The low road, on the other hand, is grid-locked.

This afternoon George Bush came out in support of the UK condemning the ‘inexcusable behaviour’ of the Iranian government with regards to the seizure of 15 British sailors.

One of Bush’s statements was also that he supported Prime Minister Tony Blair’s desire to resolve the matter peacefully, obviously placing the onus on the Iranians for any aggressive action that could be taken against them if they do not capitulate. Note that Iran has not made any such veiled threats with regards to the five Iranians that are still being held by US forces in Iraq. In fact, the US state department has flatly rejected any suggestion that a swap could be made for the five Iranians captured in Iraq by US forces for the 15 Britons.

While I agree that Tehran might be digging itself a hole, I do agree with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement that ‘The British government, instead of apologizing and expressing regret over the action taken’ chose to paint the Iranians as being wholly in the wrong. If a peaceful solution to the matter is what the British government seeks then it only stands to reason that any apology, no matter how minimally compliant, would result in the release of their people. And yet they are unwilling to do so, again placing the onus on the Iranian government for any escalation that this matter might create.

According to the BBC, dialogue between the two nations has commenced with a desire for ‘lowering the temperature’, but it should again not be overlooked that the British are, in no way, willing to admit any culpability whatsoever – the exact posture that they are using international bodies to condemn the Iranians for employing.

The West’s position must, in this situation, as in all situations, be one of implacable right. No latitude exists for any admission of wrongdoing, and we have seen that played out in Iraq over the last four years in spades.

In my opinion, the lot of them should be dumped in the sea. As to where, well, we’ll let them argue while they’re treading water as to whose side of the line they’re on.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Iranian government should expedite the release of the 15 Britons, just as I believe that the rhetoric gushing from the West about striking Iran must be profoundly condemned by its citizenry.

Proxy wars often slip under the radar. Given events elsewhere in the world it’s not hard to miss, for example, the violence that has now engulfed the Somali capital of Mogadishu, where Somali government forces bolstered by the Ethiopian military, which is in turn supported by the United States, are engaged in trying to put down an insurgency linked to the Council of Islamic Courts which had briefly stabilized the country after years of strife and which was driven from power last December by a combination of Somali warlords, the Ethiopian military, US Special forces, and US air support, the latter of which resulted in civilian casualties.

According to the United Nations, some 60,000 people have fled the violence in the capital since February, and the future of Somalia looks to be, once again, in the hands of the very people that UNITAF (see UNISOM II) was created to counteract the effects of (after the failure of UNISOM I).

The Bush administration has, of course, linked the Islamic Courts Union with al-Qaeda. Of the eleven courts within the Union, which was chaired by a moderate - Sharif Sheikh Ahmed – whose primary goal was to bring stability to the country (though I will not deny that the movement was steeped in the implication of Sharia Law), one of the courts was led by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, once the head of al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, which has been linked to al-Qaeda, and another by Adan Hashi Ayro, whose militia was implicated in the deaths of five foreign aid workers and a BBC producer. These factors obviously allowed the United States to funnel resources towards the removal of the ICU, primarily by utilizing Ethiopia as a proxy. The timely creation of AFRICOM with regards to this matter should not be overlooked either.

The use of proxies to undertake third party policy is nothing new, especially with regards to world powers. But events in Somalia should not be so easily overlooked with regards to context elsewhere. The United States currently has numerous battle groups in the Persian Gulf that have been conducting noncoms off the coast of Iran. In fact, the USS Nimitz is also en route to the Gulf. Britain’s inability to even admit that their personnel could have been in Iranian waters points to a very troubling realization, as does the wholly one sided media coverage being thrust upon the Western public.

As Ray McGovern recently pointed out…

“The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s warmongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side – and particularly the British – decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

There is real danger that this incident, and the way it plays out, may turn out to be outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s last gesture of fealty to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and neoconservative advisers who, this time, are looking for a casus belli to “justify” air strikes on Iran. Bush and Cheney no doubt find encouragement in the fact that the Democrats last week refused to include in the current House bill on Iraq war funding proposed language forbidding the White House from launching war on Iran without explicit congressional approval.�?

As I mentioned yesterday, an article by Justin Raimondo exposed the fact, by way of former British diplomat Craig Murray, that…

“The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.�?

