that's pretty much out of control. i mean there are some u.s. advisers over there. i don't think they're going to hang with you guys are they? >> hopefully we can get some. we already have three rangers on

our team. pretty good team coming together. >> ex-rangers. >> former rangers. yes, sir. >> i'm looking out for you here shaun. i'm not sure about the wisdom of this. i -- >> it's crazy, i admit it. >> obviously we want to defeat the jihadists, but -- i just you know -- if you go over there and you take a wrong turn you're going to be dead. >> we can't let fear incapacitate us bill. they need help over there. no one disagrees with that. who better than american veterans? >> how are you getting the money to go over? >> we're funding ourselves mostly. that's why we're reaching out for help. we're going to need all the help we can get in what is sure to be a lengthy and demanding mission. >> how are you going to get arms? >> we're going to have to purchase them over there because we can't take them. that's why we're raising money, arms. medical supplies. hoping to get armored med-evac

vehicle. make armored trucks and maybe a mini drone. >> how do you get them in there? how do you get yourselves into kurdistan? >> there will be obstacles but we can't let fear stop us bill. >> i wish you the best but i hope you figure it out. i don't want to hear a report three months from now you're being held in a cage someplace and set on fire. >> it's not going to happen bill. >> thanks for coming on. coming up which republican presidential candidate has the plan to fight terror. right back with that debate.

thanks for staying with us. continuing with our special edition of "the factor," the growing terror threat. the issue is front and center in the 2016 president campaign with

the republican candidates having different views on how to confront it. do any actually have the right plan to win the fight? here deanine borelli. you stay ted cruz brings it the best of all the candidates. why? >> we have researched this as conservative review. with ted cruz. he stands for israel. he is someone who has strong sanctions against iran and russia. he agreed with those sanctions. he is principled someone who is very outspoken and based on what we know of his track record in the senate i believe he is someone who would be good on foreign policy and national defense and keeping our country safe. >> did you dig down into specifics? in other words, would ted cruz send american boots on the ground into the fight? >> i know for sure i've read he will do air strikes. in terms of boots on the ground

i'm not sure about. >> michael, who do you think would be the strongest to fight terror? >> marco rubio has articulated clearly the absence of leadership in the middle east strategy. he said you can't say it's an isolated problem. he has identified it quite clearly. he has been on kind of the front lines of this immigration issue and he said yeah i'll go for an embassy bill once the borders are secure. he seems to have it more in-depth as to what are the issues. >> what about rubio? would he send american boots on the ground? >> he has called for air strikes. everybody has said we need a stronger policy there, nobody is willing to commit boots on the ground yet. they want to see what's happening in terms of the expansion of the caliphate. >> i noticed neither one of you

picked jeb bush. i'm a little surprised. a bush might be stronger on terror. they may send boots on the ground and that's what we need. >> i think his brother george w. bush would overshadow based on what happens in iraq. i think that would overshadow jeb bush in terms of what he would decide to do. >> what do you say, mike? >> rubio seems to be a fresh perspective. i think the bush dynasty has demonstrated a strong anti-counter-terrorism policy but i don't see jeb bush embracing that the same way that rubio does. again, i like his perspective on it. >> a lot of this fight with isis will be done via the internet. it's going to be done via maybe spying hacking into various groups including isis. either one of you -- michael, specifically you must have seen a lot of it in new york state. >> intelligence is essential. that's another part of the international debate. fascinating to see where people are on the nsa and data

collection. how you can't throw this thing away. let's not forget the lessons of 9/11. a lot of candidates are saying we're not going to go through that we're taking privacy over security. i think rubio has a better balance there where he said no we need this. >> talk about hillary now. what would she bring that would be different from president obama? >> first of all, where is she? we haven't heard really anything that she would p forth in terms of what to do. so who knows what hillary will do. the woman, i think, is hiding really under her office desk. she is not really coming forth to let americans know where she stands on certain issues. i believe people need to hear what her plans are and what she would put forth on the table. >> would a president hillary clinton scare you? >> it's funny. we know how the debate will begin with her. it's benghazi. it will start with benghazi.

she has to get through those questions and all those issues. so many things like missing emails and other issues. past that i don't think she would be weak on security but we haven't seen what this presidency would like like in that direction. >> what about rand paul? he said send boots but just the arabs. how is he perceived on terror? >> i know in 2012 he supported limited sanctions, especially in russia and iran but he is another one who is going to be overshadowed by his father who is -- he is a non-interventionist. i think he's going to have that on his baggage list if you will. >> what about it mike? >> rand paul makes me nervous. the libertarian perspective of government less is better. he was really against the collection of any data. i think you can't really take that out of the equation. you need more of that not less i think. >> you know who is the highest candidate right now as far as

movement up? donald trump. >> go ahead. >> well you know obviously he brings a business perspective. you're fired and all this type of thing. he has a base popularity and recognition that none of the other candidates have. what will be interesting to see is how tough will he be and how responsible will some of his viewpoints be in terms of how to conduct war on terror. >> problem solver. he is not soft-spoken for sure. time will tell in terms of what his plan would be. >> i have to tell you, if i am sitting across the table from some of the other candidates versus sitting across the table from donald trump and he's got the military behind him, i'm a little nervous. >> yes. well listen as i said you never know with politics. you mentioned donald trump. he is someone i see as a problem solver who knows folks rally behind him and support him. in terms of being president, we'll see. >> chris christie has not declared yet.

