Time Immortal

Aspentroll writes back, after a lengthy hiatus, with a response to my previous reply to him (which dates back to May of this year). I’m thinking that I will break this one up and answer it piece-by-piece, since he jumps between topics in a manner that might make for a distracting response if approached as a whole. Rest assured, O Reader, that all of the text of Aspentroll’s message will appear below, in un-edited form, and in the same order in which it arrived.

Hi I’m back. I know it’s been awhile, but, all we atheist require would be some acknowledgment from theists.

I’m not completely sure what possible relation could exist between Aspentroll’s 5-month silence and the lack of theistic acknowledgement that atheists (some? all?) apparently perceive. I’m also curious why theists — including myself — owe it to atheists to grant them any kind of acknowledgement, apart from the Christian mandate to acknowledge all people as fallen creations of God in need of salvation from sin and death? No such entitlement, apart from the mentioned caveat, exists…at least, not to my knowledge.

Former President Geo. Bush Sr. once said that he didn’t believe atheists had any place in government and went on to say that he believed they shouldn’t even be considered citizens of the US.

It would be interesting to see a source for this claim, but Aspentroll does not provide one. These days, sorting out urban legend from actual fact is becoming increasingly difficult, especially thanks to the internet. It was reported that George Herbert Walker Bush once said: “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God,” while still Vice President. Ostensibly, this was uttered at Chicago’s on or about August 27, 1987, at some kind of press conference.

But no video or audio recordings exist which corroborate the quote, nor have other witnesses confirmed it to be a legitimate quotation. Indeed, the only known source for the quote is an atheist activist, one Robert I. Sherman. The Reader will, I trust, forgive me if I find no reason to assume that Mr. Sherman is being wholly, or even partially, truthful in his attribution of the above quote to the then-Vice President.

That very statement is exactly what atheists are angry about.

It would seem, then, that most atheists are angry about a highly dubious statement. Given Aspentroll’s previously stated dismissal of religious people as delusional, I have to wonder how inflamed anger over a potentially imaginary quotation can be equated to reason and rationality?

Or perhaps it is the case that atheists are simply angry people in general, and who prefer to use things like this false quotation as a kind of focal point for their frustration, until a different focal point can be found. If it’s not a 21-year old quotation, it’s Sunday schools (which seem to make Richard Dawkins fairly angry). If it’s not Sunday schools, it’s Sarah Palin (we’ll come to her in a minute or two). If it’s not Sarah Palin, it’s the Church or the Pope, or…something. It’s always something, and (to me, at least, atheists seem to always be angry.

Atheists are constantly being blamed for the actions of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin.

Well, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin, yes: both men are excellent examples of what can be expected to transpire when atheism becomes an explicit policy of the state, as well as examples of what happens when strongman leaders apply a “morality” derived from the mere “is”-es of atheistic philosophy to a human population. Vox Day — in his book The Irrational Atheist — goes into great detail on this subject, and his conclusions paint a very bloody picture of atheism’s “Red Hand.”

At any rate, because Stalin and Pol Pot are such excellent examples of the murderous nature of state-endorsed atheism, Aspentroll will ignore them from here on in, and focus on the Godwin-bait instead.

Hitler was historically a Catholic in good standing with the Pope of the day.

Now, one is used to the occasional bit of historical fallacy when one debates atheists, but this particular example takes the cake, given that it manages to encapsulate two distinct historical errors in one convenient sentence.

The issue of Adolf Hitler’s religious beliefs is a complex one, and one that has been explored to great length. But let’s look at the raw facts of history. Hitler was raised by a Catholic mother and a nominally Catholic, “freethinker” father (Adolf Hitler: His Family, Childhood and Youth, Bradley F. Smith, Stanford/California, 1967 pp. 27 & 42). Hitler himself began to reject Catholicism and the Church in his youth. As an adult, he never attended Mass, nor did he participate in any of the Sacraments. (Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Michael Rissmann, Zürich München: Pendo, 2001, p. 94-96)

As attending Mass on Sundays is generally considered a minimum requirement for being a Catholic, let alone one in “good standing,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2041-2043), it can safely be said (I think) that Hitler was about as Catholic as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time.