And while one can’t condone the actions of the Iranians, just one can’t condone the actions of others in the region be they native to it or not, it should not be overlooked that they have heard nothing coming out of the West for months but the possibility of a US-led air assault on their nation. This has, in no small way, according to a confidential letter posted yesterday on an internal Web site of the U.N. nuclear monitor, caused the Iranian government to withhold information from the IAEA because of their fears of a US-Israeli air strike against them. It should also not be overlooked that Israel recently approached the United States to get permission to use Iraqi airspace were it to opt to attack Iran.

In truth, this situation is more useful to those looking to confront Iran than all of the now debunked intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. That, in and of itself, should cause considerable concern to even the most ardent of Hawks. Because if this thing goes off, we may very well be staring down the barrel of the next world wide conflict, and not one that is simply an ambiguous clash of ideologies steeped in Orwellian fear mongering.

Brought to my attention by a reader (Scamp), and is as poignant as ever…

In a recent editorial on Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo touches on some very important information regarding recent events involving the United Kingdom and Iran, the crux of it being extremely important…

“Our “free” media is so eager to accept the official British explanation of why their sailors/Marines wound up in Iranian custody that most Western “news” accounts are ignoring all evidence to the contrary, such as the trenchant observation of former British diplomat Craig Murray:

“The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker. But there are two colossal problems.

“A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

“B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.”

What Murray describes as the Brits’ “fake map” is being reproduced in all the major Western media, as if it represents something other than a complete fantasy. Hardly surprising, in our Orwellian age: what’s astonishing is that they expect there is anyone left who believes anything they say, no matter how many times it is filtered through the echo chamber of the “mainstream” outlets. Journalism is dead: long live stenography. The Western media reported Blair’s certainty that the 15 Brits were in Iraqi waters as if it were gospel.â€?

Having done some checking, Raimando, by way of Murray, is correct. The border in question has never officially been determined between Iran and Iraq themselves, and therefore cannot be determined by an Iraqi occupational force, nor its government or naval commanders.

Raimando continues…

“The British incursion into a highly problematic area is but the latest in a series of provocations, including Western-sponsored terrorist attacks inside Iran. U.S. aid to pro-al Qaeda elements operating inside Lebanon, as a counterbalance to Hezbollah’s growing influence, is inexplicable except as part of a new strategy to neutralize Iranian assets in the region. The battle is being extended into the heart of the mullahs’ realm by inciting national and religious minorities within the country: Azeris, Sunnis (including groups associated with Osama bin Laden), and, of course, the ever-useful Kurds, America’s Middle Eastern Janissaries.

Iranian behavior in this matter seems predicated on the assumption that the decision to attack them has already been made. Why else would they parade the 15 captives in front of the cameras, and release two letters of one of them, including a call for the Western withdrawal from Iraq? Since the bombs will fall in any event, why not make propaganda while the sun shines?

All those rumors about war by the beginning of April – the 6th is often mentioned as The Day – which once seemed a bit far-fetched look very credible at this particular moment. If it is the sixth, its significance as the date the U.S. entered World War I will not be overlooked. The consequences of an American attack on Iran will signal the beginning of a new and terrible world war, one that will not only embroil the Middle East, from the shores of Lebanon to the wilds of Waziristan, but also spill over into Russia and reverberate throughout Europe.

And for what? Or, rather, for whom?

There is only one country on earth that benefits in any way from a Western collision with the Persians, and its current rulers haven’t been shy about openly calling for war. The Israelis have stated, loudly and often, that Iranian possession of nuclear technology represents an “existential threat” to the Jewish state, and they’ve threatened to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities if we fail in our duty to do so. They way things are going, however, it looks like they won’t have to …

The Lobby moved quickly to bend Western politicians to its will, including “antiwar” Democrats in the U.S. Congress. Having been given a green light to invade by Speaker Pelosi and her minions, is it any wonder that the War Party is crossing that nonexistent line in the Shatt al Arab – the Rubicon of our imperial ambitions?â€?

The ramifications of this incident should not be taken lightly, rather, even more seriously than the engineered informational run-up to the invasion of Iraq itself in my opinion. In this instance, an international incident of sizeable proportion has taken place, one which will ultimately require some form of response from the UK. Despite the fact that anti-war sentiment regarding Iraq is overwhelming in Britain, one only need look at the BBC’s Have Your Say section to see that views on this matter differ dramatically.

