We dont telegraph our purchase. Could the cooperation with the Bashar Alassad regime be on the table. Times you have to cooperate with and share information with bad guys. Hamas says it has executed spice for israel. Russian convoys have crossed the border into ukraine. Waited long enough. It was time to move. The pentagon says there will be consequences. Kyiv calls it a direct invasion. A fingertip analysis to combat its food shortages. The healthy autistic like behavior. We hoped it might be treatable even after diagnosis. We begin, with questions about how officials describe apocalyptic, beyond anything we have ever seen. The are beheading of james foley by Islamic State militants constituted a jihaddist Type Movement dependence the United States. We have made clear time and time again, we are going to come after you if you come against americans. We are not going to be restricted by borders. While direct action in syria was possible, no decisions have been made and the president currently on vacation in Marthas Vineyard has not given further beyond iraq. Or that sympathizers could be radicalized 50 groups online propaganda have worried u. S. And european governments for months. On friday the fbi and the department of Homeland Security sent a bulletin to Law Enforcement officers around the country urging them to be vigilant for threats against the i. S. While there were no known threats its clear that officials are taking i. S. Very seriously. Join us from the pentagon rear admiral john kirby, good to have you with us. Thank you. Hearing the chilling words from your boss, defense secretary chuck hagel, highway the white house says i. S. Is holding three other americans, that after this horrible beheading of james foley, this is all scaring people in a way we probably havent been scared since 9 11 but what are we going to do about it . There is uncertainty about what the strategy is. Well, i dont think the purpose is certainly not to scare people. Thats not the intent. And i dont think that you know americans need to be feared in that regard. But this is seriously, this is a serious threat i. S. I. L. Poses not just to iraq but the to the region. They have aspirations to attack western targets and we do have a strategy. The strategy is on multiple levels here. We certainly have a military component to it but there is a political component to it and there is a diplomatic component to it and were frankly taking a regional approach here. The military piece is only a small piece and the military piece is not going to solve all the problem. The real threat that i. S. I. L. Governance. It is defeating the ideology. And once it defeats ideology of the region they will cease to be the threat they are. The assad regime has done nothing but approach the fear of the people. When you speak of Good Governance isnt this a region that really has never seen Good Governance . Well, this is a region that has certainly struggled with Good Governance, there is no question about that but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt pursue that as a goal. And were gratified about what we see in iraq with the naming of a new Prime Minister and efforts to form a unity government. We think thats really the long term answer here. To the i. S. I. L. Threat inside iraq. Were helping and wire were going to help were going to help from a military perspective, when and where we need to, thats not going to change, but ultimately it is not going to be a military solution. Chuck hagel said i. S. Is a threat like weve never seen before. There was very little urgency in the way the white house was dealing with i. S. Or our diplomats, secretary kerry and our soldiers secretary hagel ahead of where the white house is . No, theres no difference in views here. I think everyone shares the same sense of urgency and the say sense of purpose. And the vaim realit same realistic approach to what i. S. I. L. Poses. They are not like any terrorist network weve seen in the past, i think thats what shail secretary hagel was referring to. They have military prowess, they are interested in grabbing ground and holding it and possessing infrastructures to continue to resource themselves and that makes them different. That makes them unique. And everybody i think has the same sense here of how to move forward. To your point, general martin dempsey, on thursday, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff addressed the elephant in the room which is what you brought up, the fact that i. S. Controls all sorts of land and military bases in iraq. Can they be addressed without defeating that part of the organization which exists inside syria . The answer is no about. Security Council Advisor ben rhodes said that the white house agrees with general dempsey, that i. S. May have to be attacked in syria and we should not be restricted by borders. Are we going to see a large increase in the mission . We dont telegraph our purchase here in the pentagon. But everybody is of the same mind. We recognize the sanctuary they have in syria and the threat they pose to the entire region. But what general dempsey also said is addressing the threat they pose in syria cant just be solved bying military means. There has to be an international approach. Rhodes added that the president hasnt been presented with options to ramp up the u. S. Response. How soon do you think that will happen . We are not on a specific timetable with respect to that, antonio. We in the pentagon are keenly focused on this challenge. We are Planning Organization that shouldnt surprise you, we are always thinking about options and thinking about alternatives. And when we need to present options and alternatives, up the chain of command, we certainly will do that. Well how about helping the people in the region that have been our allies . We of course have rejected cooperation with Bashar Alassad in syria. The administration though has been slow to help Syrian Rebels the more moderate ones. The iraqi forces are