Which brings us to the second historical inaccuracy, because the Pope of the day — Pope Pius XII — was no friend of Hitler, or of Naziism. Indeed, Pius XII was often openly critical of the Nazi regime, and of the many evils perpetrated by them. In one encyclical that he drafted for his predecessor (Mit brennender Sorge), he denounced anti-Semitism as un-Christian. In that same writing, Hitler was denounced as insane and arrogant (A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Bokenkotter, (2004), pp. 389–92) — this document, then, led to several rather brutal repressions being launched by the Nazi regime against Catholic priests, monks, and congregations. (A History of Christianity (1995), Chadwick, pp. 254–255)

It is true that during the formal duration of the Second World War, the Church — under Pius XII’s guidance — adopted a policy of strict neutrality. That didn’t prevent more than 2500 Catholic priests from being imprisoned at Dachau, nor did it stop Pius XII from turning the Vatican into a sort of aid centre, missing persons agency, and coordination centre for the evacuation of thousands of Jews — many of them children — from German territory during the course of the war. Indeed, at one point, nearly 500 Jews were hidden in the Vatican proper.

So let’s review: not only was Hitler a nominal Catholic at best (it is more likely that even by the time of his ascent to power, neither he nor any Catholic official would have considered him a part of the Church), but his relationship with the Pope of the day was anything but friendly. And, in fact, the Pope of the day, despite guiding the Church to adopt a neutral stance as far as the war was concerned, worked against Hitler’s machinations and policies to a great extent. The concept of “Hitler’s Pope” is a myth.

Indeed, if Hitler had any Religion, it was Positive Christianity, a rather esoteric concoction that attempted to re-cast Christ as an Aryan champion and active opponent of Judaism — it is thus a historically indefensible parody of the Christian faith, and nothing more or less than an utter heresy. Other aspects of Naziism flirted with the occult, or with forms of paganism. And it must be noted, vis a vis my comment above about the Grand Mufti, that various Islamic officials also worked closely with Hitler, the Grand Mufti even going so far as to send troops to assist Hitler in his campaign against the Jews.

It may interest you to know that there are many more atheists and agnostics and other forms of unbelievers alive and well in the US than you have imagined. Some are in the closet because of statements like that of Bush Sr. They all pay their taxes, give to charities, hardly ever trip old ladies with canes and would really like to be recognized as first class citizens just as the theists.

I don’t deny the existence of moral, charitable atheists; good for them. And yet it remains the case that atheists — or, more broadly, secular folk — are about 3.8 times more likely to be incarcerated for crimes. It remains the case that while crime in America tends to be higher in “red” (read: Republican, stereotypically more Christian) states, the hotbeds of crime in those states tend to be “blue” (read: Democratic, stereotypically more secular) counties (see The Irrational Atheist for more and better detail on these figures).

But remember: nobody can take credit for simply abiding by the law. The law is the minimum standard — as Chris Rock might say, “you’re supposed to pay your taxes, motherfrakker! What do you want, a cookie?” And he might also say, “you’re supposed to not trip old ladies, motherfrakker!” Personally, I think Aspentroll is overstating when he bemoans the fact that atheists do not enjoy recognition as “first class citizens”; I know more than a few atheists personally who are models of their communities, and good people besides. But then, it’s not hard to be a model citizen; one need only obey the law, participate a bit in community events, and treat other community members with respect.

If it really is the case that atheists do not enjoy recognition as citizens in good standing in their communities, it is probably the case that many atheists fail on one or more of these metrics. This conclusion seems, at least, somewhat more probable than the alternative conclusion, that the lower standing of atheists is due solely to a massive theistic conspiracy.

Unless, perhaps, one is a paranoiac. But one cannot be a paranoiac and claim the “high ground” of reason, which atheists often do.

