U.S. Identifies Iran as Responsible for Two Tanker Ship Attacks in Gulf of Oman Today…

In the early hours of this morning, two vessels transiting through the Strait of Hormuz towards the Indian Ocean were attacked by unknown entities causing hull breach explosions that rendered the vessels inoperable.  The sailors were evacuated.

The Norwegian owned “Front Altair” (cargo: 75,000 tonnes of naphtha), and the Japanese owned “Kokuka Courageous” (cargo: 25,000 tonnes of methanol) were struck in the Gulf of Oman; the same strategic sea lane where four oil vessels were sabotaged last month.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has identified Iran as the government responsible for the attacks.  [Press Conference Video]


No doubt Iran feels empowered to attack Western interests partly due to the support expressed by former Secretary of State Kerry and former President Obama.  Both have created an open window for Iran by undermining President Trump.

(Tweet Link)

(Via Daily Mail) […] The Altair had been loaded at a port in the Gulf with a petroleum product known as naphtha, and was on its way to the Far East.

The Altair’s cargo was worth more than $30million, according to estimates from trade sources.

Meanwhile, a shipping broker said the Kokuka, which flies under Panama’s flag, had suffered an explosion after an ‘outside attack’ which may have involved a magnetic mine.

The company operating the ship, which was heading to Singapore, said the attack had caused ‘damage to the ship’s hull starboard side.’

The Kokuka’s 21 crew were picked up by the nearby Vessel Coastal Ace, leaving the tanker adrift and empty after an engine room fire.

One of the crew members was slightly injured in the incident and received first aid on board the Coastal Ace, while the Kokuka’s methanol cargo is said to be intact. (read more)

The oil tanker attacks came as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (left) met Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran today


This entry was posted in Death Threats, Iran, Japan, Military, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Secretary of State, Secretary Pompeo, Terrorist Attacks, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

295 Responses to U.S. Identifies Iran as Responsible for Two Tanker Ship Attacks in Gulf of Oman Today…

  1. Marshall says:

    In 1988 Iran was operating against commercial shipping and President Reagan had the US Navy sink half of the Iranian fleet:

    Liked by 6 people

    • Fools Gold says:

      Different time different old technology. Iran still has sublauched and shipboard weapons similitar to Harpook/Tamahawk cruise missles that can overwhelem the ships return fire capability. But and. Big But, we have the most lethal offensive capability and defensive capability there is. I wouldn’t count on F-35 to be availbe on Carriers at this time. This is a very seriously capable aircraft but avionics software/hardware modifications and integration coupled with structural issues limits capability to attack and defend itself. Don’t worry our radar aircraft are the best in the world and those F-18’s and their offensive capability against anything in the air. And don’t forget we have F-22, F-16, F-15 that can reek more Havoc than Iran Navy can handle. I wager Iran will never strike US property in their slick mole attacks!

      Ha, Being the last responder is a day late and a dollar short.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Adam says:

        Iran’s in a bit of a use it or lose it scenario. However, this is a trap for the US. Don’t want to attack Iran directly, and don’t want to get into prolonged conflict either.

        Best to find some pretext to degrade Iran’s extraterritorial assets in Lebanon and Syria. Misdirection. Clip it’s claws.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Johnny says:

        Iran’s in a bit of a use it or lose it scenario. However, this is a trap for the US. Don’t want to attack Iran directly, and don’t want to get into prolonged conflict either.

        Best to find some pretext to degrade Iran’s extraterritorial assets in Lebanon and Syria. Misdirection. Clip it’s claws.


  2. Sentient says:

    On the Daily Mail story about this linked from Drudge https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7136333/Oil-tankers-targeted-explosions-Gulf-Oman.html#comments the best rated comment (by > 5:1) is this:

    “No evidence Iran is responsible for the earlier attacks. Most likely someone who’s (sic) intent is give an excuse to attack Iran and start another war.”

