A Conspiratorial History of Iran

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I've just read back through the thread, and must apologise for the many spelling and grammatical errors, which I can nolonger edit. I should have been more thorough in my proof-reading...but in my defense I do have a terrible cold


Now I am going to go and read the thread that xuenchen most kindly linked too...




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I took a quick look through your posts and it's nice so far...


but...


what about the SECOND coupe of Iran? The Islamic revolution that was sponsored by Western powers such as the UK and France? Why is the Wests' involvement in the Islamic revolution even a bigger secret than anything you posted?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I took a quick look through your posts and it's nice so far...


but...


what about the SECOND coupe of Iran? The Islamic revolution that was sponsored by Western powers such as the UK and France? Why is the Wests' involvement in the Islamic revolution even a bigger secret than anything you posted?


Well I had to begin and end somewhere, honey


Please do add to the information, I would truly welcome that, I have my limitations and that was as far as I wanted to take it at this stage.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 


Plus, I wasn't sure I wanted to get into the Iraqi side of things with this thread, which inevitably I would have to if I went into the Islamic Revolution too much...but again, I'm happy to discuss that in the context of this thread if you have something to bring to the table. That'd be great in fact.

edit on 21-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Easily worth an applause from me and I think that there could not be a better time to bring such information to light.


There were several bits of information that are new to me; I had no knowledge of the ethnic cossacks and their ties to the Shah or of their "repatriation" after the war. That is such an ugly piece of history and such was the fallout from WW2 that destroyed many ethnic groups and nations in the post-WW2 power grab.
I also did not know about the first embargo against Iran in the 50's.
The US and Britain built railroads through Iran to help supply the Soviets fighting against Hitler. I read that in Churchill's memoirs. Did this have any lasting effect on Iran or was it inconsequential in the long run?

Great job OP. Thank you for your efforts.
Your thread deserves much more attention.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Easily worth an applause from me and I think that there could not be a better time to bring such information to light.



Thank you, and a sincere thanks to all the other moderators that have sent their applause, I'm quite overwhelmed. But moreover for drawing a little extra attention to the information, I really appreciate that, thanks.


Originally posted by Asktheanimals
There were several bits of information that are new to me; I had no knowledge of the ethnic cossacks and their ties to the Shah or of their "repatriation" after the war. That is such an ugly piece of history and such was the fallout from WW2 that destroyed many ethnic groups and nations in the post-WW2 power grab.


Do you know it is strange, many moons ago, another ATS member, golddragnet (I'm not sure if he still visits) pointed out the 'repatriation' of the Cossacks to me, and it was only when researching this thread, and realising that the leadership of Iran had affiliations to them, that it made any sense and I made the connection. Before, I couldn't understand why the Allies had done that, Stalin yes, but Churchil's motivations and totally ruthless insistence on it's application had eluded me.


Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I also did not know about the first embargo against Iran in the 50's.
The US and Britain built railroads through Iran to help supply the Soviets fighting against Hitler. I read that in Churchill's memoirs. Did this have any lasting effect on Iran or was it inconsequential in the long run?


I'm not sure...but I have been pondering the situation with Germany, who had plans to build a railway from Berlin to Baghdad, and which, Franz Ferdinand aside, was the real motive behind the first world war, and then later, it ws Iran's relationship with Germany that precipitated the Anglo-Russian invasion...and then this afternoon I was reading this...

www.globalsecurity.org...

And according to that report, in the seventies a nuclear plant was being built in Iran by Siemens, but the venture was abandoned because, obviously, the Islamic Revolution took place. So again we have events preventing German economic incursion in the Middle-East, and now it is Russia who have stepped in to provide this technology. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a pattern forming here, ableit a very long and drawn out one. I'm not sure I entirely understand it...unless it is about Halford Mackinder's Geographical Pivot. But surely we have moved on from that...haven't we? Are we still all playing The Great Game?

But what I would say, is, if the rail roads that the British built go to ports, rather than cross-country into the Eurasian heartland, then yes we are...



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
For anyone who hasn't seen this, it is a brilliant, and humourous overview of the history of the oil industry...and imperialism, by Rob Newman.



Well worth watching


Hmmm...struggling to upload that...it is 46 minutes long and I am not renowned for my patience...but just in case it never does...here is the link...

video.google.com...=7995864773427636721

edit on 21-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: trying another link



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The US and Britain built railroads through Iran to help supply the Soviets fighting against Hitler. I read that in Churchill's memoirs. Did this have any lasting effect on Iran or was it inconsequential in the long run?


