Jump to content

Us Iraq Casualties Counting Method


Fritz

Recommended Posts

Well i really have nothing but online sources , and all my experience investigating these kinds of events with what i can find online

 

Do you believe everything you read on the WWW? If so, I've got a bridge I can sell you...cheap.

 

Do you think it is impossible that this could have been a mortar or rocket attack?

 

Yes, I do. I saw what remained of the suicide bomber.

 

Do you think that American base security is so worthless than a man with explosives strapped to himself ( or in the bag he apparently carried) can simply walk around and enter a packed mess hall? Is the situation so dire, and recruits so hard to find, that such men are allowed near American mess tent's?

 

The man was dressed in an Iraqi National Guard uniform. ING troops are helping to provide security at American bases in Mosul. These people eat in the same mess hall that the American troops do. Given these facts, it doesn't suprise me one bit that something like this could happen. Steps have been taken since then to tighten security on US FOBs.

 

As far as the rest of your theory, it seems as if you've already made up your mind as to what happened. I'll defer to your "sources." :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Stellar --

 

I think others here have covered the numbers issue.

 

If you think that the US news media is interested (or even capable) of covering up large numbers of US soldier's deaths, I must tell you to spend more time studying the US media. Being an editor for a news company (verifiable by at least several members of this board whom I have met personally), I am rather familiar with the way the US media operates. However, since you have already dismissed a statement on the Mosul attack by someone who has personally been on the scene, qualifications probably don't mean much.

 

Pat Callahan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of lurching this topic into a constructive area, it was mentioned when the attack was first thought to be a mortar or rocket attack that a new protected dining facility was about to open. Then it was discovered that it was a suicide bomber. Wouldn't a suicide bomber have a worse impact in an enclosed, hardened facility than he would in a tent where most of the force of the explosion can go up and out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that American base security is so worthless than a man with explosives strapped to himself ( or in the bag he apparently carried) can simply walk around and enter a packed mess hall? Is the situation so dire, and recruits so hard to find, that such men are allowed near American mess tent's?

 

This part of the conspiratizing I don't get. If it was a projectile we could ask why mess in unhardened space in large group. If a suicide bomber we could deliver a rant like that above and criticize security, or ask the same question about concentration, though as Jeff said hardened facility would then diminish as a solution. Tough decisions about force protection, perhaps fault to be found, but I don't see how one explanation is worse news than the other and a reason to lie. Actually seems suiciders infiltrating the ING is more worrisome in terms of the overall policy of the war than a mortar/rocket attack by insurgents outside the compound. I don't get the basic logic of why DoD would supposedly lie about this.

 

Anyway on a factual basis, with the eyewitness account here on top of lots of reputable sources, it was in fact a suicide bomber.

 

On casualty counting, doesn't Stellar know the US has been grossly understating casualties and material losses since at least the Korean War (remember the dozens of planes shot down over Kosovo only recently and covered up)? ;) . At least in the view of intrepid conspiratists, with there implacable logic of the official numbers "just couldn't be" repeated over and over, with cross reference to "sources" which are other conspiratists asserting "just couldn't be", "come on don't be naive", etc etc. We could broaden this and waste a *lot* more time! :)

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AdamMachell

Stellar, what an intersting choice of names.

 

You are confused by suicide bombers? They've been used in the Middle East for decades. What makes you suddenly surprised that they would be used against Americans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I heard about this attack within a few minutes of it taking place. The initial report said that an apparent rocket or a mortar round had hit the mess tent. At the same time, the terrorist website's video was spread around the net, and at that time they were already claiming the attack as having been carried out by one of their suicide bombers. The next day, the Pentagon announced that in fact it had been a suicide bomber. I see no reason to doubt this account, as both sides seem to agree on what happened.

 

The initial account can be attributed to a reporter who was looking to say something in his story, and came up with a mortar/rocket attack as the most likely explanation (because who would guess that a suicide bomber had made it to the middle of a US base?).

 

You are welcome, the website is indeed full of great information, IF you can disregard a bunch of senseless rambling by those kids.

 

Anyway, I've said everything I planned to say on this topic, and am moving along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread may need some peacekeepers to cool it off.