    Daily Mail (and Drudge readers) lean right. Pompeo will have his work ahead of his to convince people that Iran was behind this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cruiser55 says:

      Smells like Gulf of Tonkin to me.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Carson Napier says:

        Naval History magazine, Feb 2008, volume 22, number 1, by Lieutenant Commander Pat Paterson, U.S. Navy

        “Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

        … These new documents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964 {and some say there wasn’t even a first attack] . Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.

        … We may never know the whole truth behind the Tonkin events and the motivations of those involved. However, it is important to put what we do know into context. The administration’s zeal for aggressive action, motivated by President Johnson’s election worries, created an atmosphere of recklessness and overenthusiasm in which it became easy to draw conclusions based on scanty evidence and to overlook normally prudent precautionary measures. Without the full picture, Congress could not offer the checks and balances it was designed to provide. Subsequently, the White House carried the nation into the longest and one of the most costly conflicts in our nation’s history.”

        Liked by 3 people

        • nccosmiccurmudgeon says:

          So just who an/or what is United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations? Are they merely “lighthouse keepers” and “traffic control coordinators”; or is British Navy hiding something else in “plain sight”.

          Or as Freud would say; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and this one I picked up in Tehran??

          I would think at this point in the show, it would be time to see what the Saudi’s can actually do with all the “tools” they have been purchasing from us lately. They tried to use Iraq as the Gulf States attack dog to keep Iran in check. And that did not work out too good for anyone.

          Time for MBS and company to roll up the sleeves, tighten the belt and get done what needs doing without involving the US in a direct role. Support, Intel, “spotting”; by all means. Interrupting a Marine during his meal of Crayons, definitely not.

          Liked by 1 person

      • GenEarly says:

        Exactly!!! Who Benefits from War at this point in time? What gets lost in the fog of war?
        The Deep State.


    • Esther says:

      JOHN BOLTON jumps out as somehow involved, probably with maddog Mattis.Those two have been biting at the bit for the longest to start something. Sad for them Trump has enough sense to conduct any retaliatory measures by proxy. After all Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries have their own beef with Iran. Let the muslims take each other out. None of our business, we just sell them the weapons to flatten Iran. Why it made so much sense for Trump to go ahead and sell those 8 billion dollars in weapons to SA.


    • budklatsch says:

      Given the history of our crack Intelligence agencies over the past few decades, why would we have any doubt about their assessment.?


    • Drudge and Daily Mail do not lean right in their hate for President Trump with constant negative, derogatory stories about the President.


      • Sentient says:

        The commenters on Daily Mail are overwhelmingly pro-Trump. When the top comment – by 5:1 – is suspicious that these attacks are a false flag, it demonstrates that Trump’s base cannot be expected to believe whatever Pompeo tells them.


        • Peckenpaws says:

          The real question is the extent to which Trump believes and acts upon interpretations of events provided by Bolton and Pompeo. Trump appears to have believed the dubious interpretation of blurry photos purported by Pompeo to show the Iranians retrieving mines from the hull of a tanker, for example. It’s a very dangerous situation for the American people and the rest of the world if the president of the country with the most nukes on the planet cannot completely trust and rely on the veracity and motives of his intelligence agencies and close advisors.


  3. Heika says:

    Headline : IRAN bombs Japanese ship!
    Appropriate Reply – Who said so? Provide proof before pitting thousands of our youth into a 15 year slaughter war on behalf of ‘special interests’.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Jim A says:

    If the tankers looked anything like the USS Liberty, I have no doubt who shot at the vessels.

    Liked by 1 person

    • surakvulcan says:

      If the tankers looked anything like the Twin Towers, Orlando Pulse night club, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Khobar Towers, American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (not to mention Madrid, London, Nice, Beslan, Bali, etc.), I have no doubt which special interest group would try to deflect responsibility from the terrorists who claimed responsibility, and would try to blame an ally.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. amaezed one says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nigella says:



    • jeans2nd says:

      Is Ron Paul now participating in Fake News? Seems so. Pompeo was talking specifically of the CIA, not America. Everyone knows the CIA lies. The CIA are spies. Lying is what the CIA does. Which is why the CIA is to operate overseas outside the U.S. ONLY.
      Did not listen to the rest – I’ve a strong aversion to those pushing Fake News.


