Al Qaeda and tactical nukes a fantasy, or a reality?

Report: Al-Qaida has obtained tactical nuclear explosives

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service

Al-Qaida obtained tactical nuclear weapons from Ukrainian scientists in 1998, the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported Sunday.

The Arabic daily reported that sources close to Al-Qaida said the terrorist group bought the nuclear weapons from Ukrainian scientists who were visiting Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998.

The report has not been confirmed.

The sources were quoted as saying that Al-Qaida actvists have hidden the weapons - each of which is about the size of a suitcase - in "a safe place."

Kandahar was the stronghold of the Taliban, which kept Afghanistan under tight religious restrictions until the United States attacked it in retaliation for the September 2001 attacks.

However, the sources said Al-Qaida doesn't intend to use the weapons against American forces in Muslim countries, "due to the serious damage" it could cause. But that decision is subject to change, the sources said, if Al-Qaida "is dealt a serious blow that won't leave it any room to maneuver."

The possibility of detonating the nuclear devices on American soil was also raised in the report, although no details were given.

In the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, serious concern arose in the West over the possibility that nuclear technology and weapons could spread to other groups, in part due to the difficult economic situation in the former communist lands. Several reports of the nuclear arsenal in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s indicated that a few dozen nuclear explosive devices had disappeared. One of the theories was that the devices disappeared in Ukraine, which claims that it handed over all its nuclear weapons to Russia.

I hope that its fantasy. However everything has been for sale, including nuclear subs, with or without the missles. Those who design, work with and gaurd these nukes don't get paid for months. The environment exists where nukes are available.

If Al Qaeda has one, I'm surprised they havn't used it.

Only a matter of time...

Only a matter of time...

I am at times fatalistic, but I am first and foremost realistic. It is only a matter of time before we see the plume of the unholy mushroom cloud over the US. The US cannot and will not mind its own business. Eventually, some terrorist faction, or other nation will retaliate at american intervention, and will set one off somewhere on american soil. The number of unaccounted warheads from the mobile ss20's that were in the baltic states is scary. The biggest check the US has in its favor, is the deterence of retaliation. The only problem is that certain terrorist or religous fanatics do not fear reprisal or death, therefore they are unshackled with "fear". Oppenheimer and Einstein knew after the first atomic test, the future horror that had been unleashed...

BP

The only problem is that certain terrorist or religous fanatics do not fear reprisal or death, therefore they are unshackled with "fear".

Click to expand...

Which is why I think the WOT was conceived. The premise of preempting these specific type attacks (with good intelligence) is paramount. However, it must be balanced - as is becoming more apparant - with a multi-national, UN-based effort to contain both the potential end-users and their proliferating enablers...

But the problem with multi-national forces is that it makes for intel. leaks. Not to mention the inevitable pissing contest that insues as to who's in charge of what and who will do what etc... We want to be so PC in this day and age that it takes 5x the effort to get only mediocre results. There are no modern day patton's willing to take the bull by the horns and have a "politicians be damned" attitude.

BP

Hey, no argument from me on the multi-national force argument. The failures are documented.

* Kosovo
* Balkans - remember Srebrenica and the "Safe Area" of Goradze?
* Israel/Lebanon border

More if I tried to think about it.


But remember, for every Patton, there's a McCarthy. Politicians be damned can work many different ways.

Off to watch Dr. Strangelove...

this sounds like bullshit for several reasons...

- if they bought a suitcase nuke in '98, then why did they use hijacked airliners on 9/11? that also begs the question of why they haven't used it since...

- tactical nukes are complex electronic devices. even if they had one, there's no guarantee they'd know how to use it...

- being complex electronic devices, tactical nukes are very delicate and would be hard to repair if something happened to them. unless the devices have been stored in a very stable environment, then there would be a good chance that these devices wouldn't even work after 6 years of bouncing around war-torn afghanistan...

- if the weapons are somewhere in afghanistan, then how do they plan on getting them here? the article states that they want to use them on u.s. soil because of their destructive capabilities. such devices would be very difficult to smuggle into the u.s...