 

There is precedent for exaggerating enemy losses, while minimizing your own. I believe the first recorded instance would be the battle of Marathon. It is also likely that the statistic's provided by Stellar are exaggerated.

 

It is still funny, though, that a person who has infiltrated an enemy base would blow himself up. It is not very James Bondish. Besides just espionage the agent could have sabotaged food supplies - adding botulin to food supplies would take hundreds off the line, and be easily blamed on other factors. But the precedent for suicide bombers is there, some people really want to die that way. Who ever said war made any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stellar,

 

One of my friends, CPT Bill Jacobsen, was killed in the Mosul mess tent attack. I've talked with some people who were present at the attack.

 

It was a Saudi Arabian medical student who was a son of a Saudi Diplomat. The diplomat used to be the Saudi ambassador to the Sudan. He worked at the base for a few months, scrounged up an Iraqi National Guard uniform, took the armor plates out of a ballstic vest and replaced it with high explosives lined with ball bearings.

 

Basically, you're wrong if you think it was a mortar attack. I don't know how much clearer I need to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread may need some peacekeepers to cool it off.

 

There is precedent for exaggerating enemy losses, while minimizing your own. I believe the first recorded instance would be the battle of Marathon. It is also likely that the statistic's provided by Stellar are exaggerated.

 

It is still funny, though, that a person who has infiltrated an enemy base would blow himself up. It is not very James Bondish. 

 

Here's a generic problem with many web board discussions:

"non-naive" conspiratist: "here's my baseless speculation"

fact oriented types; "that seems baseless" or even "here's the specific facts contradicting that"

peacemaker: "let's split the difference between baseless speculation and supportable fact, because when people argue 'the truth usually lies in between'"

 

On enemy losses there's a difference between overstatement and exaggeration, latter implying will. Study of specific facts is needed to determine if either or neither have actually occurred. However in general claims of success against an enemy are based on less knowledge than enemy assessment of his own losses. On own losses actual proof is needed of deliberate understatements. As I mentioned there's a whole web cottage industry of stating that the US greatly understated losses, air losses in the Korean War for example (to explain grossly overstated Soviet claims), or in Kosovo (pan-Slavic pride kind of thing I guess) that there were dozens of losses instead of two. Essentially baseless in both cases. Then I've seen expand to personnel casualty figures in Korea, etc., etc etc. Solid documentation, virtually never; linking to another site that just repeats the same assertion is not documentation.

 

Generalized statements that people tend to minimize losses are really pretty pointless. Everyone recognizes it's a physical possibility casualties of anybody *could* be understated, within practical limits such as mentioned (funerals vastly outnumbering official KIA combined with a free press for example) but many on this thread are coming at it from a world view that says it's pointless to assert that at all without specific evidence, and the conspiratist manifestly doesn't have any.

 

The Iraqi insurgents aren't very James Bondish, that will be entered in the contest for most obvious statement of TN '05. Besides the "pure reason" (IOW factless) approach of "why would they blow themselves up", we could instead recognize they routinely do, they apparently say they did in this case, and the absence of any logical motive for the DoD to say suicide attack if mortar attack.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry it took me a while to get back here . . . I was actualy doing MILITARY sh*t, rather than PRETENDING to be some sort of fucking military KNOW-IT-ALL whose feet have never walked the walk.

 

I'm as much surprised as you must be lucky or skilled to have survived, believing and acting on everything your told, by what your saying here. I have not served and i do style myself someone who knows abit about military history. So can you tell me with a strait face that you never doubt anything a superior tell's you and will follow the manual or orders to the exact detail? Are combined arms and modern tactical training not all about flexibility and interpreting orders for maxim effect?

 

Mabye im missing something here and the officers you have served with are simply above the mistakes and misunderstandings that have plagued the rest of the world's armed forces over the the entire lenght of human history?