      • The question is who are they lying too and on whose territory they are involved. US soil is generally verboten except on an invite by another agency. Guess who, FIB

        And the part about his cadet OATH just went right over your head I guess.


      • Daniel says:

        …and yet they didn’t and don’t as they collect intelligence (truth or fiction) and give it to domestic intelligence because of “intelligence sharing” mandates.

        But we now have a rather long list of “things the government” is not supposed to do but does anyway.


      • amaezed one says:

        Yep, easy to say. Get’s them off the hook. Is this the SEE EYE AY we want. Don’t think so. Don’t take my word for it. Ask the world.


    • Mark McQueen says:

      I say Ron Paul and didn’t bother clicking.

      Liked by 1 person

    • albertus magnus says:

      More Paulbot BS.


  6. TarsTarkas says:

    IMO Iran wants an attack by US to try to rally the people behind the Ayatollahs.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Mark McQueen says:

    Almost every day I come here I wind up wondering what happened to the all the real Trump supporters that used to hang out at the Treehouse?

    Liked by 7 people

  8. Maquis says:

    I am unfamiliar with the suspected capacities of the Iraians’ subs, but they have had a close relayionship with North Korea who happens to have the world’s largest submarine fleet, most designed to insert commandos. Such capability would be consistent with “anonymous” sources claiming to have seen a mine.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jmclever says:

      Interesting theory. That would imply that China is now using Iran as a proxy, which would further imply that they’ve factually lost control of DPRK. OR that they are desperately firing all weapons in their attempts to save themselves from POTUS’ trade war. Just thinking out loud.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kent says:

        …Iranian missile technology came from Billy Clintoon and the USA via China via North Korea via wealth exfiltrated from the American people due to the dems rinos and globalists selling us out for their personal gain….it doesn’t appear China has lost much…..

        Liked by 1 person

        • John Bosley says:

          I keep repeating it in my mind over and over.
          Should have let McArthur nuke those commie Chinese during the Korean War.
          We wouldn’t be having these problems now.


    • Jederman says:

      Given Iran’s recent threats I would think the U.S. etc would have had counter/anti submarine patrols operating.


  9. The Radar Guy says:

    A lot of “hair on fire” about this amongst the media and intelligentsia. Ristvan makes the case that only Iran has the local capability to conduct such an operation. If, indeed, it was really a torpedo attack (with all the complexities associated), it takes a sophisticated adversary. I still wonder if the command and control is so strong in Iran that some rogue operation is not impossible.

    But bottom line – who cares?? The BEAUTY of the oil and gas (shale) revolution in the US is we don’t have to care. You know who has to care (pick any or all that you like) – China, India, Germany, etc.,etc. They are the new consumers of Middle East crude – not us…

    We don’t need that oil anymore. We don’t need to risk our sons and daughters to make sure plentiful oil is available to countries that typically either hate us or barely tolerate us. PDJT doesn’t need to do a thing other than say – See, I told you they are bad guys – maybe you should join me in some sanctions (or otherwise I won’t have US destroyers escort your needed oil supplies through the Straits of Hormuz).

    As long as Iran doesn’t directly attack a US warship, all the high cards are in PDJT’s hand…

    Liked by 4 people

    • Mark McQueen says:

      I don’t know that it’s all that complex. The basic technology has been used effectively for over 100 years. However I agree that considering modern ASW tech it would be VERY complicated it someone was indeed watching.


    • Just FYI Shale is not what it’s cracked up to be. Even the most optimistic yield curves on those wells would most accurately be described as a nosedive. Right now pulling oil out of the Permian Basin in West Texas is no longer economically feasible due to many reasons – cost of production and lack of pipelines are two big ones.


      • The Radar Guy says:

        I have to disagree (courteously though, of course). If there is one thing I know about (besides radar – LOL), it is oil and natural gas liquid production and prospects in the US. No, I am not in the oil business but I was in the defense business for decades and the ONE thing I truly worried about was the geopolitical risks the US faced because of our obscene dependence on foreign oil (at one time not so long ago, 12 million barrels of oil and product per day net).