- a week or two ago, there were reports that al queda has been eradicate by at least a third or more. with the taliban reduced to setting up camps in the hinterlands of afghanistan, al queda cell member ostensibly being held in guatonomo, and countless hundreds, if not thousands, of their ranks killed in fighting over the past 2 years, exactly what are they waiting for in regards to using such devices? you'd think after 2 years and many losses they'd want to make a big strike akin to 9/11...

- both u.s. and global security and terrorist awareness are at much higher levels now than they were at 9/11. if they didn't use it then, then how do they expect to get away with it now that everyone is looking for them to try such a thing?

sounds like scare-mongering to me. notice the mention of the possibility of attacks on american soil, but no other details than that? classic propaganda move. it's a buzz-phrase, something many readers will take away from the article. it feeds into fears of terrorism that are circulating throughout many countries right now. no details, just enough vague inuendo to keep the people on edge. remember, if the war on terror is to be successful you must remain in fear at all times. i mean, if you don't feel threatened by terrorists, then how can you fight against them? you can't, therefore for this to work people have to be frightened every once in a while. happened in the u.s. around the holidays with the orange alert terror thing. no real substance to the warning, but just enough danger mentioned to cause a general feeling of dread and uneasiness amongst the populace. thus people are subjugated by fear once again...

Simple fact of the matter is there are nukes missing, and thats concearn enough for me.

FEAR OF THE BUSH PLANET

FEAR OF THE BUSH PLANET

Hey all... there's nothing to scare about... no bad guys that needs Bush and his fatass to be scared of... all bullshit.

Take a second look with all the shit around the fear in usa... government needs a reason to do what they want, by gettin people scared of unknown enemy, they'll get peoples support for their actions.....totalitarian actions....

http://www.govsux.com/grand_deception.htm
and
http://www.govsux.com/

Only thing people should be afraid of is the US country & US culture they're living in. Fuck all this shit.

and what comes to those hijacked planes.... there wasn't any hijackin.... just US government that planned whole case...period.

Why least at 7 of the 19 so called "hijackers" has allready been founded alive... ?? use google... if you want.... the information is out there....

Dont take news as facts.... it's all illusion that's made for controlling the movements of CATTLE, HUMAN CATTLE.

Laurus Lamas said:

and what comes to those hijacked planes.... there wasn't any hijackin.... just US government that planned whole case...period.

Why least at 7 of the 19 so called "hijackers" has allready been founded alive... ?? use google... if you want.... the information is out there....

Dont take news as facts.... it's all illusion that's made for controlling the movements of CATTLE, HUMAN CATTLE.

Click to expand...

Now thats a conspiracy theory I hadnt heard yet Laurus, but where is the proof? Very interesting theory though.


peace

Hey AD, Outlaw, Laurus Lamas...good to see some action here...

angrydyke said:

this sounds like bullshit for several reasons...

- if they bought a suitcase nuke in '98, then why did they use hijacked airliners on 9/11? that also begs the question of why they haven't used it since...

Click to expand...

Why? Because it was a success - a smashing one - for under 500,000 USD. It also cost 19 men (allegedly). Pretty cheap considering what was accomplished.
Why since? Great question...but I think your answers are hidden in your questions...

- tactical nukes are complex electronic devices. even if they had one, there's no guarantee they'd know how to use it...

Click to expand...

You're right, but you're also (seemingly) discounting that they would have the know-how, or the capability to find someone who does.
Look who's sympathetic to the cause - even tangentially. Iran, Saudi Arabia, segments of Pakistan's elite, N. Korea (potentially, as they are tied to Iran in missile and nuclear development). Even if you discount three of the four for whatever reason, the pool to draw from is large. Especially in an underground market. It's just information after all.

- being complex electronic devices, tactical nukes are very delicate and would be hard to repair if something happened to them. unless the devices have been stored in a very stable environment, then there would be a good chance that these devices wouldn't even work after 6 years of bouncing around war-torn afghanistan...

Click to expand...

All the more reason why they wouldn't be wasted on a 9/11 airplane assault, or through a ship coming to port.
They need to do it right, if they can do it at all; if they even have them...and no one says they do with any certainty.

- if the weapons are somewhere in afghanistan, then how do they plan on getting them here? the article states that they want to use them on u.s. soil because of their destructive capabilities. such devices would be very difficult to smuggle into the u.s...

