Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya's Sarin To Syrian Rebels

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Eric Zuesse via,

The great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in two previous articles in the London Review of Books ("Whose Sarin?" and "The Red Line and the Rat Line") has reported that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria; and Hersh pointed to a report from British intelligence saying that the sarin that was used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles. Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.

"By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria."

Hersh didn’t say whether these 'arms' included the precursor chemicals for making sarin which were stockpiled in Libya, but there have been multiple independent reports that Libya’s Gaddafi possessed such stockpiles, and also that the US Consulate in Benghazi Libya was operating a "rat line" for Gaddafi’s captured weapons into Syria through Turkey. So, Hersh isn’t the only reporter who has been covering this. Indeed, the investigative journalist Christoph Lehmann headlined on 7 October 2013, "Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria" and reported, on the basis of very different sources than Hersh used, that:

"Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry."

And, as if that weren’t enough, even the definitive analysis of the evidence that was performed by two leading US analysts, the Lloyd-Postal report, concluded that:

"The US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT."

Obama has clearly been lying.

However, now, for the first time, Hersh has implicated Hillary Clinton directly in this 'rat line'. In an interview with, Hersh was asked about the then-US-Secretary-of-State’s role in the Benghazi Libya US consulate’s operation to collect weapons from Libyan stockpiles and send them through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as the US had invaded Libya to eliminate Gaddafi. Hersh said:

"That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel".

This was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State Department’s Libyan operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for the US doing in Syria what they had already done in Libya.

The interviewer then asked:

"In the book [Hersh’s The Killing of Osama bin Laden, just out] you quote a former intelligence official as saying that the White House rejected 35 target sets [for the planned US invasion of Syria] provided by the Joint Chiefs as being insufficiently painful to the Assad regime. (You note that the original targets included military sites only – nothing by way of civilian infrastructure.) Later the White House proposed a target list that included civilian infrastructure. What would the toll to civilians have been if the White House’s proposed strike had been carried out?"

Hersh responded by saying that the US tradition in that regard has long been to ignore civilian casualties; i.e., collateral damage of US attacks is okay or even desired (so as to terrorize the population into surrender) – not an ‘issue’, except, perhaps, for the PR people.

The interviewer asked why Obama is so obsessed to replace Assad in Syria, since "The power vacuum that would ensue would open Syria up to all kinds of jihadi groups"; and Hersh replied that not only he, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "nobody could figure out why". He said, "Our policy has always been against him [Assad]. Period". This has actually been the case not only since the Party that Assad leads, the Ba’ath Party, was the subject of a shelved CIA coup-plot in 1957 to overthrow and replace it; but, actually, the CIA’s first coup had been not just planned but was carried out in 1949 in Syria, overthrowing there a democratically elected leader, in order to enable a pipeline for the Sauds’ oil to become built through Syria into the largest oil market, Europe; and, construction of the pipeline started the following year. But, there were then a succession of Syrian coups (domestic instead of by foreign powers – 195419631966, and, finally, in 1970), concluding in the accession to power of Hafez al-Assad during the 1970 coup. And, the Sauds' long-planned Trans-Arabia Pipeline has still not been built. The Saudi royal family, who own the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, don’t want to wait any longer. Obama is the first US President to have seriously tried to carry out their long-desired "regime change" in Syria, so as to enable not only the Sauds’ Trans-Arabian Pipeline to be built, but also to build through Syria the Qatar-Turkey Gas Pipeline that the Thani royal family (friends of the Sauds) who own Qatar want also to be built there. The US is allied with the Saud family (and with their friends, the royal families of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman). Russia is allied with the leaders of Syria – as Russia had earlier been allied with Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Yanukovych in Ukraine (all of whom except Syria’s Ba’ath Party, the US has successfully overthrown).