At what point does a nation abandon its principles in the name of national security? One would intrinsically think that any nation that could abandon its most cherished beliefs in the name of national security was never truly governed by them in the first place. That is to say, if civil liberties and constitutionally protected rights can be rendered moot in times of war to ensure their survival, then to what maxim are the people of any free nation actually pledged? To the defense of those rights? Or the assurance that they cannot be denied them no matter the circumstances?

There are those that believe that freedom is worth killing for. While I believe that it is something worth dying for, I have never been of the belief that it is something worth killing for, as the act itself contradicts the belief in the sanctity of what liberty is supposed to represent. One of the ultimate goals of humanity is liberty, and in its achievement the realization of peace. Therefore, to ensure peace and liberty, it is entirely contradictory to kill to preserve it and still believe that the notion of peace and liberty can exist unspotted. This is the juxtaposition of modern, militarized democracies.

Somewhere between perceived national security measures and madness lies the act of torture, the ultimate display of inhumanity. A recent article by Tara McKelvey published in the International Herald Tribune entitled We Were Torturing People For No Reason speaks to the schism in our society between our understanding of liberty and what we have been taught needs to be allowed to protect it.

“Tony Lagouranis is a 37-year-old bouncer at a bar in Chicago’s Humboldt Park. He is also a former torturer.

That was how he was described in an e-mail promoting a panel discussion, “24: Torture Televised,� hosted by the Center on Law and Security of the New York University School of Law on March 21. He doesn’t shy away from the description.

As a specialist in a military intelligence battalion, Lagouranis interrogated prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Al Asad Airfield and other places in Iraq from January through December 2004.

Coercive techniques, including the use of dogs, waterboarding and prolonged stress positions were employed on the detainees, he says. Prisoners held at Al Asad Airfield, about 110 miles northwest of Baghdad, were shackled and hung from an upright bed frame welded to the wall in a room in an airplane hanger, he told me in a phone interview.

When he was having problems getting information from a detainee, he recalls, other interrogators said, “Chain him up on the bed frame and then he’ll talk to you.� Lagouranis says he didn’t participate directly in hangings from the frames.

The results of the hangings, shacklings and prolonged stress positions - sometimes for hours - were devastating. “You take a healthy guy and you turn him into a cripple, at least for a period of time,� Lagouranis told me. “I don’t care what Alberto Gonzales says. That’s torture.�

What would your answer be if you were asked if, in the interests of national security, we had to be protected from ourselves?

Now that’s something, isn’t it.

I was emailed this morning by a first year college student in Atlanta that asked me a very straightforward question. I should preface all of this by saying they admitted to coming from a very conservative family that supports US efforts in Iraq and the Bush administration.

Their question was very simple - ‘where do I begin if I want to understand the relationship between Iraq and America?’

This, of course, is a very complex question, even though it appears to be very straight forward. The answer to such a question would require an immense response, as there is a great deal of information that one has to consider when examining the relationship between not only the United States and Iraq, but Iraq and the West. Therefore, I will do my best to point things in the right direction, and if it at all interests anyone, please take some time to do some independent research of your own.

One: Indefensibility And The Disregard Of Historical Realities Regarding The Support Of Iraqi Human Rights Abuses

Prior to the invasion itself, and during the first year of the occupation, this blog was a flurry of activity. Some, who have since disappeared – often claiming that their points of view were being silenced primarily as an excuse to avoid having to confront the fact that their positions were becoming less defensible, leaving them with little choice than to rely on antagonistic discourse for the sake of convolution– tended to completely disregard past US involvement with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Many who supported the war pointed to the main points promoted by the Bush administration and also lent heavily on UN resolutions created and used by Security Council heavy weights – primarily the United States and the UK, the former of which uses the discontinuation of funding as a threat when it requires UN obedience – as the primary justifications for the invasion and occupation. (*)

What escaped popular discourse at the time (and still does) was US complicity with regards to the regime of Saddam Hussein and the human rights abuses committed while Iraq was a US benefactor. During the run up to the war, and during its early phases, members of the current administration often pointed to, for example, Halabja as an example of the genocidal tendencies of the Hussein regime. The invasion, beyond the rhetoric of needing to preempt Iraq’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, which turned out to be a fallacy, was promoted as the freeing of an oppressed people that had suffered under a cruel dictatorship. But what was not discussed, or ever referenced, was that during the years that Hussein’s regime was responsible for crimes against humanity, the support of the United States was considerable. Even after the incident at Halabja, US support for the Hussein regime was not curtailed by the Reagan administration. That same year, because of the Halabja incident, the United States Senate voted unanimously to pass The Prevention Of Genocide Act which called for the termination of Iraqi oil imports to the US and assistance to Iraq. The legislation was ultimately prevented from taking effect by the Reagan administration who called it premature based on faulty intelligence that the attacks had been carried out by Iran. Despite such barbarity, the relationship between the US and Iraq was not terminated and support for Hussein’s regime continued. In fact, up until 1989, the US Center For Disease Control both sold and sent anthrax, botulism, brucella melitensis, and West Nile virus to Iraq.

