bombs that really upset the international community because there were fifty seven strikes in pakistan somalia and yemen countries the us was not at war with and didn't even have ongoing conflicts within and the world was kind of horrified there was a lot of talk that went something like this what a second we're bombing in country outside of war zones that it is impossible that's a slippery slope ending in us just bombing all the time nancy whichever president follows bush will be a normal adult person with a functional brain stem of some sort. and will therefore stop this madness. now. we were so cute and what we were we were like a little kid waking up. under president obama there were five hundred sixty three strikes largely by drones that targeted pakistan somalia and yemen despite the fact that bombing outside of a war zone is a for riffing a violation of international law and global norms a and we're targeting people for pretty crimes all right and this guy in the hill dr jonathan looks kind of like he might do something we don't like one day let's take out his whole family and his home

bombs that really upset the international community because there were fifty seven strikes in pakistan somalia and yemen countries the us was not at war with and didn't even have ongoing conflicts within and the world was kind of horrified there was a lot of talk that went something like this wait a second we're bombing in country outside of war zone is it possible that's a slippery slope ending in us just bombing all the time nancy whichever president follows bush will be a normal adult person.

pakistan have come down considerably from the high point. so you're going to see more in places like yemen and somalia, fewer in places like pakistan so that will sort of impact what the aggregate number looks like as well. i think it's worth keeping in mind that strikes in pakistan were partially intend for degrading al qaeda, were also partially intended for force protection for u.s. forces in afghanistan whereas now as luke was mentioning in places like yemen you may -- it may be force protection for partner forces rather than necessarily for u.s. forces. so just sort of put some context around those numbers. on the issue of partners that we work with, you know, i'm in agreement with josh that i think there is an important -- importance of looking both at who our close allies are that sometimes are our natural partners or natural allies and also places where we will need to work with something because that's where the threat is. i would add on another piece to that which is i think often when we look at partnerships and what we want out of our partners, we tend to come at it very much from sort of what is the threat and what is it that we th

the survey was first conducted seven years ago and ranked afghanistan, pakistan, india, and somalia asmen. this year, though, reuters extended the list to ten countries, and surprisingly the u.s. ranked as the tenth most dangerous country for women. it comes, of course, after the me t "me too" campaign. really startling to see the u.s. on the list. >> it's shocking for the united states to see that. >> lewis. >> we're joined live from london. we're getting mixed messages from the trump administration. that uncertainty obvious having a negative impact on the markets, and you're going to talk about harley-davidson that's moving some of its production overseas, so break it all down for us. >> all right. try to follow this if you can. we had this major selloff in new york thanks to a very contradictory day in washington, d.c. this started with a report that chinese would have it. and it's not only chinese but other countries. then pete navarro, the trade guy in the white house came on cnbc and tried to explain there'd been an examination of unjust discriminatory trade practices, section 30

not onlyng ttifly to somalia and pakistan put there he was dancing on the first amendment line in a way that in five years we could not nail him. >> so was that the commonality? >> maybe it made us worthy adversaries. but jesse was a challenge for us to counter chair is tremendously well-placed and online they knew what they were doing but nevertheless he was still radicalizing to mobilize toward violence and frankly i am nosure of these changes because u.s. attorneys did not want to touch the case and with that specificity of threat but theno be out e online be out there online that you can say anything pretty much about anybody so specifically what was it that he did made the difference? >> so i guess first of all guess you could say anything want to directly calls for attacks to harm an individual so my probation charge was communicating a threat so he posted a picture with a knife in his back. so the south park riders would end up. >> so there was a video deemed to be inappropriate and inflammatory against muslims and then they found out so this was a clear reference. what would be

not only will these people fly to somalia or afghanistan or pakistan, very was dancing on the first amendment in a way that for 5 years they could mail them. >> is that, now lie the? >> different times. >> at least you overlapped. >> did not. >> do you see that? jesse was a challenger, we happened to have in -- informants very well placed. online human assets, we knew what they were doing but nevertheless, propagandizing and recruiting people to mobilize toward violence. what i believe is his mistake, i am not sure how the story changes. and didn't want to touch the case. only with the line and specificity of his threat, and gordon kronberg, and on the line. >> racial hatred is a crime. germany, holocaust and i was a crime. what was the line the revolution was to craft, and made the difference. >> unless it is directly providing access to harm an individual. mildly charge was communicating a threat. posted a picture and answered him. he said they didn't like -- south park writers. the evangelical engineers alongside -- it was deemed to be inappropriate against muslims particularly muslim wome