Hersh was wrong to say that "nobody could figure out why" Obama is obsessed with overthrowing Assad and his Ba’ath Party, even if nobody that he spoke with was willing to say why. They have all been hired to do a job, which didn’t change even when the Soviet Union ended and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded; and, anyone who has been at this job for as long as those people have, can pretty well figure out what the job actually is – even if Hersh can’t.

Hersh then said that Obama wanted to fill Syria with foreign jihadists to serve as the necessary ground forces for his planned aerial bombardment there, and, "if you wanted to go there and fight there in 2011-2013, ‘Go, go, go… overthrow Bashar!’ So, they actually pushed a lot of people [jihadists] to go. I don’t think they were paying for them but they certainly gave visas".

However, it’s not actually part of America’s deal with its allies the fundamentalist-Sunni Arabic royal families and the fundamentalist Sunni Erdogan of Turkey, for the US to supply the salaries (to be "paying for them", as Hersh put it there) to those fundamentalist Sunni jihadists – that’s instead the function of the Sauds and of their friends, the other Arab royals, and their friends, to do. (Those are the people who finance the terrorists to perpetrate attacks in the US, Europe, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, India, Nigeria, etc. – i.e., anywhere except in their own countries.) And, Erdogan in Turkey mainly gives their jihadists just safe passage into Syria, and he takes part of the proceeds from the jihadists’ sales of stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil. But, they all work together as a team (with the jihadists sometimes killing each other in the process – that’s even part of the plan) – though each national leader has PR problems at home in order to fool his respective public into thinking that they’re against terrorists, and that only the ‘enemy’ is to blame. (Meanwhile, the aristocrats who supply the "salaries" of the jihadists, walk off with all the money.)

This way, US oil and gas companies will refine, and pipeline into Europe, the Sauds’ oil and the Thanis’ gas, and not only will Russia’s major oil-and-gas market become squeezed away by that, but Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia, plus the yet-further isolation of Russia (as well as of China and the rest of the BRICS countries) by excluding them from Obama’s three mega-trade-deals (TTIP, TPP & TISA), will place the US aristocracy firmly in control of the world, to dominate the 21st Century, as it has dominated ever since the end of WW II.

Then, came this question from Hersh:

"Why does America do what it does? Why do we not say to the Russians, Let’s work together?"

His interviewer immediately seconded that by repeating it, "So why don’t we work closer with Russia? It seems so rational". Hersh replied simply: "I don’t know". He didn’t venture so much as a guess – not even an educated one. But, when journalists who are as knowledgeable as he, don’t present some credible explanation, to challenge the obvious lies (which make no sense that accords with the blatantly contrary evidence those journalists know of against those lies) that come from people such as Barack Obama, aren’t they thereby – though passively – participating in the fraud, instead of contradicting and challenging it? Or, is the underlying assumption, there: The general public is going to be as deeply immersed in the background information here as I am, so that they don’t need me to bring it all together for them into a coherent (and fully documented) whole, which does make sense? Is that the underlying assumption? Because: if it is, it’s false.

Hersh’s journalism is among the best (after all: he went so far as to say, of Christopher Stephens, regarding Hillary Clinton, "there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel"), but it’s certainly not good enough. However, it’s too good to be published any longer in places like the New Yorker. And the reporting by Christof Lehmann was better, and it was issued even earlier than Hersh’s; and it is good enough, because it named names, and it explained motivations, in an honest and forthright way, which is why Lehmann’s piece was published only on a Montenegrin site, and only online, not in a Western print medium, such as the New Yorker. The sites that are owned by members of the Western aristocracy don’t issue reports like that – journalism that’s good enough. They won’t inform the public when a US Secretary of State, and her boss the US President, are the persons actually behind a sarin gas attack they’re blaming on a foreign leader the US aristocrats and their allied foreign aristocrats are determined to topple and replace.

Is this really a democracy?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
yogibear's picture

It's simple, Hillary is a reckless and evil bitch.

CheapBastard's picture

No wonder these all those riotous protesters interrupting her ralleys.