The facts on the ground seem persuasive: religious inclination promotes charitable actions, religious conservatives are more likely to donate to charities and to work in charitable organizations than are secular folk and/or progressives, and religious people are less likely to cheat on their spouses. That’s all stuff I’ve commented on in the past, and then just the stuff I found after a two-minute search. I’m sure, were I to comprehensively examine the archives, that I’d find many more such examples…but these will suffice to demonstrate the point being made: it’s great that some (many?) atheists are good folks and decent citizens…but so what? They’re still the exceptions, rather than the rule.

The biggest problem is that fundamentalists are taught in their churches to discount anyone who believes differently than they do.

This is often the case, yes, and I can only assure both Aspentroll, directly, and the good Reader, more generally, that I am just as much on the receiving end of evangelical exclusivity as any atheist. Being Catholic, the things that I say, and the things that I believe, are very often completely (or near-completely) discounted by the likes of fundamentalists.

But then, it should be noted that atheists are not guilty of doing the same thing. Aspentroll himself, in the writing which I responded too previously, specifically attempted to play the “atheism is reason/religion is delusion” card; is this not a form of automatically discounting “anyone who believes differently” than Aspentroll himself does? And can’t people — young and old alike — be taught to be exclusive in just this way?

Methinks the answer is a resounding “yes!”

This may be because Religion in the US is a big business and will do their utmost to hang on to their positions in church and government. Pat Robertson, Huccabee, Palin come to mind.

Actually, most fundamentalists do it for a far simpler reason that that they are all participants in a massive conspiracy to discount, and possibly disenfranchise, the godless. 2 Corinthians 2:14-18 reads thusly: “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Be’lial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.’”

So in “discounting” non-Christians, evangelicals are simply living out their interpretation of this teaching from St. Paul. Of course, their interpretation is incorrect in and of itself…but that’s not the point. The question that Aspentroll raised was one of motive, and this Biblical excerpt is at the heart of the motive of fundamentalists if they make any attempt to discount atheists or other non-Christians.

Now, I promised that we’d come to discuss Sarah Palin a bit more.

I just saw the videos of Sarah Palin being prayed over by the black Priest from Kenya who was attempting to protect her from being taken over by “witches”.

Please, if this is “the common sense” that comes from organized religion, then we have stepped back a century or two, wouldn’t you think?

We all have the right to worry if this twit makes it into government.

I fail to see the cause for worry. Yes, it’s damned odd that some priest from Kenya saw fit to pray that she be protected from witches (more on that in a moment), but why does that make her a twit? And why does it impact on her ability to govern, or to fill the office of Vice President of the United States? And why should we worry about it? It’s just the actions of one priest…he can hardly be said to be representative of Christianity as a global religion, nor of Sarah Palin’s faith, nor of her competence (or lack thereof) to govern.

As to the odd prayer for Palin’s preservation from witches, it should be observed that Christianity often absorbs regional customs, and what we’re seeing here is the result of a conflation of Christian religious tradition with some local Kenyan traditions, methinks. A lot of African tribal cultures still have strong beliefs about possession and witchcraft, as did the ancient Hebrews. That’s not a result of their Christian faith, for the most part; it’s a remnant of their pre-Christian cultural traditions, which has been partially grafted onto their Christian worship practices.

No, it’s not the most sensible thing in the world, good Reader…but give it a few centuries, and it also won’t be an issue any longer, methinks.

In all honesty, there are some Christians that make me cringe by what they do, or for the sometimes esoteric beliefs that they hold. Christians are capable of being “less than rational,” as surely as are all human beings. But methinks that Aspentroll is doing something again which I called him on once before: he would hardly be the first atheist to look at, say, oddities particular to one Christian denomination in an isolated region, and declare that all religions are weird and sub-rational as a result. That might come as news to the many educated, wise, rational, reasonable Christians in the world, but not everyone can be counted on to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric, especially if it sells books with provocative titles. And yet, a more reasonable, rational person would notice that there are many critical differences between, say, Christianity with local tribal influences and formal Catholicism.

And at the end of the day, for as weird as some Christians can be, atheists and other secular folk are still more likely to pursue pseudo-science and the paranormal. Indeed, if one wants to tie this back to the presidential race currently underway, one could reflect that while “36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. [Barack Hussein Obama]’s former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin’s former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.”