Click to expand...

How do drugs and other contraband get here? Where there's a will, there's a way. Discounting it because the mental idea of the magnitude of a nuke - which I believe many do - doesn't allow for the understanding that this device is what...suitcase sized..

- a week or two ago, there were reports that al queda has been eradicate by at least a third or more. with the taliban reduced to setting up camps in the hinterlands of afghanistan, al queda cell member ostensibly being held in guatonomo, and countless hundreds, if not thousands, of their ranks killed in fighting over the past 2 years, exactly what are they waiting for in regards to using such devices? you'd think after 2 years and many losses they'd want to make a big strike akin to 9/11...

Click to expand...

You would, and rightfully so. But we're in the present, with history a distant future (figure that one...lol) at the moment. We're waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It is scare mongering, even if the reports are true. But it is a possibility and should be pursued.
Al Qaeda has not lost effectiveness, it's just had a management reshuffle. It's a corporate entity that franchises...so until you can stem the blood from around the world, it's a possibility. I.e., a new reality. I think the uncomfortableness of it all is what drives the backlash to this war.

- both u.s. and global security and terrorist awareness are at much higher levels now than they were at 9/11. if they didn't use it then, then how do they expect to get away with it now that everyone is looking for them to try such a thing?

Click to expand...

Very fair question. On the one hand we are all more aware and working together (governmentally speaking), but on the other hand the holes are wide and getting wider.
The notion of American Homeland Security(tm) has turned to the trough-feeding the Pig of special interest and business. Holes...

sounds like scare-mongering to me. notice the mention of the possibility of attacks on american soil, but no other details than that? classic propaganda move. it's a buzz-phrase, something many readers will take away from the article. it feeds into fears of terrorism that are circulating throughout many countries right now. no details, just enough vague inuendo to keep the people on edge. remember, if the war on terror is to be successful you must remain in fear at all times. i mean, if you don't feel threatened by terrorists, then how can you fight against them? you can't, therefore for this to work people have to be frightened every once in a while. happened in the u.s. around the holidays with the orange alert terror thing. no real substance to the warning, but just enough danger mentioned to cause a general feeling of dread and uneasiness amongst the populace. thus people are subjugated by fear once again... [/B]

Click to expand...

Again, excellent point. It's the catch-22 of this thing, and the point that makes it so hard to explain why I'm for the WOT in it's original theoretical outlines (not necessarily the track or thought it's winding its way down now).
Simply though, IMO: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Say nothing and get hit - you're screwed. You lose credibility and authority.
Say too much of nothing in the hopes of giving out information, no matter how trivial - you're screwed. You lose credibility and authority.

It's a different world, and it's scary. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. Bush is pursuing the opposite of what American policy had been up to this point: He's working in the open as opposed to the clandestine operations that the CIA, etc. were known for in the past few decades.
Transparency's a bitch while it's happening. Especially against popular opinion of a mostly pacific and appeasement minded world.

My .04....hope it made some sense. Might have been a stoned ramble though...I'll go back and read it.

I'll make a prediction: this suitcase nuclear bombs or sumthin similar will be used to gain so called 'reason' to attack IRAN or some other country...that needs to be swallowed... to feed this human cattle... to spread this virus called Human being.

See, I wouldn't get swallowed into the worry-think that assumes we're going into Iran, then Syria, then...

Iran's nuclear ambitions and programs are something else entirely, and being dealt with by the UN and it's subsidiary the IAEA.
They are a symptom of the bigger problem - proliferation by the second-tier, or "wannabe" nuclear states. You need to disable their programs (hopefully through negotiations, like Iran is doing) first, then maintain that dictum.
On a second level, you address the upper echelon - the "have them" states.

Can you see the second-tier states are the ones with most to gain by not only developing WMD capabilities but then potentially handing them down to tertiary groups...it expands the danger exponentially and negates the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Rail against the Bush method, fine with me. But Can we agree that there is a dangerous precedent emerging and that it is the world's collective prerogative to counter that cottage growth?

How do we settle it effectively then? How do we ensure that these programs don't go forward - as it's the collective mission statement of the UN and the UNSC to prohibit the exchange of nuclear technology, not just the US...?
How do we neutralize the missing "nukes", and ensure it doesn't happen again?