anyone think he'll bring something different to the table. >> no telling. >> michael? >> i don't know. he has been partnering certainly with new york in terms of some of the terrorism stuff. from a governor's perspective he has that viewpoint. i haven't seen him articulate a position that would break him from the pack on that. >> one of our guests said president obama will leave office and leave the incoming president with a huge mess pile to clean up. >> it is a big mess. americans really should be concerned about obama not having a plan at all, calling them a jv team not really showing good leadership. >> what about it mike? >> he went into office and basically said we're going to change the world perception of the united states. we're going to take a dominant role on the world stage. that hasn't happened. now we're seeing almost a repeat of what happened before 9/11. >> will we have another 9/11? you were there. you saw it. >> biggest concern is that they

have a safe haven to operate from. what you give these organizations time to develop it that's when they're the most dangerous. you have to be constantly proactive and going after them. that's not what we're doing here. >> odds of that happening? >> it's an incredibly coordinated and sophisticated attack. we have taken out a lot of their leadership. don't know. >> thank you very much. up next president obama blaming president bush for isis. we'll play the sound that you won't believe. stay tuned.

in the back of the book segment tonight, even as isis continues his march across the middle east president obama praised his strategy while criticizing president bush. >> it is an example of

unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot. we have a country coalition. we will slowly push back isil out of iraq. i'm confident that will happen. >> bill recently spoke with david who advised president obama on foreign policy. >> do you have any idea why president obama went against his generals and national security people all of whom on the record said we told him not to withdraw u.s. troops? >> i think it is pretty obvious because he came to office as the anti-iraq war candidate. >> so it was a political play? i don't think very few americans would have objected him. you would not have objected to

10,000 troops remaining to keep peace, would you? >> absolutely not. that would not alone have solved the problem with isis. the withdraw timeline for troops from iraq was set by president bush before he left office. president obama followed that timeline. >> what is president obama's strategy now today to defeat isis? what is it? >> his current strategy is to use air strikes to push isis back on its heels. >> doesn't seem to be working. >> that strategy is working for phase one. >> phase one? >> yes. and it has killed thousands of isis fighters. there has to be a second phase with boots on the ground. >> the second phase has not been

well defined. >> president obama has expressly ruled out boots on the ground. >> i don't know understand why the coalition can't kick in 5,000 troops. 300,000. 5,000 times 60. that's 300,000. okay. wouldn't that be able to overwhelm isis anywhere in the middle east? >> that would be great if that were to happen but you can't count on saudi arabia to do that. >> why not? >> because they're counting on america. >> wouldn't that overwhelm isis? >> in theory, yes. in practice it's never going to happen. >> if 300,000 troops were assigned to this task, the sue

sunnis and everybody else would get on that team. is it fair to assume that president obama is clueless in fighting the jihad? he has no clue what to do and the jihadists have gained power under his administration. would that be fair to say? >> that would not be fair to say. he has gained progress. >> if your opinion, why isn't he doing a lot more? >> well we need to think before we shoot. >> he's had a lot of time to think about this. >> he's putting together a plan. >> putting together a plan. it's been going on for more than a year. >> he needs to be arming and training the troops that are on the ground in contact with isis. they need more weapons. >> it is divided between the iranian jihadists on one hand

and the sunnis. >> my thoughts when we come back.

before we go tonight, a quick commentary. time to wake up america. we have a war with islamic terrorism. the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can start combatting it. we have a president who has buried his head in the sand with it. americans are beheaded. christians are drowned in cages and allied pilots are burned alive. american teenagers are self-radicalizing and taking up arm against our own people. i'd say we're at war and we're losing. any wonder why we're losing when we've trained four terrorists to

get back one man? i know they're not al qaeda or isis, but we're about to make a deal that would give iran nuclear capabilityiescapabilities. iran is the global leader in terrorism. they train jihadists. they have an integrated terror network that isis and al qaeda can tap into for the latest techniques. and we're aggressively trying to do a deal with them? it is crazy to think we can trust this regime. time to wake up and declare war on terror and unleash the most powerful military on the planet. send some jihadists to the afterlife. thank you for watching this special edition of "the factor."

the spin stops here because we're looking inging out for you.lvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlvlves. they seek equal dignity under the law. the constitution grants them that. what do you think? let me know. with the syrian regime terrorizing its people. >> they use the little poles to hit us and torture us. >> and isis on the rampage as well. >> either we become muslims or pay the tax money they want or they kill us. >> some wonder if america should do more. >> there's a full blown christian genocide. >> with jordan caught in the cross fire. its leader is trying to stand up to them. can america afford to stay on the sidelines? >> kill the bad guys you kill the bad guys tha