... oh, wait a sec ....

zeropain's picture

Killary must pay for her sins. Or learn to give a blow job.

DownWithYogaPants's picture

I get most of the authors points and don't dispute much but I wish he would learn to write.  Writing like this makes reading a real chore.

El Vaquero's picture

A not so well known fact is that Operation Mockingbird was involved in taking Sen. McCarthy down back in the 50s.  There was some kind of turf war going on between the CIA and another alphabet soup agency (IIRC, it was the FBI,) and McCarthy was on the wrong side of that fight.  The press worked with the CIA and took McCarthy down.


It seems like something similar could be going on with Hillary here.  She has pissed some people in the deep state right the fuck off, and probably in more ways that we are privy to.  If there really is this kind of dirt on her, the CIA is one of the organizations that would probably know about it. 

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

I don't know what's worse, the gas coming out of the Benghazi embassy or the gas coming out of both ends of Hitlery.

At least the ancient Greeks had the decency to divide Medusa and the Harpy into two separate creatures

Pinto Currency's picture

Wasn't just gas.

Benghazi Commission: Obama Admin Gun-Running Scheme Armed Islamic State

wee-weed up's picture

The Obozo Admin, the elites, and the rest of the MSM will band together and see to it that this story goes nowhere.

Pinto Currency's picture


"... In Congress, the then-bipartisan group known as the “Gang of Eight,” at a minimum, knew of the operation to aid and abet America’s jihadist enemies by providing them with material support. So says Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and the primary author of CCB’s interim report, titled How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror, speaking with Breitbart News. ...

... “The Obama administration effectively switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] when it decided to overthrow the sovereign government of our Libyan ally, Muammar Qaddafi, who’d been helping in the fight against al-Qaeda, by actually teaming up with and facilitating gun-running to Libyan al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood [MB] elements there in 2011,” explained Lopez. “This U.S. gun-running policy in 2011 during the Libyan revolution was directed by [then] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and [the late Libya Ambassador] Christopher Stevens, who was her official envoy to the Libyan AQ rebels.” ..."


COSMOS's picture

So the WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL starts when?

Keyser's picture

Pfft, just another conspiracy theory... That's what all my friends accused me of spreading when I told them this in 2013... Of course, they all said it couldn't be true if it wasn't on the news, but that's another story... 

The Alarmist's picture

"It's simple, Hillary is a reckless and evil bitch."

Reckless might be too generous ... I prefer that term they use on Law & Order, "Depraved Indifference."

Manthong's picture

“rat line”.. sounds like Hitlery’s lower vertical groove.

Quick's picture


Beowulf55's picture

Sarcasm.........a hard concept to understand.


49 weeks?  really?

oobilly's picture
Revealed: UK Government let British company export nerve gas chemicals to Syria

boattrash's picture


War Tribunals are only used against Caucasians that try to preserve their heritage or sovereignty. Look to German history, Serbian history, hell, most of the Balkans, the Confederate States.

 I will not be surprised to see it proven that the Cathedral of St. Sava fire in NYC turns out to be terrorism.

Our current administration won't have to worry about tribunals, as their goal is destruction of America, not preservation.

Thom_333's picture

Yes. I think it has begun on your shores in many different ways. And not even the Warren commission will be able to put this one back together and make it go away.

Paveway IV's picture

The sad part about this is that I don't think they really intended to have the weapons get into al Qaeda's hands, either in Libya or Syria.

In Libya, Hillary's State Department either instigated or facilitated a Qatari gun-running operation from Chad and across the southern Libyan border. These were weapons destined for 'moderate' rebels: the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned ones. Typical U.S. clownfuckery - they figured the MB anti-Gaddafi rebels had some kind of highly organized and secure structure. You could just send truckloads of RPGs, Milan anti-tank missiles and Stingers through southern Libya and they would get to these moderate rebels.