Bush, in this capacity, is failing miserably. He'll push money into my pocket, but at the expense of programs that secure these devices...

AngryDyke?

AngryDyke?

Glad to see you here dude.

Ya know none of us know the truth and I doubt Bush as much as anyone. You have never heard of theories that our govt did 911? Where have you been?

My problem with 911 is never seeing the plane hit the Pentagon. I don't think we did ourselves but there is something funny.

At first it was reported that one of the planes went down in the Potomac then that it had hit the Pentagon.

I don't buy the theory that that jet went into the Pentogon through that round hole. I am sure we would have seen more left over of the wings but all that was visible outside was one jet engine that looked as if it was dropped there to create a cover story to me.

Here is my wild theory. A missile actually hit the Pentagon and it had one of these nuclear devices of some sort that didn't go off properly. This is plausable because if indeed that had happened we would have looked pretty bad. A nuke had hit the pentagon and we were just dumb lucky it didn't go off.

Now I know you doubt me but think about how the pentagon is a high security installation always under security unlike the twin towers. How is it that there is not a picture anywhere of a jet as it approached and crashed into the pentagon?

I say the jet was shot down by us and hit the water. We didn't like the reality as it would be shown so we killed 2 birds with one stone for national security sake. We lied of course about shooting down one of our own planes and about our missile attack that we narrowly escaped nuclear devestation.

I think nukes are out there and yes Bush wants us to be scared. We can't let ourselves be manipulated by liars so I hope we replace him this fall. But, I think we do have real enemies and real things to fear. All we have to fear is fear itself as long as you don't care about dying. BOG

Lotta Bush lies alrighty...

BOG, are you aware that least at the other one of the planes hitted twin towers wasn't even close to being a Boeing.... completely diff. type. And how come that engineers says there was some objects that is not Boeing stuff....


aw shiit.... I'm tired wit tis...sorry 4 distrubin

Hey laurus, how about showing us a picture of what the planes are soppost to be? And a picture of the planes hitting the tower? That would atleast give you some more ground to stand on. And where are these reports from engineers of parts of planes that are not soppost to be there? Its all very interesting, really......but lets see some proof my friend.


this thread is a good one...lets keep it going.

shiiit... didn't I send that long list of links?

If I didn't first I'd like to say: use google, you'll find LOT's of information concerning this mess... (prob. lots of crap too)

Then... it takes long to read all this.... but do read.

I'd recommend people to start with article written by G.E.Griffin...
http://www.govsux.com/grand_deception.htm

Then.... hell... I don't have em bookmarked in here... anymore.... I'll try to dig some out.... and paste it here OK?... then If ya want to study about this issue... you can continue it by yer self.... it's all out there... spreaded around...

Here's some links gatheres in one page... and you can get as much more as you want.... make your own opinion about things....


http://guardian.911review.org/

Then.... second arctile I'd recommend you to read is the one published in the Guardian... written by some brittish minister... (I can't remember the name... as I can't remember much shit at all )

Sorry.... I don't have the link here.... or... hmmm.... let's look at google... phukk... too much information.... here's some....

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

and then... edited by " a diplomatic editor"...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1036590,00.html

oh... you asked for the plane pics.... wait.... where... hrrmmmm.... I'll try to find the links....

here some links... not sure if there's anything bout the planes thou...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/index.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP312B.html
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0930_bdquig.html

And if you're about to say I didn't offer ya link to the plane pics....yep... I didn't but I offered ya links where you'll find those pics if you really want.

Information is out there, you deside if you want to read of it or not.

hey bog. thanks for the welcome. hope you're doing well...

i agree with you that there's a lot we don't know about 9/11, but i'm not ready to hop on the conspiracy bandwagon yet. well, conspiracy to the point that a plane didn't hit the pentagon. i think there are things we're not being told about the pentagon wreck, but i'm not sure what they are yet. i know the public is getting screwed on the 9/11 investigation. this admin has not only under-funded the investigation by the 9/11 commission, but has also done everything it can to hinder the commission's power to investigate the matter. there are lots of questions i'd like answered, like why the wtc wreckage was carted off so quick and disposed of before a complete investigation was done? reminds me a lot of the okc bombing, where the murrah building was quickly demolished before a thourough investigation was done. too much is being hushed over, and few people are looking closely at the facts to realise that there are still a lot of un-answered questions about that day...

hi jjj. funny we're not having this discussion at og..