        Shale was an unexpected and wondrous windfall for the US – pioneered by men who never get any credit for changing the game for all of us. You cite two things – one is the pipeline limitations. True – but only temporarily and only because production has exploded to almost 4 million barrels a day from around 1 million. Several pipelines are under construction with a massive one set to open in the 3Q of this year. And production costs – well, Exxon and Chevron like it enough to expand dramatically the number of rigs operating in the Delaware Basin of the Permian. Whether right or wrong, they are employing their capital where their mouths are. For all our sakes, let’s hope they are right…

        Liked by 2 people

        • Kent says:

          Our refining capacity leans toward heavy crude, not the light crude produced by fracking….we need to expand light crude processing capacity, imo……keep those good paying jobs and economic activity right here on Main Street…not Wall Street.

          We should be exporting finished products, not crude oil…..

          Liked by 2 people

        • SHale has been around and known about for a very long Time. Pipelines, how about investor cash to keep the EROI going.

          I studied oil production long ago and it was all about output . EROI (energy returned on investment) and the Second law of thermodynamics.

          The 2nd Law makes the prospects of EROI with shale nebulous in the long term. The effects of burnt out investors waiting for the promised prize of capital returned much less a profit is souring.

          Long closed http://theoildrum.com/special/archives.

          All researched by oil professionals and workers in the industry. One, no longer with us had a theory, and it seems a good one. The import Export theory

          It calculates the the output/effect of external sold product and internal consumption.

          Saud is now charging much more for their own product and has been for some Time. Sweet crude production is weak and the sulphur from the heavy sour oil is making mountains of the stuff and it is ongoing.

          The effect of higher prices has forced internal use down, leaving more product to export.

          The idea the US can provide its own energy and GROW the economy is quite a task. Growth requires more energy input most important and CHEAP prices. At one Time not long ago a cup of gasoline was much less than an ordinary cup of coffee. That is how cheap our “energy is”.


  10. LafnH20 says:

    ristvan, I share your thoughts on the, P8 Orion ASW.
    The Straight is not very wide (militarily/strategically), though fairly deep. It becomes gradually shallower (less maneuverability for a “Submarine”) as you continue toward any land mass.
    The Orion could patrol the “shallows” and do what, P8 Orion ASW’s, do…
    Long-range maritime patrol, anti-submarine warfare, anti-shipping, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.


  11. Petrel says:

    Iran explodes ordinance on a Japanese tanker while Japanese Prime Minister Abe visits with the Iranian Supreme Leader ? So embarrassing for the Supreme Leader. Might Langley hire a section covering Teheran visitors to avoid creating an unfortunate impression of Ugly American “false flags” ?


  12. OhNoYouDont says:

    “We have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East. We
    will defend our interests, but a war with Iran is not in our strategic
    interest, nor in the best interest of the international community.” – @CENTCOM spokesman Lt. Col. Earl Brown.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Trent Telenko says:

    It was likely IRGC swimmer delivery Vehicles.

    See at the link.



  14. Linus in W.PA. says:

    Why were the Japs meeting with Iran???


  15. OhNoYouDont says:

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Mr_Mayhem says:

    Rouge forces are incrementally boxing Trump into a war with Iran, which is happening in the context of declassifying the spygate docs and related fallout. Trump needs to demand a high level of proof from CIA, call them out on this one, and fire people if they fail to decisively prove the claims of Iranian involvement in the ship attacks.

    Israel and USA is “sophisticated enough” to have done this, consider mercs at the docks attaching things to the hulls prior to sailing, for example. To say otherwise in this political climate is willful blindness. Some want a war to change the news cycle during spygate revelations and to bury Trump’s approval rating by his base, who are extremely weary of new wars.