Just like in Syria though, every rebel of any stripe knew they were coming (or at least knew when they got there). Every rebel faction in Libya was either trying to ambush the convoys and jack the weapons for themselves or raid the MB warehouses for them after they arrived. Hillary and Co. were too fucking stupid to realize the overlapping loyalties of all the various rebel groups and how each one of them wanted the weapons for themselves. Most of what we sent to the MB 'moderate' anti-Gaddafi rebels ended up in al Qaeda hands or was simply stolen by other rag-tag militias looking for something to sell to raise cash. 

That's why AFTER they had Gaddafi assassinated, they panicked and went on a scavenger hunt for these weapons - the MB rebels didn't get most of what the U.S./Qatar sent them, and gangs were looting the former Libyan Army's stockpiles. The CIA Annex was the hub of an operation that used Benghazi militias to help round up all this stray crap. Shoulder-fired SAMs, explosives, chemical weapons, mines, etc.

The State Department had to be involved because 1) they were responsible for a lot of it to begin with, and 2) they wanted to fuck up all over again by trying to send it to Muslim Brotherhood anti-Assad rebels through Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Except the exact same thing happened: most of what made it there was looted by al Qaeda or just stolen by local militias to sell for cash.

It's not hard to believe that the Libyan rebels were able to procure a stash of looted Libyan Army Sarin from someone that looted one of Ghadaffi's arms depots. Between the CIA and the State Department, they were probably scheming the second they found out they had some Sarin to play with.

The reason the UN Chemical Weapons destruction teams would not report the chemical fingerprints of the Syrian stockpiles destroyed is probably because they 1) did not match the Ghouta Sarin (meaning it was a false flag) and 2) the Sarin used could be proven to have come from Libyan stockpiles, which would have blown the cover on the CIA/State Department secret arms trafficking and directly implicated the U.S. in supplying the false-flag Sarin. I wonder if the Sarin used in Ghouta was even used by the people the CIA/State Department had intended it for. It may have been stolen by al Qaeda or some other rebel group that staged the false flag to prod the U.S. into an attack.

HowdyDoody's picture

That would be the moderates who were trained by the US, yet defected en masse (all but 5) to ISIS. At the cost of $500 million for training alone. Effectively the US trained ISIS, so was this

<-- Premeditated for plausible deniability.

<-- A naive mistake by US

conscious being's picture

I recall that right after Bengahzi, there was something in the english language Russian blogosphere that one or more of the dead were WMD experts.

Man Who Was Thursday's picture

Your posts are always worth reading Paveway IV, thank you.

conscious being's picture

Wwu, Seymour is the mouthpiece for some of the elites. Seymour could not be saying this unless some big, connectd people want Cankles gone.

nmewn's picture

Posted this last night regarding some in the Deep State wanting Frau Hitlery gone. This guy is CIA, it is about her unsecured server which is very relevant to the Deep State...

...once in the CIA you never leave the CIA, the CIA is a major part of the Deep State and they never forget, ever. Especially when their people are left to die when F16's could have been scrambled out of Aviano, refueled at NAS Sigonella and be over Benghazi leveling buildings in three hours just like the 4,000 sorties flown bringing down Qaddafi.

That would have been THREE HOURS BEFORE the CIA Annex was attacked and their guys killed.

"My good friend, Chris."

Deep State vs Crony State...grab some popcorn ;-)

onthesquare's picture

Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc all work for the CIA.  

True Blue's picture

Ahhh, but the gas is a clear-cut and blatant War Crime.

Screw letting Hilly et. al. off easy with an American Prison sentence; send the bitch to her Judgement at Nuremberg.

Footprint's picture

And don't even ask me what it takes to translate the noodle soup of a review-multilayered critique, intermingled with interview snippets into Spanish... :/


There, you see... Doing it has ruined my Syntax.

Tigermoth's picture

What didn't Monica show her how its done? Selfish little bitch, wanted Billy's bong all to her self!