The United States was not alone complicit either [1]…

- The British government funded the construction of a chlorine factory, the purpose of which was to manufacture mustard gas. Matrix Churchill also received government funding to supply parts for what later became known as Project Babylon.

- ‘An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium and its government also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure - 16% of the international sales.’

- ‘Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.’

- ‘The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.’

- Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.’

- ‘India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.’

- ‘Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.’

- ‘Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.’

- ‘China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.’

- ‘Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982.’

- ‘Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.’

As an aside, though not surprising to those that study such intricacies, it was later discovered that the US was selling weapons to both sides during the war while limiting logistical support to just Iraq – such as passing along satellite intelligence that allowed the Iraqis to watch and counter Iranian movements and to aid them in targeting chemical weapon strikes against the Iranians. The latter being the province of the CIA.

Two: Involvement In Iraqi Affairs Before The Hussein Regime

One of the better references to this particular subject, though there are many, is Tariq Ali’s book Bush In Babylon. In it, Ali talks about the decimation of the Iraqi Communist Party after the Ba’athist seizure of power and the aid of the United States in helping the Ba’athists identify Iraqi Communist Party members who were then rounded up and terminated.

But more important was the US backed assassination attempt of General Abdul Karim Qassim in 1959, in which Hussein was a key figure…

“In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed “close ties” with Qasim’s ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party “as its instrument.”

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.
Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of “Unholy Babylon,” said the move was done “with full knowledge of the CIA,” and that Saddam’s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish’s account.

Darwish said that Saddam’s paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.â€?

While the attempt on Qassim failed, he would eventually be removed from power in a coup in 1963 orchestrated by Iraqi military officials with ties to the Ba’athist party, though they would later be purged from government by President Abdul Salam Arif, who was himself removed in a bloodless coup in 1968 led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, who would assume the roll of President. From 1964 to 1967 Hussein was imprisoned, though he would escape in 1967 and then play a role in the coup, ultimately becoming Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr’s deputy. By 1969, Saddam Hussein had become one of the most influential figures within the Iraqi Ba’athist party, and by 1979, the year he took power, the controlling figure of the Iraqi military – the loyalty of which was paramount in his ascension.

Three: The Abandonment Of Historical Reality

So why, given America’s history with Iraq, was it so simple to divert people’s attention away from the fact that the West has helped men like Hussein more than they have hindered them? The answer to that question is steeped in a variety of things, the least of which is the overwhelming educational apathy of the general public and their indissoluble belief in the incorruptibility of their own system of government. Add the national trauma of 9/11 into the equation and it’s almost like programming robots to do nothing other than look straight ahead.

The devaluation of historical context in this entire affair has been undeniable, as well as pointing to a vastly dangerous trend in our society. For the sake of protecting an overwhelming sense of our own infallibility, we have sacrificed those bits of history that prove otherwise. That being the case, no wrong is now ever too wrong to be forgotten.

For more on this subject, please refer to The George Washington University National Security Archives Saddam Hussein Source Book as a starting point.

* Despite the resolutions regarding Iraq, the legalities of the invasion itself contravened the 53rd Article of the United Nations Charter.

I can’t remember if I posted this or not, but it’s brilliant…

There have been a lot of comparisons drawn online lately between the recent seizure of 15 British Naval personnel near the Shatt al-Arab and the Gulf Of Tonkin incident in 1964. The difference between the two, of course, is that the former has actually occurred whereas the latter’s occurrence is, at best, debatable. I think the only thing that the comparison does draw is the ramifications this event will have on the Western public’s teetering perception of Iran, which, it should not be overlooked, is always the first step in beginning any propaganda campaign ultimately aimed at justifying actions that would otherwise be viewed as insupportable.