    “Likely responsible” is not an acceptable standard of proof with major war at stake. If Trump tries to entertain the plausibility that Iran did it (on thin proof) he will be overrun with more false flag incidents and war, which will likely cost him reelection, which is the prize being sought by his enemies. Trump needs to call out unproven blame assignment on Iran by CIA before it gets completely out of control.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. MaineCoon says:

    JPost article, linked below:

    FTA: The United States has video showing Iran’s military removing what Washington believes was an unexploded limpet mine from the side of a Japanese tanker attacked on Thursday in the Gulf of Oman, a US official told Reuters.

    The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, had reviewed the video personally and said it clearly showed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) approaching the vessel and removing the mine.


    Liked by 1 person

    • Mr_Mayhem says:

      Iran was allegedly filmed removing a mine from a Japanese tanker?

      It’s one thing to film Iranian forces attaching a mine, quite another to film them removing it.

      So, were the Iranians caught red-handed, OR, perhaps they discovered a plot by enemies and were filmed trying to stop it?

      Who did the filming and was it circumstantial, or why was someone filming the Japanese ship at that time? It would be very shady to offer such a video as any kind of “Proof” against Iran or anyone else, without more context. Perhaps we shall see as this unfolds, but I’m not holding my breath.

      Don’t underestimate the alignment of interests between the neocons, war hawks, and the exposed spygate/ Russiagate players, not to mention the British and the Israelis.

      Trump’s weak flank is he wants to be strongly supportive of Israel, and against Iran, but it can blow up in his face if he lets the intel folks incrementally shine him on into a war with incremental false flags.

      Iran is not weak like Iraq was, and disruption of oil can mess up his best laid economic plans, and cost him re-election.

      Liked by 1 person

    • czarowniczy says:

      Yep, they’ve stopped saying torpedo and have gone to limpet mine, same mines the found on two Saudi tankers in UAE waters exactly a month ago. Makes more sense than a torpedo as Iran’s workhorse torpedo carries close to a 500-pound warhead – that would have created considerably more damage.

      The IRGC has a large combat swimmer cadre so planting them would be a snap and could be considered less provocative than having a sub attack the tankers. Either way this doesn’t bode well for the IRGC. If I were an IRGC commander I’d be out scattering my torpedo/missile boats and moving my troops out to motels as someone might be planning a punitive response.


  18. MaineCoon says:


    FTA: Saudi Arabia agrees with the United States that Iran was behind the suspected attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir said on Thursday.

    “We have no reason to disagree with the secretary of state. We agree with him,” Jubeir told CNN. “Iran has a history of doing this.”



    • Sentient says:

      Well that seals it, then. 😉


      • Interesting though is that when Iran was hit with severe flooding not long ago. SA sent them aide. Now they point fingers.

        The ME is very complicated, Sunnis, shiite. Oil and money, and who founded what brand of religion and the spinoffs and their dictates of life over the populace.

        What is the goal when they cooperate (without much publicity) and publicly call each other out when necessary for “face”. The big boys who run things are not the public.


  19. Carson Napier says:

    This reminds me of the fires at Notre Dame where the authorities were certain what caused the fires even before they were out. In that case they decided it was an accident and now our “Intelligence Community” is just as certain these attacks were by Iran. Almost as certain as Muelle, Weismann, Nadler and Schiff are that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Her Highness.


  20. Arrest Soros says:

    A little surmising on my part if I may. (a conspiracy theory)

    At mo, congress looks like stopping sales of $200b in arms to the Saudis.
    PDJT policy is for regional players to take care of the problems in their own regions.
    What’s the current problem? Ships being attacked in the Gulf.
    Who should take care of that? The Saudis and Gulf states.
    What do they need to take care of the problem? Arms.
    Maybe congress will now be convinced to approve the arms sale to the Saudis?
    Once approved, no more ships attacked in the Gulf.

    Are they IRGC soldiers removing unexploded bombs from the Japanese ship, or are they Saudi operatives dressed in IRGC uniforms who just “happened to be” captured on film?
    Can anyone here tell the difference between an Arab and an Iranian by looking at their faces?


  21. Ezgoer says:

    Our enemies and the American Left would love to bait Trump into a shooting war. Any war with casualties will cost him re-election. Don’t take the bait. Don’t get played by the Deep State.