 

Is such a thing even possible or did i simply overstate, according to you,  with the 50% claim? You can dismiss me for not being unhappy enough to want to go off and kill people in some foreign country but i find it rather arrogant of you to tell me that officers ( higher up the worse it can get not even mentioning some pentagon civilians styling themselves as such) are not at least prone, on occasion, to issuing bad orders based on incomplete information, or bad communication, sometimes totally out of them control. You seem to be painting a rosy picture wich, if i am understanding your correctly, would not seem to indicate that you have learnt much from whatever military experience you have had. If that seems insulting it does lead directly from your basic premise, sorry.

 

Stellar

131299[/snapback]

 

Your original quote:

 

I know no military man believes half the BS he gets from his superiors . . .

 

Stellar

1. You “assume” I “believe and act on everything” a superior says. Your statement was that NO military man believes half (50%) of the info he gets from his superiors. IF this is the case, then one must be STUPID to stay a part of an organization where he believes LESS THAN HALF of the info and instructions he receives from top to bottom.

 

2. You are “missing something here.” It’s called “trust and faith in your fellow soldiers.” I have known NO officers that made no mistakes. However, I have known NO officers that are dishonest and LIE to their soldiers, as you indicate happens MORE than 50% of the time.

 

3. I WILL dismiss you “as one not being unhappy enough to want to go off and kill people in some foreign country . . .” (which is ULTIMATELY what soldiers do) . . . and since you CLAIM to NOT have served then you SHOULD NOT judge those that DO just because you CANNOT imagine yourself ACTUALLY SERVING and bringing yourself to do the ULTIMATE in your mission.

 

4. “i find it rather arrogant of YOU” to lecture professionals about ANYTHING given your perverted views of what the military supposedly IS.

 

5. “if i am understanding your correctly, would not seem to indicate that you have learnt much from whatever military experience you have had.”

 

You DON'T understand me correctly. I attended Basic Training in June 1973 (probably before you were even in the semen of your father) and have been in and/or associated with the US Army since. I understand EVERYTHING at Division level and below. Whatever happens above that, I trust my superiors to make the best decisions and choose the best courses of actions that they possibly can based upon the information provided them before the fact - they OF ALL SOLDIERS stand to lose the most by lying to their subordinates.

 

You're a f**king disgrace - you SHOULD NOT serve AT ALL, nor should you comment on those that do because you don’t know a MOTHERFUCKING THING about ANYTHING beyond reading about it.

 

GD f**king "librarian warrior."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stellar, ref this bit:

 

..... I have a great many sources ,many at least as questionable as the DOD's, and im still reading and considering wich can be cross referenced and substansiated by simliar western reports wich is the only thing that is normally believed on the forums i frequent. :)

 

and this bit:

 

You will surely understand the work involved in trying to cross reference all this information.....

131526[/snapback]

 

So what do you want, a medal? The news sources you seem to set so much store by are notoriously unreliable, mainly because most journos (press and TV) know or care next to nothing about what they are sticking their noses into - their primary concern is to put out *something* before their competitors do. Consequently, there is a much better than average chance that for all your diligent cross-referencing the resulting info will be no more accurate than if you merely asked the same number of folk in the local pub for their opinion. It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that by restricting yourself to internet sources you have immediately narrowed your potential knowledge base to stuff folk have bothered to put onto a medium that is notoriously susceptible to inaccuracy and deliberate bias.

 

If you stopped congratulating yourself on having an opinion (flash for you - those are like arseholes, as in everybody's got one and mere possession does not automatically mean it is worth anything), put your brain into gear and stopped to look around you would see there is a great deal of useful information to be had on this forum, and a high proportion of it is far more accurate and immediate than the stuff you will read or see in the media. I have seen a lot of stuff turn up on here a day or more before it surfaced anywhere else, and there are even more folk with real life knowledge and insights into such matters. Their *informed* opinion is worth infinitely more than the largely ignorant and poorly informed stuff that crops up in the UK Grauniad or Channel 4 news, and I have learned a great deal more than I have contributed during my time here. But then you need a certain level of knowledge to be able separate signal from background noise, wherein lies the root of your problem I suspect.

 

However, I am loath to spoil people's fun, so if you prefer to carry in the immature, naive and frankly insulting manner you appear to have learned from the "other forums" you frequent, you go right ahead. But, at risk of sounding somewhat pompous perhaps, don't expect your efforts to attract the same level of tolerance and respect you are prolly used to receiving elsewhere - the latter is earned rather than automatically donated around here...