I respectfully submit to Aspentroll that, if it is honestly his desire that the candidate most closely associated with “common sense” be elected, his vote should not go to the Obama end of the ticket come November.

I know you won’t post this, because it will not be in your best interest.

Sorry to disappoint, Aspentroll.

Bill Whittle remarks:

When all is said and done, Civilizations do not fall because of the barbarians at the gates. Nor does a great city fall from the death wish of bored and morally bankrupt stewards presumably sworn to its defense. Civilizations fall only because each citizen of the city comes to accept that nothing can be done to rally and rebuild broken walls; that ground lost may never be recovered; and that greatness lived in our grandparents but not our grandchildren. Yes, our betters tell us these things daily. But that doesn’t mean we have to believe it.

Is that a Tolkein reference I do detect therein?

Lord of the Rings was a metaphor for its own time, written (as it was) across the span of time in which the Second World War happened. But like the deep Catholicism from which Tolkein drank, the messages of his epic tale do have an eternal, and then repeating, ring to them. We can see ourselves in his tales…but that is not always a comforting thought.

Me: Dinosaurs and man did not co-exist.

You’re welcome to claim that I’m an unbeliever because of that, but I might point out something: I know my heart and my thoughts (you do not know my heart and my thoughts). I know the level of my devotion to Christ (you do not know the level of my devotion). I know what I believe (you do not know what I believe).

And if you want to debate the history, I’m game.

Young Earth Creationist: “Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God…” - Job 40:15-19 (NIV)

Me: What is the behemoth? Is it concretely identified as a reptile (which the dinosaurs were)? No, it is not. It is identified as a herbivore, muscular and sinewed, and as a creature which lives near a swamp/water. So it could be a dinosaur,but it could also be a hippopotamus, or an elephant, or perhaps even a rhinoceros. Arguably, the description of the tail might argue against this, but it should be noted that the word could be a euphemism for genitals — and in fact, in the original-language manuscript of Job, this is the more sensible interpretation of the passage.

In other words, behemoth might be any number of animals apart from a dinosaur. Why rush to the least-obvious conclusion and insist that it was a dinosaur?

YEC: “His tail sways like a cedar” — it has to be big. Nothing exists now meets that description; “behemoth” usually means it is just humongous. Come on man, it is as if you don’t want to believe dinosaurs were in the Bible…why not? I doubt the elephant ranks first, plus dinosaurs at least started out as herbivores.

Me: You’re ignoring what I said — I already addressed that objection. But a little expansion on the point can’t hurt.

Firstly…yes, some dinosaurs were herbivores. Some, however, were carnivores. We can tell as much by looking at their teeth. A herbivore has teeth rather like that of a human molar — flat, built for crushing. A carnivore has teeth rather like the human canine, or like the fangs of any number of modern predators — sharp, pointed, made for piercing and tearing.

I read some rather whimsical comments, in the past, suggesting that T-Rex was a herbivore — what a fantastic lie that is! Even looking at a Tyranosaur skull demonstrates that T-Rex was a carnivore — its teeth would be almost useless for chewing on plants, but they’d be excellent for latching on to prey. Small forearms don’t really enter into it — most predators eat their food on the ground, and few indeed use their claws/paws as an integral part of the eating process.

It’s not that I don’t want to believe that there were dinosaurs in the Bible — it’s that there aren’t dinosaurs in the Bible, plain and simple. Those reptile species died out long before humanity ever began writing down its histories and legends; indeed, the dinosaurs died out long before humanity even appeared on the scene.

If dinosaurs and man really co-existed, then we’d see indications of it in different archaeological sites that we’ve found the remnants of early human civilization in. We’ve learned from looking at the history of the Native Americans, especially, that people who live an early, tribal life make use of the world around them for tools and other things; we would expect to find examples of tools, weapons or jewelry made with dinosaur bones. Especially weapons! Some dinosaur leg bones are massive, and were likely very strong — they’d make excellent spears, don’t you think? And let’s not forget that a massive dinosaur leg bone would make a very excellent piece of building material, say…for a house’s roofing strut?