not only were all of these people wanting to fly to somalia or pakistan. there he wa dancing first amendment line. for 5 years, we could not nail him. >>was that a common >> yes, i was asleep are. >> did you overlap? >> i did not. it made is where the adversaries. [ indiscernible - low volume ] jesse was a challenge for us from a counterintligenc perspective. he had been tremendously well placed. online, we knew what they were doing. nevertheless, jesse was still radicalizing and recruiting people to mobilize for olence frankly, myelief is, if it had not been for these and in, not sure how the story would've changed. the u.s. attorney's office in new yorkwa to touch the case. this is the freedom of speech. it's only when zachary crossed the line with the specificity of his threat at the park. they alwethe precutor to be out there on the line. everything fell into place from there. >> dig into that for a minute. in the united kingdom, this is a crime. you can say anything about anybody in this country. what was the line that they ossed? specifically what di

it's a worry in places like mali and somalia, yemen, and even parts of pakistan which is a much stronger state but still has some areas not completely under control of the government. we are evolving in the strategy to deal with them. a use of drones, special forces, training the local forces, the indigenous forces to help us. hoping that strategy will slow down there is always a feeling that terrorist will get through. it happened in the boston marathon bombing, some got through. not because they are organized by foreign countries, but because ideology, this feeling of victimization, this feeling of radical ideology and empowering them has a hold on a certain small number of people. that will be almost impossible to stop. but we could do a better job of uncovering it and being more aware of it. nonetheless, the whole elements of stateless terror groups is an important factor and it will be for the foreseeable future. >> host: what percent of american foreign-policy attention is focused on the rogues? >> guest: a great deal. it is episodic. we do have a problem with china from time to ti

also point out, unless i'm mistaken, strikes in pakistan has come down considerably from the high point. so you're going to see more in yemen and somalia, fewer in pakistan. so that will sort of impact what the aggregate number looks like as well. it's worth keeping in mind that strikes in pakistan were partially intended for degrading al qaeda, were also partially intended for force protection for u.s. forces in afghanistan, whereas now, as luke was mentioning in places like yemen, it may be force protection for partner forces rather than necessarily for u.s. forces. so just put some context around those numbers. on the issue of partners that we work with, you know, i'm in agreement with josh that i think there's an important -- importance of looking at both who our close allies are, that sometimes are our natural partners, or natural allies. and also places where we're going to need to work with somebody because that's where the threat is. but also i would add on another piece to that. which is, i think often when we look at partnerships and what we want out of our partners, we tend to come at it very much from sort of what is the th

i would also point out that mistaken, you will see more and places like somalia and fewer in places like pakistan so that will sort of asect the aggregate number well. it is worth keeping an mind that strikes in pakistan were partially intended for degrading al qaeda and partially intended forcestection for u.s. in afghanistan, were now in yemen it may be forced protection for partner forces rather than for u.s. forces. agreement with josh. right? i think there is an important of looking at who our close allies allies, andural also places where we will need someone because of the threat. but i will add, i think when we look at partnerships and what we want out of our partners we tend to come at it very much from sort of, what is the threat and what is it that we think that we need. and i would argue, one of the ?hings i do try to argue, right would be the united states would do well to sort of be more cognizant of what it can actually expect from its partners. it is nice to want, but what can we actually expect? not is when we get into just what is that partners capability would also what other t

number six is pakistan due mostly to the lack of economic resources in the prevalence of honor killings number five is the phobe progressive regressive regime of saudi arabia number four is somalia with syria coming in third and afghanistan and second india came in as the most dangerous place for women in the world. they were asked to base this on six categories healthcare discrimination cultural traditions sexual violence non-sexual violence and human trafficking first health care this includes not only access to it but education awareness of health related issues this survey found that afghanistan the second most dangerous place for women overall has a terrible infant mortality rate of one hundred ten per one thousand live births in comparison infant mortality in the united states is about five point eight deaths per one thousand live births second is discrimination for women this can mean an inability to make a livelihood job discrimination a lack of land and property rights as well as a lack of access to equal education and adequate nutrition the second worst country for discrimination of women is saudi arabia despite claims they're becoming more progressive while allowing w