 

Edited to add: ...as Rocky's last post has prolly made you aware....

 

all the best

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BillB:"It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that by restricting yourself to internet sources you have immediately narrowed your potential knowledge base to stuff folk have bothered to put onto a medium that is notoriously susceptible to inaccuracy and deliberate bias."

 

I would have to disagree. I think that any source without an internet presence would be unreliable. This very site is on the internet, and you claim it is more accurate than television. Lol say what you will about others, but you leave the internet out of this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Now if all these attacks ( including the possibilty of this having been a mortar/rocket/bomb) were in fact conducted by people who survived by fighting a highly organized battle, suffering few losses in these attacks by using a technological edge that only American forces supposedly have, people would start asking questions and would not forgive the Pentagon it's failings so easily. This is the distinction i see between the two situations and a reason for possibly lying in this instance.

 

2. Well i guess it must be comfortable living in the world were everything you dont believe or want to believe can be made off as being part of some elaborate conspiracy. Have you never learnt anything "new" and substansiated that conflicts, but makes obsolete, some previously accepted knowledge of beliefs? Well it's called learning and everyone is supposed to be taking part....

 

1. Just long winded musings (I don't quote all not to waste time and space) without anything to back them. If the insurgents had fantastic conventional abilities...but all *evidence* (not free form fact-free "pure reason") is they don't. All your points are the typical "can't be"s of conspiracy theorists. Trucks (that are probably stolen) filled with explosive can't make big holes in the ground blowing up, why not? :huh: And no one claims all car/truck bombings are suicide attacks, if the vehicle can be left and detonated remotely or with a timer of course they do that; other attacks have gotten the vehicles to restricted target areas by driving them and blowing themselves up. Roadside attacks with explosives are apparently usually not suicide attacks and no one says they are. And no one said either that a mortar round or rocket attack *couldn't* hit a mess tent, other such attacks have succeeded on a smaller scale, it's just not what happened in the recent case by all *evidence*.

 

Whatever the insurgents do that is effective disrupting Iraq and causing casualties sustains their insurgency. In reality many insurgent attacks are not suicide attacks, many are. The logic still escapes my why it would be a big deal to say this particular attack was an infiltrator if it was really a mortar attack (I note you've changed tack from insisting it was really a mortar attack to suggesting an inflitrator left behind a bomb, switching from one unproven assertion, contrary to many reputable sources, to another).

 

2. I shortened conspiracy theorists to conspiratists, grammatically wrong and confusing, excuse me. What I meant was you seem a typical fact-free conspiracy theorist, not someone engaged in a conspiracy. I judge on real evidence of credible sources. I can't prove the US isn't greatly understating casualties, but I don't have to. Basic western rationalism says the people saying that things are vastly different than what they seem are the ones who have to give evidence, and not to waste time worrying about truth on the level of "how can we *really* know the figures are correct?", how do I know the world really exists and isn't just my dream? Nothing you've said raises any more than that Cartesian level of doubt on the casualties. You are free to speculate and theorize without evidence, but it's not "disrespect" if I say it's baseless musing, that's just what it is. Learning implies facts; I like to learn new facts but you don't seem to have any on this topic.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AdamMachell
BillB:"It doesn't appear to have occurred to you that by restricting yourself to internet sources you have immediately narrowed your potential knowledge base to stuff folk have bothered to put onto a medium that is notoriously susceptible to inaccuracy and deliberate bias."

 

I would have to disagree. I think that any source without an internet presence would be unreliable. This very site is on the internet, and you claim it is more accurate than television. Lol say what you will about others, but you leave the internet out of this!

131553[/snapback]

 

You join OUR fora and have the audacity to question us? Most of us have met in real life and have real military experience. You are some person, from who knows where, who expects to pop up on our site and be taken seriously? The vast majority of us have proven ourselves here. We post pertinent information about ourselves in our profiles. Your profile is blank. Most trolls are. You and Stellar are both pissing in our sandbox and asking why we don't like it.