But we see no examples of any of this. Nor do we find depictions of dinosaurs alongside human beings in early cave paintings. And if one looks at historical depictions of Behemoth, one sees that Christians certainly made no connection between behemoth and a giant reptile throughout much of the time that there has been a Church.

More to the point, the term “sways” is a bit of a mis-translation. The relevant Hebrew word is more accurately translated as “extend”. In fact, in the original Hebrew, the description of the beast doesn’t seem to be describing its tail at all — given that we see mentioned the sinewy “stones” of the creature (read: testicles), the text would actually seem to be referring to the beast’s penis Don’t forget that English-language Bibles are translations of the original text of Scripture; the word “tail” is likely a euphemism.

At any rate, you didn’t answer my question: why is it so important to think that behemoth must be a reference to a dinosaur?

YEC: Because it is in the Bible,

http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-trex.html

Enough said. What are you gonna believe: some wise crack in a school, or a Christian source? You are Christian, right?

Wait, you support the Pope…that pretty much denies Jesus right there. There is nothing Christian about the pope; he is an idolater, he lies, and he is a deceiver. Catholics have made up lies like Purgatory and Baptism (of infants?), and have even started wars (the First and Second World Wars). Additionally, the reason why so many Catholic priests have become paedophiles is because they are not allowed to marry, which is a falsehood. People are supposed to marry.

Me: Dinosaurs are nowhere mentioned in the Bible, not by name nor by “kind” (if you prefer the use of that term).

God fashioned me a handy brain in the process of making me, and He does delight in my use thereof. To that end, I am able to learn, to perceive, and to reason based on the arguments and evidences presented to me.

Now, as it so happens, I used to be quite the little dinosaur buff, and my knowledge of these fascinating creatures extends far beyond some “wise crack in school”. My home province, Alberta, has a large expanse in its southern regions called “The Badlands”, wherein numerous dinosaur skeletons — some near-complete — have been found. In addition to numerous trips there, I’ve studied many different resources and scientific journals on the subject — this is an area of natural scholarship that fascinates me, and while I’m no paleontologist, I believe I can speak to the issue of dinosaurs with some authority.

To that end, I have my doubts about your “Christian” source, not the least of which is that it fails to cite even one passage from Scripture in its supposedly Christian defence of several glaring errors (the most minor of which, I think, is that the author cannot tell the difference between the Albertosaur and the Tyranosaur).

For example: the arms of the T-Rex were indeed short. If you look at the pictured skeleton on the site, and try and imagine how the head and arms might move, there is no way that the T-Rex would have been able to reach, with its mouth, any item held in its hands. It would not have done well had it attempted to use those hands to manipulate branches, since their reach was so small. No, the T-Rex (not unlike the giraffe) would use its mouth and the length and articulation of its body to find food with.

Which brings us again to its teeth. Those are not the teeth of a plant-eater. If you want to see a herbivore’s teeth, look at the molars in the back of your own mouth; they are blocky, and more or less flat on top. If you want to see a carnivore’s teeth, look at the teeth of a lion. Now…which animal has teeth that more closely resemble those of a T-Rex? Your “Christian” source claims that the teeth would wear down if the T-Rex were constantly biting through flesh and bones…but this too is false, and we can observe as much in nature today. Alligators, crocodiles, and some species of predatory mammals all have jaws that are easily capable of biting through bone, and yet even into old age do not show measureable signs of tooth degradation. In many cases, that is because their teeth — unlike ours — are constantly growing; they periodically gnaw on things to sharpen and hone them.

Is not God’s design marvelous?

Your source also claims that “true” meat eaters are “smooth and sleek”. This is kind of a logical fallacy (look up “No True Scotsman” if you’re curious), and is also something of a patent falsehood. Alligators and crocodiles are not particularly sleek. Nor are they particularly fast — they rely on stealth and the murky water in catching their prey. In fact, many predators are not as fast as their prey; they either attempt ambushes and surprise to catch their prey, or else they prey upon the sick and the elderly in the herd (which are slower or have less stamina with which to flee).

As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny Jesus: how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.

But also…where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you’re not going to throw some Jack Chick in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.