"Why? Because it was a success - a smashing one - for under 500,000 USD. It also cost 19 men (allegedly). Pretty cheap considering what was accomplished."

(but if they had used a suitcase nuke as well, then the success would have been greater, from their point-of-view. imagine a plane crashing into one of the towers, then a suitcase nuke going off as well. instead of thousands, you just killed tens of thousands, at least, and you just made the middle of nyc a fallout zone...)

"You're right, but you're also (seemingly) discounting that they would have the know-how, or the capability to find someone who does.
Look who's sympathetic to the cause - even tangentially. Iran, Saudi Arabia, segments of Pakistan's elite, N. Korea (potentially, as they are tied to Iran in missile and nuclear development). Even if you discount three of the four for whatever reason, the pool to draw from is large. Especially in an underground market. It's just information after all."

(i'm not suggesting they don't have the know-how necessarily, but after sitting on a nuke like that for six years there's a good chance that whoever knew how to use it is no longer around. i could very easily see a scenario where the people who were trained to use the nuke have been killed, or the knowledge lost some other way. these are complicated devices. if we found one of them, i doubt we could figure out how to use it. plus you also have to get into a disscussion about the trigger of the device, which without the device is basically useless. is there a seperate trigger that needs to be inserted into the device in order for it to work, as is the case with some small to mid scale nukes? is there an access code that needs to be used to trigger the bomb? these devices come in many shapes and sizes, some more complicated than others. my point is that the longer they sit on such a device, the more likely it is they lose the knowledge to use it. and yes, it is just information, but, like i said, not all nukes are the same. if it came from the ukriane, it doesn't mean that pakistan or saudi arabia has the knowledge on how to use it...)

"All the more reason why they wouldn't be wasted on a 9/11 airplane assault, or through a ship coming to port.
They need to do it right, if they can do it at all; if they even have them...and no one says they do with any certainty."

what?!? are you kidding? if they used a nuke along with the 9/11 assault in nyc, they could have turned central nyc into a radioactive hole. if they use it to blow up a shipping container being loaded in, say, san diego port, it would devastate the nation's economy since san diego is the largest port of entry for goods coming in from asia. think about that for a second; one of the largest ports in the world being turned into radioactive rubble. and with the amount of containers that go thru that port every day, such a scenario would work far easier than trying to smuggle the nuke into the country another way. granted, blowing up a port isn't as dramatic as blowing up downtown houston or something, but the actual damage to the infrastructure of the country would be more devastating...)

"How do drugs and other contraband get here? Where there's a will, there's a way. Discounting it because the mental idea of the magnitude of a nuke - which I believe many do - doesn't allow for the understanding that this device is what...suitcase sized.."

druga and other contraband don't set off geiger counters. i'm not saying it can't be smugled in, but it would be more difficult than your 'normal' smuggling activities. i think bringing it in thru a port in a shipping container would be the easiest, as security at ports is not good. or they could just walk it across the mexican border. hell, can't stop thousands of immigrants every day, why not have one of them carry a nuke for you? of course, that's the problem, i don't think a lot of people feel comfortable toting around a nuke...)

to be continued...

and the rest of it...

"You would, and rightfully so. But we're in the present, with history a distant future (figure that one...lol) at the moment. We're waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It is scare mongering, even if the reports are true. But it is a possibility and should be pursued.
Al Qaeda has not lost effectiveness, it's just had a management reshuffle. It's a corporate entity that franchises...so until you can stem the blood from around the world, it's a possibility. I.e., a new reality. I think the uncomfortableness of it all is what drives the backlash to this war."