DeadFred's picture

The CIA will force Hillary out. She'll claim it's due to health reasons but in reality they will have a gun to her head. I know how unlikely it is but vote with your hearts, I'm fishing for greenies here.

Paveway IV's picture

Why would the CIA want Hillary out? The CIA has gone full Mossad: they have plenty of dirt on her so she's completely controllable now.

She'll make a useful tool for them as president. Why knock off an asset like that? 

Motasaurus's picture

There has been a long running shadow-war in the United States between the money which sold out to London, and the money which didn't. 

This war has been ongoing since the end of the War of Independence, and it has only really got "hot" once (the Civil War). It almost got "hot" again in the 30s, but Smedly Butler exposed it, rather than participated in it.

The alphabet agencies are owned by the various monied interests. What is now the CIA and the vast array of new Alphabets that came into being (Homeland Security, TSA, NSA) are all owned and run by the money that sold out to London.
The FBI (and her offspring such as the DEA and ATF), however, is owned by the monied interests that didn't - the interests that lost the Civil War - the interests that fought agaisnt the Federal Reserve.

The CIA gets most of its funding through organised crime.
The FBI made most of its money taking down organised crime.

It's not perfectly delineated, and the deep state is a huge mess. But it is safe to say that both major parties are owned and bought by the money that sold out to London - the money that runs the CIA. 

I believe that Trump, for all his totalitarian and dictatorial faults, is working with the money behind the FBI.

Don't get me wrong here - the FBI is as orwellian as the CIA is. But at least they're Pro-United States orwellian. 

DeadFred's picture

Thanks for your take on the infighting. It's pretty clear it exists but I can only guess at the who and why. I won't accept your take at face value but it's grist for the mill. I once worked as a subcontractor on a .GOV project trying to track down the source of paper for the high quality counterfeit 100s someone somewhere was putting out. It was funded by a consortium of agencies and I asked which ones. My 'guy' <a spook for sure> named a bunch then added, "pretty much everyone but the FBI, we don't trust them". This was before 9/11. It was my first glimpse at the infighting. As to why the CIA would do away with Hillary <only a guess on my part> she did them dirt in Libya and they remember. Petraeus was forced to leave over Obama's and Hillary's SNAFU (just exactly what <or who> was he doing while they needed a decision on how to save those CIA operatives?) and they lost men, have they forgotten about that? They like to have someone like Barry where they have enough dirt to own them but too much dirt makes them worth less because it's harder to keep secret. What was on those emails that are too sensitive to ever release? I'm guessing the intelligence community is fed up with her and are trying to figure out how to ditch her. She will need convincing but that's what they do for a living. So in your framework she is a London person but the opposing Fibbies have her dead to rights. She is now a liability and will need to drop out so a better qualified Londoner can replace her. Too bad Cruz is a repub because they have enough on him to make him dance to their tune. It won't be Bernie, that is unless he has a secret thing for youngsters.

fleur de lis's picture

Yes, Hellery is trash but how does she keep howling at rallies like she has it in the bag? Either she is completely hypnotized or she knows they won't dare cross her. Of course they have mountains of dirt on her but she has the same on them. It's the only way the DC tramps survive.

If they didn't know before they surely know now what a psycho she is, and she knows that they know, and they know that she knows they know, and still she keeps howling like she has it in the bag. She should be indicted but they won't go near her. That's a pretty big mountain of dirt she has on them.

The thing that is most stunning is how so many ordinary Americans in every walk of life support her no matter how bad the emails are, no matter how dangerously they threaten our security, and how her supporters are so selectively oblivious to the FBI investigation. Many of her fans are educated enough to at least recognize basic unprofessional behavior, and still they howl along with her like sick hyenas.

YuShun's picture

If there has been “a long running shadow-war” between the FBI & CIA, then it
is interesting that in 1987, the Director of the FBI became the Director of the CIA.
Jimmy Carter appointed William Webster to head the FBI, and then
Ronald Reagan appointed him to head the CIA after Wm Casey died.
Nobody else has held both jobs.
After George Bush replaced him with Robert Gates in 1991,
Webster went to work for Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy.