As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from marriage is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is St. Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?

Look, I actually like you — you’ve got spirit. I think, along the way, you’ve been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don’t mean very well at all (don’t know ‘em, can’t say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for Christ — it’s a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that celibacy is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.

This is…kind of shocking, actually. I mean, I get that Europeans have a dim view of America. Let’s take that as a given. What’s really shocking is that it turns out that the British, at least, appear to be every bit as culturally and historically ignorant where America is concerned as Americans are said to be where other countries are concerned:

More than 50 percent of Britons believe that polygamy is legal in the United States; in fact, it is illegal in all 50 states.

Almost one-third of Britons believe that Americans who have not paid their hospital fees or insurance premiums are not entitled to emergency medical care; in fact, such treatment must be provided by law.

Seventy percent of Britons think the United States has done a worse job than the European Union in reducing carbon emissions since 2000; in fact, America’s rate of growth of carbon emissions has decreased by almost ten percent since 2000, while that of the EU has increased by 2.3 percent.

Eighty percent of Britons believe that “from 1973 to 1990, the United States sold Saddam Hussein more than a quarter of his weapons.” In fact, the United States sold just 0.46 percent of Saddam’s arsenal to him; Russia, France, and China supplied 57 percent, 13 percent, and 12 percent, respectively.

The majority of Britons believe that since the Second World War, the United States has more often sided with non-Muslims than with Muslims. In fact, in 11 out of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the United States has sided with Muslims and/or Arabs.

I wonder how many Canadians are similarly ignorant?

I can’t seem to find mention of this incredible operation anywhere in the Canadian news services. Perhaps I am just missing it, but somehow…well, somehow, I doubt that I am. Our news media here in Canada seems intent on reporting only those things which either make the Canadian Forces look bad, or those things which inspire a defeatist sentiment in the general Canadian public.

Something genuinely heroic, like Canadian participation in Operation Oqab Tsuka — a top-secret, five-day mission to deliver a massive turbine (too large to be taken by air) to the Kaiaki Dam in Afghanistan.

The mission’s goal was to drag a second turbine up treacherous roads, and put it online. The operation was of a magnitude large enough to warrant its own name: Operation Oqab Tsuka: Pashto for “Eagle’s Summit.” Some of the younger soldiers, when they heard about the plan to drive a giant convoy straight through Taliban territory, had another name for it: “Operation Suicide.”

The mission was led by British troops, paid for by the Americans, and assisted by the Australian, Danish, Afghan, and Canadian forces in the region. Its entire route passed through Taliban-held territory, and a part of its task involved the largest mine-clearing operation conducted since the Second World War — this was necessary to get the 200-vehicle convoy the mission was charged with escorting safely through passes and hill country.

The loss of any one of the seven critical trailers would constitute mission failure. A second mission of equal magnitude could be attempted, but it would probably have to wait until spring. This mission was one of the largest logistics operations during the entire war and certainly one of the most important civil affairs efforts. Although it was top secret at the time, news of mission failure would quickly spread. In terms of propaganda value, failure would be a major victory for the enemy.

The Canadians have an excellent reputation among British and American forces, and so the Canucks were tasked to clear the road for the convoy. This was a chain of many links: if the Canadians failed, the mission would fail.

In the end, the Canadians did their job well, under fire or threat of fire the whole time. The convoy got through, enduring numerous attacks from the Taliban the whole way. One soldiers — apparently from Britain — suffered a crushed pelvis when a vehicle fell on him during a work break, but the mission sustained no combat casualties. In return, upwards of 200 Taliban were killed. The turbine was delivered, and over a million Afghan citizens will have electrical power made available to them when it begins operation after its installation.

But you’d never know our boys (and girls) were one vital link in the chain of events that made such a thing possible, at least not from reading Canadian news.

Fortunately, Michael Yon is in Afghanistan to document history as it unfolds.

Interesting footnote: the PsyOps team working with the mission decided to hang banners with verses from the Koran on the sides of many of the convoy vehicles, in the hopes that the presence of the words of the (false!) Prophet would deter the Taliban forces from attacking said vehicles directly. Rather clever.