The war currently being waged in Iraq, and the falsehoods regarding weapons of mass destruction employed by both Downing Street and the White House with regards to the invasion of that country, have certainly weakened any case anti-Iranian Hawks within either government have attempted to formulate with regards to making the Iranian nuclear question of catalyzing public importance. Likewise, attempts to promote Iranian interference in Iraq, or the supplying of weapons by Iran to Shia groups has also failed to garner the sort of widespread condemnation that some hoped it would. The seizure of 15 Britons, on the other hand, is something that can certainly be capitalized on.

There is no question in my mind that were those British sailors in Iranian territory the proper course of action would have been to simply escort the British out of Iranian waters. Of course, both the British and the Iranians are offering two different GPS reports on the positions in question – which should come as no surprise.

Instead, 15 sailors were taken prisoner and flown to Tehran where they have been held since.

And so here we find ourselves. The Iranian government first considered trying them as spies, an obvious ploy to evoke a reaction from the British. They’ve also featured a captured Briton on Iranian television, another tactic obviously meant to stir the political pot, be it with regards to rumors of military action or the ongoing nuclear dilemma, which has obviously drawn condemnation from the Blair government. They are now allowing British officials to see them.

So what is behind Iran’s seemingly bizarre methodology?

Well, in my opinion, the three most important factors would be – one…

“My understanding of the situation is that this could be a reaction to the UN sanctions which were passed two days ago… the revolutionary guards had promised that some sort of reaction would be forthcoming from Iran.â€?

two…

“At 3am on 11 January US military forces raided the Iranian liaison office in the Kurdish capital Arbil and detained five Iranian officials who are still prisoners.�

and three…

“The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran.�

Were one to be objective they would certainly have to ask themselves what the perception would be were an Iranian Naval group to conduct exercises just off the coast of the Carolinas?

Seymour Hersh’s 2006 piece for the New Yorker entitled The Iran Plans, which reported that the United States was operating clandestinely in Iran, was one of the first indications that something might realistically be in the works with regards to the Bush administration militarily confronting Iran before then 2008 Presidential election. Since then numerous other articles and papers have been published on the subject.

And then there is the very recent article that appeared in the Russian weekly Argumenty Nedeli by Andrei Uglanov to consider. Obviously when it comes to news produced by the Russian media one has to be careful (actually that applies to the American media as well), so keep that in mind. But in his piece, Uglanov “cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff� regarding a supposed preemptive strike against Iran by the United States called Operation Bite which is supposed to take place on the 6th of next month.

Now, do I personally believe that Operation Bite exists? Perhaps as a Psyop I do, but not as an actual military operation. And if I’m wrong about that, and Uglanov’s piece is correct, then surely it’s been scrubbed. But by leaking such material to the right people who have the ears of others, especially in a nation that does business with Iran, it’s bound to find its way into the press and then cycle back into the Western world – which is one way to gauge public reaction (the web is useful for more than just Face Book after all). I could, of course, be entirely off base as well, and it could be nothing more than Russian propaganda aimed at creating ballast with regards to the severity of the UN sanctions recently put into place against Iran.

Updated:

On a hunch I made a call…

I just spoke to a friend at the foreign desk and this is essentially what they told me -

What we cant presently do is link the JSG to the Royal Marines currently being held in Iran. The female sailor who spoke on Al Jazeera today is not Irish, as I identifiend her accent to be of the Midlands (I could be wrong about that). Anyone involved in the Ullster Volunteers (other than on a lead operational level (Kerr is Scottish) would almost have to be Irish.

Updated:

Friday, March 30th - According to the BBC today, the names of five of the captives have been released, all of them being English.

First, let me say that at the end of this video it says that no ‘unarmed’ persons were injured during what was filmed. That said, you’d have to be blind not to clearly see in this video that a car simply driving by was fired upon and when those inside attempted to run, after the car had crashed, they too were fired upon.

What disturbs me the most is the mentality of the soldiers themselves during this video. It, in and of itself, is frightening enough.

Second, there’s nothing like baiting a group of Iraqi children with a bottle of water and getting it on film while laughing your ass off.

Some things are just too good not to share.

Your Balls
By Lauren White

your balls
they are big
and i like them
on my face, in a race, any place
your balls
fill your drawers
spill into the halls
i think of them at the mall
your balls they smell
like a dewy spring’s morn
they are the essence of life
your balls
your balls
your balls
COCK

*I’m sorry, but that’s just fucking magical.