getting there too slowly, complaints have been made. We are already conducting some of those efforts and i would take issue with the complaints that critics have been making. As far as the kurdish resupplying mission, the Iraqi Government has been resupplying kurdish organization, we have been helping in organizing that effort. Including albania who just recently offered to pitch in and help here have jumped in to help with that effort and we are looking at perhaps doing it directly through the u. S. Military. Secretary hagel set up a task force to look at this, no decisions have been made but were looking at that. You talked about syria and the moderate opposition, the United States has continued to support a moderate opposition in syria. We have submitted a budget of 500 million to equip a moderate opposition. About Good Governance, assad and his regime is a big part of the problem here. They have created the conditions that has allowed i. S. I. L. To exist and flourish in syria. Last question, the white house finally said on friday that the attack on james foley was a an a terrorist attack on the United States. At this point should we see this fight against i. S. As an action of selfdefense for the United States . Weve already in many ways considered this inside iraq as an act of self defense. The president gave us the authority to conduct air strikes in iraq to protect u. S. Personnel and facilities to so that, we have also taken efforts to help humanitarian disasters but we are already striking at i. S. I. L. Inside iraq in the effort to protect u. S. Personnel and facilities. Rear admiral john kirby, as always its a pleasure to have you with us. Thank you, antonio gm to be with you. We are joined by neda bakos, a former Central Intelligence agency analyst, working on the relationship between iraq, al qaeda and 9 11. The chief targeting officer, ever you have criticized the criticism against i. S. I. S, the president earlier this year sarcastically referred to the group as Junior Varsity terrorists. Why has it taken so long for the u. S. To see i. S. As the significant threat it seems to say it is now . Well, i. S. Is actually a metamorphosis of zarqawis organization. , a secondary organization compared to al qaeda central. So i think in some ways that sort of myth was holding for quite some time within the administration. Now we have seen that i. S go ahead. No, go ahead that i. S. Is a very serious threat. You posed a question on twitter this week, what if due oa deal assad stopped slaughtering his own people . Warning sau assad that if he exposed himself to attack from the United States, the white house has rejected out of hand cooperating with assad to defeat i. S. Your reaction. You know i wouldnt be advocating partnering with assad to go after i. S. Mainly because he is part of the problem. Hes created a vacuum that has allowed i. S. I. S. To grow to the strength they are today by largely ignoring them and allowing them to take over some of the territory while he focused on the moderate rebel gripes so i think that it would be dilutional to think that we could delusional to think that we could actually trust him. We have created a leverage to deal with him, i. S. I. S. Is taking over territory much anticipated. It is estimated they actually hold territory thats possibly the size of the u. K. So if we are to go in and actually take action against i. S. I. S. I think it behooves us to at least start engaging with assad, in addition to the sanctions, and allowing us to go in and take care of the problem while negotiating with him a ceasefire, it is in everyones best interest to end the civil war at this point. Now a man who was formerly ambassador to the region ryan corroboratinger, has advocated shifting the emphasis away from assad, the u. S. Has to consider as bad as assad is, there is something worse. Isnt there a danger and theres a history of it of blowback when we end up helping these butcher dictators . Yes. I mean and iraq is actually an example of that. We can learn from the lessons of the invasion of 2003. Were now discussing the r rebaathification of the area, to expect a legitimate presence in the area. They are the long term i dont think is in thens best interest to let assad remain in power. If we do go into syria with bombing runs we become pretty much a defact to cooperator of assad, we become the enemy of his enemy. That puts us on the same side as hezbollah, assad and iran, which a weird place for the u. S. To be in. Were almost becoming part of the proxy war at this point. But nowp now were seeing demonstrations of the supporters of the assad regime, saying they are not getting enough help from i. S. I. S. For the assad regime, there is actually populace report, and they dont feel their own government is actually doing enough. I think theres an opportunity here that we need to explore diplomatly. Within syria, another former ambassador robert ford resigned, he says that we cant help out assad because of his horrible behavior, his cooperation with al qaeda, and his position all along was to help the moderate rebels in syria. We just heard rear admiral john kirby say, the efforts are ongoing. Is this too little too late, and assad falls, isnt there a danger that syria becomes a bigger vacuum that ends up getting filled by i. S. And not the moderates . Right. I think we cant have enough of a coalition, they are up against a monumental effort at this point. So leaving the vacuum there, if assad is actually owfte ousted out of power. Really appreciate you joining us to give us your perspective. Thanks. Thank you. And now for some more stories from around the world. We girn in ferguson, missouri where the protests finally seem to be calming down. The National Guard started leaving ferguson, friday, after the shooting of Michael Brown two weeks ago. With only a few isolated arrests over the past couple of days, police are hopeful that gatherings over the weekend will be peaceful. But police are worried that