 

So, if I start a web site tomorrow that states that JFK was killed by Marilyn Monroe's zombie corpse, are you going to believe it?

 

The KKK has a website, does that make them credible?

 

Al Q has many websites, does that make them more credible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and Stellar are both pissing in our sandbox and asking why we don't like it.

While I agree with you about Stellar, I don't think UN-Interested Observer falls into that category, even if he has disagreed with BillB over a tangental point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry about Stellar guys. He is just a kid from South Africa. He is also a communists and as such the US is the biggest enemy to him. He spends most of his days gathering any information that reenforces this. Don't try reasoning with him as it is a waste of time. Believe me, I have tried doing it on another forum for a couple years and he only gets worse.

 

-Cheers :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You join OUR fora and have the audacity to question us? Most of us have met in real life and have real military experience. You are some person, from who knows where, who expects to pop up on our site and be taken seriously? The vast majority of us have proven ourselves here. We post pertinent information about ourselves in our profiles. Your profile is blank. Most trolls are. You and Stellar are both pissing in our sandbox and asking why we don't like it.

 

So, if I start a web site tomorrow that states that JFK was killed by Marilyn Monroe's zombie corpse, are you going to believe it?

 

The KKK has a website, does that make them credible?

 

Al Q has many websites, does that make them more credible?

131630[/snapback]

 

 

Sir, you speak of audacity. how sardonic. I wish to report you for reprimand for breaking forum rules, but I will allow you time to retract your offensive statements. We all make mistakes, please try and avoid another.

 

BTW I didn't know the KKK had a website, I don't think you need worry about me 'pissing in your sandbox' there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree. I think that any source without an internet presence would be unreliable. This very site is on the internet, and you claim it is more accurate than television. Lol say what you will about others, but you leave the internet out of this!

131553[/snapback]

 

It is of course your right to disagree, for whatever it might be worth. However, if you are going to do so, and indeed erroneously complain about other folk (Adam Machell) breaking the rules, you really should hold yourself up to a greater standard of accuracy.

 

I never said TankNet was "more accurate than television", I said some of the information that appears here is more accurate and appears faster than in the conventional media. As a search around the site and a bit of crosschecking will comfirm.

 

On the other hand, your contention that "any source without an internet presence would be unreliable" is misguided at best. A great deal of internet presence is the result of Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome, with media and other organisations scrambling to obtain such merely because everybody else is. This is readily appaent from a quick survey of sites, many of which provide no more information than you can find on a sales brochure. Even the media sources are frequently merely repeating or recycling information from other sites with no independent verification - look how many times AP or Reuters appear on such reports, for example. Media sources also frequently contain truncated versions of the information published in hard copies or on TV - try comparing a hard copy newspaper with its online eqivalent sometime.

 

Finally, if the net is such an impeachable source of info, why do so many university departments penalise students for overly relying on it, and why has Google put together a separate list of sites vetted for academic relaibility? You appear to have missed the fact that the net is not foremost about accurate information, it is about access and dissemination, which are not necessarily the same thing. Indeed, the problem with the net is that there is far too much information flying about for the average human to cope with, which is why such a lot of utter and easily refuted nonsense is repeatedly coming to be regarded as established "fact".

 

The point raised on the thread about the number of US casualties being evacuated to Germany is a case in point. You don't need the net to verify that, you need to get off your arse and go down there and spend some time counting them as they come off the planes and maybe do some asking around. I'll bet good money the journo cited by Stellar didn't bother with the first bit because it takes too long, and a flying visit to gather the unsupported opinion of the first person you run acoss is far quicker and easier to obtain. When you've done your asking aroiund you could then get down to some serious investigation into the official material like unit casualty returns, hospital admissions, medical resource expenditure and a host of other stuff. That is how accurate figures are compiled, but it cannot be done via the net with immediate answers at the click of a mouse, and it takes time and effort. Far, far easier to sit rooted in front of a monitor compiling lists of web addresses, playing word games and posing deliberately unanswerable questions like "how do we know", "how can we be certain" etc etc ad nuauseum, and further muddying the waters in the process.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Sir, you speak of audacity. how sardonic. I wish to report you for reprimand for breaking forum rules, but I will allow you time to retract your offensive statements.