  22. The Admitral says:

    I don’t believe it for a moment… and Pompeo has seemed to comport more with John Bolton, regards to Iran, the wishes of the POTUS.

    There is no upside for Iran to stir crap up with us. There IS a lot of upside for the “deep state” elements who have been trying to get rid of this President.

    All smells fishy to me.


  23. LibertyVibe says:

    That video is far conclusive. Bolton and Pompeo have been chomping at the bit to drag Trump into a war. Funny, Abe is in Iran right now. This doesn’t pass the smell test. Trust but verify President Trump.


  24. OhNoYouDont says:


  25. Pyrthroes says:

    Indeed, despite inchoate motivation Tonkin Gulf in 1964 has LBJ’s and McNamara’s fingerprints all over it. As has become the pattern, Congress’s perpetual Rat-Pach incumbents proved worse than useless, with consequences that set back SE Asian and U.S. interests for decades. (We say this as one who wears a Vietnam Service ribbon to this day.)

    This time around, sense is that Khamenei-Rouhani kleptarchs are escalating limpet-mine assaults on international shipping to, first, distract from Iran’s faltering dirigiste economy; and second, provoke a U.S. overreaction embroiling the Trump Administration in low-key but politically deleterious hostilities treasonously instigated by Benedict Barack, Kerry, the ineffable DiFi of Kavanagh Hearings fame. But hitting a Panama-registered Japanese vessel during Premier Abe’s visit to Teheran does suggest a rogue IRGC.

    Whatever Iran’s internal machinations, Pres. Trump will likely maintain aloof for the time being, mounting commensurate counter-measures only as strictly necessary for free-passage purposes as in the Taiwan Strait. Anyone who’s dealt with “Little Rocket Man” will know the drill… as for Rat sedition, “advising” America’s sworn enemy in defiance of every legal canon, let’s hope Pompeo and Shanahan’s national-security axe is poised to decapitate these stinkin’ cruds.


  26. I cannot believe so many folks on this site are quick to defend Iran in this dire situation. I see comments talking about ‘false flag’, warmongering, untrustworthy US military, etc. etc. It’s sickening. Look folks, Iran has been at war with us since the 1970’s and has managed to kill a lot of our young soldiers. Maybe payback time is coming. Maybe not. But until we respond directly against Tehran, nothing will change. As for all the disbelievers, get real. These bas tards can and will kill a lot of us unless we take action soon.


  27. Southrider says:

    Already bankrupt as a credible source of information after a ruinous war to counter ‘thousands of launch ready WMDs’
    in Iraq, recently CIA was trying to incite US involvement as a belligerent in a war in Syria. 
    Happily Trump held back.
    Now we see the intended reason for US engagement was a fraud.
    FACT is, our ‘intelligence community’ is entirely compromised and incompetent.   Trump is blind so long as ‘deep state’ traitors sit at the head of FBI and CIA.
    And, at the moment, apparently we are supposed to go to war against Iran because oil may
    have trouble getting to Japan, Korea, and Communist China.
    All of whom have considerable militaries of their own.
    Screw it. 
    Let the folks who want that oil sort it out. 
    Bring the US troops in the middle east home to enforce our borders, and prosecute those who abused their positions in an attempt to remove an elected President. 
    Those are the threats to our country



  28. mike diamond says:

    Blame John kerry,and obama,they were the ones who wanted to give all the money to Iran!!!


  29. Peckenpaws says:

    To add to the mix, it is now being reported that the attack on two tankers in the Straits of Hormuz yesterday had an impact on voting in Congress on the US selling more arms to nations in the Middle East. As usual inquiring “Qui Bono?” may well point in the direction of the truth.



  30. Greg Dane says:

    Why is it you can’t find anything, anywhere on the net on what a IRGC Gashti-class patrol boat looks like other than a grainy video shown in this article? In trying to get a better look at the alleged patrol boat for a comparison – I couldn’t find any reference or clear pictures of it anywhere. Why is that?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s