history a distant future? [head explodes] i don't know if there is another shoe waiting to drop. some people think there is, but i'm not convinced. i think terrorism is something we need to worry about and deal with, but i was more scared as a kid growing up during the cold war. i felt more threatened by russia back then than i do by terrorists now. not sure why that is, maybe the propaganda of the time, i don't know. i see terrorists as a threat, but one the rest of the world has had to deal with for decades. i see 9/11 as the day america was forced to confront the ugliness that the rest of the world has had to deal with for a long tme. if that's the new reality, then so be it, but i refuse to be scared and worried and i resent my worst fears being played upon on a regular basis. i'm not saying the reports shouldn't be pursed, but to report that they might have nukes and they might hit the u.s. with one is just scare-mongering, not news. no details, just rumours and innuendo. that's bullshit. besides, if such a thing was truly an issue, i'm sure we'd be on crimson alert or something right now...

the problem with al queada is that no one really knows just how big they really are. one day i read that we're dismantling them effectively, then the next there's a terrorist hiding behind my bushes with a suitcase nuke. let's be honest; we don't know if bin laden is even alive or dead right now. our intelligence gathering abilities in the middle east are not strong. not a lot of arabs working for u.s. intelligence. i'm just saying that it seems the media either hypes up or hypes down the threat of terrorists, depending on what the govt wants them to say. and that's another problem; the media being so much in league with the govt that most media outlets (fox, cnn) are little more than mouthpieces for whatever the govt wants to say. there's little to no meida investigations of these claims, just blind reporting, at least within the major media outlets...)

"Very fair question. On the one hand we are all more aware and working together (governmentally speaking), but on the other hand the holes are wide and getting wider.
The notion of American Homeland Security(tm) has turned to the trough-feeding the Pig of special interest and business. Holes... "

(i think it's strange that bush would grant so much clemency to illegal aliens and ignore our border problems when we have such a threat of terrorism hanging over our heads. it makes me think that the problem is not as serious as they would like to have us think. you're right, the holes are getting bigger, and this admin is helping with that. homeland security is a joke. it makes life difficult for u.s. citizens than for illegal aliens it seems. considering the threat is supposed to be coming from outside the country, it's strange that u.s. citizens are the ones who seem to be getting the most suspicion thrown on them. of course, security companies and the like love this because now most americans are beginning to believe that they can't trust anyone. america is becoming a very scared and confused place, and the govt is doing nothing to alleviate that. articles like this, in fact, only add to the problem...

i have to believe that anything that is a truly a serious threat to the public is not going to be reported about until after the threat has been dealt with. this story is little more than an attempt to keep the public worried and on edge. besides, this isn't anything new. it's a topic that's been discussed before. the threat of nukes seems to pop up a few times a year now. hell, we were trying to tie saddam to a nuke program to boost our case for war in iraq. nuke is a buzzword. you mention it in a story, and people notice. and not in a good way. fear of nuclear weapons has become an archetype in our society. i grew up with it, as did my parents, and now this generation is hearing the same thing (though on a much smaller scale). scary how that works...)

"It's a different world, and it's scary. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. Bush is pursuing the opposite of what American policy had been up to this point: He's working in the open as opposed to the clandestine operations that the CIA, etc. were known for in the past few decades.
Transparency's a bitch while it's happening. Especially against popular opinion of a mostly pacific and appeasement minded world."

(i disagree that bush is working in the open on this. this is one of the most secretive admins in america's history. look at some of the laws that have been passed since 9/11. foia has been largely gutted. a lot of govt info on the net has been taken off. bush rarely gives interviews or press conferences. cheney only pops out of his bunker a few times a year, just long enough to remind everyone of what a prick he is. the white house is not co-operating with the 9/11 commission, and it's heavily censoring what little information it is releasing about 9/11 and terrorism. the only thing they've done openly is wage war in the middle east, and they haven't been the least bit honest about their reasons either. out in the open? transparency? only in an orwellian world...)

i guess all i'm saying is that i don't want to hear reports about crap like this unless there is some substance to them. if there's no substance, then it's little more than gossip being used to scare the populace. bush and this admin have done more to scare this country than they've done to alleviate our fears. i just feel they want to keep us in fear so they can pursue whatever agenda they want since we'll be to scared and worried to question their motives. i don't trust govt, and i trust this admin even less. i'm tired of being told my freedoms have to be limited in order to be more safe. sorry, but that's not how this country is supposed to work. i'd refer them to the constitution, but they'd just ignore it, again...