 

2.  We all make mistakes, please try and avoid another.

131654[/snapback]

 

1. Adam has broken no rules and, therefore, needs to retract nothing. The offensive statements started with YOU.

 

2. I'm believing your biggest mistake is being someone with no military experience trying to lecture, judge and play "military expert" with those that have already done so (served) or are still serving. You can only learn so much by reading and looking at pretty pictures in books or on TV, you know! So, take a bit of your own advice and please try and avoid another (mistake). ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When im still posting here in 2 years with many people asking the same questions as me i will remind you of this post and your stupid haste to slap infantile labels on posters you know so little about.

 

Im assuming from your post count that you normally do more than snear at people you disagree with ( If you talk to mere mortals like us) and since im not going to run away in abject fear of your apparently mighty respect presence i suggest you add something constructive or go back to one of the threads where people will stay silent in admiration of your mere presence.   :rolleyes:

 

Clever word play thought!  :D  For a online "relationship" ( There is so much anger in that post, eesh! ) ours can allready not get much worse so im expectantly waiting for it to improve as i just know it will in time. :)

 

Stellar

131665[/snapback]

 

Let me give a clue to you (who are so obviously clueless). You will not be here in two years. Keep it up and you won't make it to February 2005.

 

Yes, I do usually do more than sneer at those with whom I disagree. However, I have always been known to call a spade a spade - and calling you out as the buffoon you seem to be required little effort, for you have already laid the foundation and construction is proceeding nicely in that direction.

 

Glad you like the play on words. Actually, "Les Van Stellar" would be even better! :D

 

Gotta go - I've got some soldiers coming in to do an APFT (that's an Army Physical Fitness Test in case you didn't know) in 90 minutes and I'm the one running it and grading it.

 

Do something unusual while I'm gone - be nice and respect others that have a lot more experience than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  Adam has broken no rules and, therefore, needs to retract nothing.  The offensive statements started with YOU.

 

2.  I'm believing your biggest mistake is being someone with no military experience trying to lecture, judge and play "military expert" with those that have already done so (served) or are still serving.  You can only learn so much by reading and looking at pretty pictures in books or on TV, you know!  So, take a bit of your own advice and please try and avoid another (mistake). ;)

131663[/snapback]

 

Sir, Adam conducted personal attacks and involved examples that are tasteless and offensive. The rules exist to keep discussions civil, and I believe they should be followed.

 

If you neglect your due dilligence then please do not involve yourself in other people's discussions. Not only were you not invited, you are not informed. I engage BillB in an academic discussion of the merits of relative values of source materials, and you choose to take it as a personal affront. My curiosity will have to remain insatiated, for while I am curious how many years of military service qualify a person to discuss print and electronic media, I dread to read the response.

 

Furthermore, from your previous posts you have exposed your character enough for me to know that I want nothing to do with you. Please refrain from addressing me in the future, one's patience does have limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said TankNet was "more accurate than television", I said some of the information that appears here is more accurate and appears faster than in the conventional media. As a search around the site and a bit of crosschecking will comfirm.BillB

131660[/snapback]

 

I agree completely. Not only to those points, but the print medium allows for far more information to be presented, and greater discrimination for the readers.

 

You are correct, it is an over-statement to claim that sources without internet presence are unreliable, but they lend themselves to it. Exemptions may be granted to institutions without access, or whose material is not easily converted (such as ancient scrolls which cannot be scanned, and which few people would ever want to read).

 

I should re-emphasize that the internet is simply a medium. It is far more flexible than telivision, or books, while maintaining the beneficial qualities of each. For this reason it is of great importance to academics, allowing easy transportation of vast quantities of material, and many people to use the same source simultaneously. Compared to Fed-Exing a crate of books, or passing around a VHS tape, internet data transfer is superior.

 

To summarize, I never meant nor said that internet presence made a source credible, but that the lack thereof is suspicious. Dispensations are, of course, granted to libraries still using card catologues, and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...