Motasaurus's picture

Perhaps it was the very first case in human history of someone switching sides for personal gain.



WTFUD's picture

Aah ha, the proverbial Revolving Door of past .gov favours/services for the cushy banking non executive directorship or similar reward.

I'll know i'm a made-man when i headline one of these bank-corp soirees/banquets.

DanDaley's picture

"Many of her fans are educated enough to at least recognize basic unprofessional behavior, and still they howl along with her like sick hyenas."


They are "true believers" (i.e. brainwashed - we all know a bunch of them, I'm sure), like the SS or Bolsheviks. For them the ends always justify the means.

onthesquare's picture

People typically do not like to think past the claims made on the outside of the box.  After a certain point of explanation, either listening to someone or reading the advertised claims, they have already decided and become enamered with the product.  If anyone attacks the product or the candidate then they take it personnally.

When we were kids we would argue over Ford or GM being the best depending on what our family car was.  Our family held on to those values and instilled them with us, their children.  We did not know anything about the product but if our dad liked it then it was the best.  Dems or Repubs cannot change their DNA.  It is their nature to follow their heritage.  

Look at it this way.  The USA is no longer united, and maybe never was and their are more than 50 states and they are all around the globe.

HippieHaulers's picture

Motosaurus, any links to this kind of information? I'm interested in what selling out to London entailed.

Motasaurus's picture

It primarily entailed handing over the right to create currency to the international banking cartel, as opposed to keeping it to congress, right where it belonged.

Some good starting points:

Mafia connection with the CIA:

A starting point for the conflict between CIA and FBI:

The business plot to overthrow the United States (note the people named are the same as those who supported the creation of the Federal Reserve):

HippieHaulers's picture

Motosauirus, I see. So when people refer to London owning the US, they are refering to the banks housed in London in control of our Federal Reserve system then? 

Motasaurus's picture

After the battle of Waterloo there ceased to be any real distinction between those banks and the City. What the banks willed, the City willed. But these banks are now essentially stateless entities. It's just handy to describe then as "London", as that's where most either originated or gained the majority of their financial power. 


We should probably really describe them as "London-Munich-Rome", but who wants to type that out all the time?

Blankone's picture

Do not see this as a case of which agency sold out and which did not.  They did not sell out but were taken over.  Neither is FOR the US but serve the same master.  The one who owns the Fed.  There is a turf war but it is between divisions of the same company owned by the same group.

JFK's murder was known it was to occur prior to the event by the FBI.  Both, and all, divisions help prevent the truth and helped to derail any finding of the truth. The CIA did not bring out the truth.

The Bush family is CIA oriented, participated in 911 and other operations.  The FBI did not help get to the truth but was active in intimidating experts who voiced the wrong opinions shortly afterward.  The FBI did not bring out the truth.

They serve the same master, work to the same goals, cooperate as needed but the people who make up each would like to be the premeir agency with greater power once the goals are attained.

Both, as do the other intelligence/enforcement/judicial agencies, serve the owners of the Fed and non are Pro-US.


El Vaquero's picture

A turf war within the deep state would be sufficient reason for the CIA to take her down.  There is precident for this kind of thing.  FBI vs CIA = Joseph McCarthey getting taken down via Operation Mockingbird.  The question is, which agency would she be siding with and which agency/agencies would she be against. 

ThirdWorldDude's picture

Would you care to back up your claims with a link or something?

El Vaquero's picture

I'm not google and I'm not here to hold your hand.  Google Operation Mockingbird and find out for yourself, or don't.  The point here is, you have access to more information than people 40 years ago could have imagined. Learn how to use it.

ThirdWorldDude's picture

So, you believe all the bullshit you get to read on the interwebz... Congratulations schmuck!