browns funeral on monday will reignite the violence. Nicholas maduro, has suggested fingerprinting, and preventing people from buying too much of a single item or diverting supplies to the black market. Translator the establishment of the biometric system will be similar to how fingerprints were captured for the system of election. We end in washington, d. C, where the Washington Post has taken a stand over the name of washingtons nfl team. The post will no longer use the name redskins, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves. The Editorial Board has long urged the company to stop using the term. Does not apply to sports coverage. The post hopes that Dan Schneider will take action. And thats some of whats happening around the world. Coming up, nato claims Russian Artillery is in ukraine and supporting russian separatists. Has russias invasion of ukraine begun . And later, hamas publicly executes people they claim are. Israeli and our social media producer, Hermela Aregawi is here, whats trending . While youre watching let us know what you think, join the conversation on twitter ajconsiderthis and on our facebook and google plus pages. The crisis in ukraine against tid intensified on friday. Ukrainian officials accused russia of staging a direct invasion after more than 200 trucks carrying what are supposed to be relief supplies for separatist held areas entered ukraine without permission. The ukrainianian military said no more than 35 trucks had been checked for military contraband. Adding that russia should remove the convoy from ukraine if they dont they will face the consequences from our partners in the international community. In new york im joined by nina krucheva. Author of the lost khrushchev. Nina, good to have you with us. Thank you. As ive said, russia has moved military trucks into ukraine. All along the crisis without providing any proof of their allegation. So again, the russians denying that theyre doing this. Why would Vladimir Putin do something as blatant az moving Russian Artillery into ukraine. We didnt know it was moved this time or some other time that he was accused of doing this. Because all this military equipment has been it has been documented theyve been moving back and forth. So its probably may not necessarily be this time around and probably not associated with a convoy. Because i do believe that the white trucks are going to be the white trucks and exactly what putin says they are intended for humanitarian aid because this is also his pr campaign. He is helping the ukrainians, those who are now in humanitarian distress. While poroshenko the ukrainian president is actually supplying the humanitarian disaster. Thats how the he would say the west is out to get us. That is what he always says, but the only way he can do it is, were helping the people in distress. While the military equipment may go has already gone into ukraine some other way outside the international view. But assuming youre right, this is still an effect, they moved the trucks into luhansk, which the ukrainians had pretty much taken over the city. Arent they pretty much preventing the ukrainians from having any more gains because the danger is that youre going to hurt a humanitarian convoy. Well, they have. And i actually think that thats why the convoy was stuck on the russian border for some time. Because ukrainian was really blocking it ukraine was really blocking it. Despite the fact that ukraine was claiming there were other problems, it lets the convoy, humanitarian, even if it is truly a humanitarian convoy, into luhansk, there would have to be a ceasefire, the rebels would have time to regroup. What putin did is he waited for a week there and then he said fine if you cannot provide ceasefire and i cannot help them some other way im going to move it in and i will force you to stop and therefore the rebels would regroup. But then have the ukrainians in fact just played right into putins hands because putin again narrative when it comes to the humanitarian convoy is that poroshenko, the president of ukraine, has stalled and that this is humanitarian aid that is desperately needed and so why didnt the ukrainians figure out a way of letting this in so putin couldnt get a pr side to this . They all were trained by the same school so he knows exactly how putin is going to play that game. And so ukraine probably should have addressed the convoy story right from the beginning, inspected it immediately, let it in, because poroshenko also played his own paracampaign as you remember after putin sent his trucks, poroshenko sent his trucks because he would look really really bad to the public, if hes such a great peace keeper, poroshenko isnt helping his own people in luhansk, even though they are against him. So it was really a game. I think putin is greater because he was also kgb trained, poroshenko is trying to balance a lot of other issues so he is not as quick as providing counterbalance. But somehow in the middle of all this whats getting lost is a country has sent trucks into another country without authorization and according to nato they have got artillery there, here is something ukraine president Petro Poroshenko said on friday. We will do our best that this does not lead to more serious consequences. But owne yatsenyuk yuck said, not russian separatists. How dangerous has the rhetoric been getting . But the stakes have been up for how long we have been talking about it. So it is and i dont think its actually its lost. Its not lost that russia actually went into sovereign country. It hasnt been lost. Another thing that yatsenyuk yuck said, yes, russia already invaded ukraine and it it in crimea. It did it in march. Russians wanted crimea. He thought probably with donetske and luhansk, and other places in ukrainian that would be the same story. Because frankly crimea is actually a drain on russian resources if it doesnt have other east ukraine support. But it didnt work out this way. And moreover 60 of russia