Thinking more on this. By preventing overland trade, sea trade was prolonged. The reason sea trade is preferred is due to Britain's hegemony of the seas...this is due less to the trade, and more to do with the insurance revenues, all vessels (at that time) being subject to Lloyds Shipping insurance, unless they are British or US vessels and therefore are afforded Naval protection by their home countries...this began to change in the 70s with greater diversification in the market. The real issue here being, is that banking, or banking credit is floated upon insurance revenues. With the recent, and increasing occurences with off-shore drilling disasters creating major losses for insurers, and hence losses for the banks. Plus where at one point you had Barings, Hambros and Rothschild practically controlling international trade via insurance and trade credit, we are now left with only Rothshild, the other two having been forced to merge with mainland European interests or having gone tits up. Rothschild's diversified into controlling raw materials and domestic insurance, far safer bets. Anyway, what we are looking at, increasingly, or eventually, is off shore drilling, for both natural gas and oil being financially unviable simply because the banks cannot afford to risk insuring them. Which is why Iran is suddenly being looked at with increasing avarice. It is likely that Iran holds far more of both resources than are currently being exploited. If off shore drilling becomes a no-go...well I think that should be obvious...

This is further exacerbated for the shipping insurers, because I am sure I read somewhere that China was planning on changing it rail guages to make it compatible to Russian rail systems. If China does that, the bankers that rely on those insurances will also feel the pinch...

So there is potentially a number of things here that could be motivating the current situation. Preventing Iran from using it's own oil. Preventing overland transportation to China and thereby denying banks their shipping insurance revenues...

Not sure how much sense that makes, but you kind of set off a little storm in my brain there with that question...and I wouldn't have slept if I had left it in there. Let me know what, if anything, you think, and perhaps, hopefully, someone else might be able to unravel what I am trying to say.

Bed now. And thanks again.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
No takers huh? Oh well, back to railroads...


In September 1941 the Allies took over operation of the Trans-Iranian Railway: British and Empire Royal Engineers (RE) commanded by Brigadier Godfrey D. Rhodes operating the Southern Division between Tehran and the port of Bandar Shahpur on the Persian Gulf and the Soviet Army operating the Northern Division between Tehran and the port of Bandar Shah on the Caspian Sea.[29]

The RE expanded freight capacity by building new railway yards at Bandar Shahpur, Ahvaz and Andimeshk and a junction at Ahvaz for a new line to Khorramshahr on the Shatt al-Arab. In order to increase the line's locomotive fleet the RE built a yard at Abadan to transfer locomotives from merchant ships to barges to take them up the River Karun and a derrick on a jetty on the Karun at Ahwaz to unload them from the barges onto the railway.[17] When the British first took over the southern part in 1941, the railway was only able to move one freight train per day. The railroad hauled a total volume of 978 tons a day in the first quarter of 1942. Yet by September 1943, they were able to move 5,400 tons per day, due to the import of new locomotives, wagons, and more skilled individuals.[30]

The Southern Division locomotive depot at Ahvaz had two German 2-10-0s, seven German 2-8-0s, two class 41.01 2-8-0s built by Beyer, Peacock & Co. in 1934, two class 80.14 0-10-0s from an Austrian locomotive builder and seven smaller locomotives. The RE found that all except the 2-10-0s were in poor condition, as was some of the freight rolling stock. In December dozens of LMS 2-8-0 steam locomotives and 840 20 ton freight wagons started to arrive from Britain.[17] 27 coal-burning LMS 2-8-0s, designated class 41.100 in the Iranian State Railways numbering system, were in service by February 1942. Once enough LMS 2-8-0s were in service some of the German locomotives were released to increase the fleet on the Northern Division that the Soviets were operating. From February until August 1942 96 oil-burning LMS 2-8-0s, designated class 41.150, entered service on the Southern Division and by December 1942 another 19 class 41.100 coal-burners had joined them.[31] In the same year Davenport Locomotive Works supplied 24 diesel-mechanical 0-4-0 switchers, designated class 20.01,[32] that Iran had ordered before the Allied invasion.[17]



In December 1942 the US Army Transportation Corps (USATC) replaced the British and Empire force operating the Southern Division.[33] In 165 miles (266 km) the line has 144 tunnels, in which smoke and oil fumes created harsh working conditions for steam locomotive crews. A limited water supply throughout the route and the hot climate of the southern plains formed further difficulties for steam locomotive operation.[18] The USATC therefore considered diesel-electric locomotives more suitable and requisitioned the 13 ALCO RS-1s built and had them converted to ALCO RSD-1 1,000 horsepower Co-Co locomotives. [33] An additional 44 RSD-1s were built for use in Iran. These totalled only 57 locomotives so initially they were used to operate only the southern part of the Southern Division between Bandar Shahpur and Andimeshk.[18]

For traffic between Andimeshk and Tehran the USATC brought 91 S200 Class steam locomotives, designated class 42.400 in the Iranian State Railways numbering system. The USATC also introduced another 3,000 freight cars.[18] In April 1943 [33] another 18 ALCO RSD-1's entered service,[34] enabling the USATC to return some LMS 2-8-0s to the British Middle East Command[17] and extend diesel operation northwards, reaching Qom by September 1943 and regularly serving Tehran by May 1944.[35] The USATC further increased freight traffic so that in 1944 it averaged 6,489 tons per day.[36]

"Aid to Russia" traffic ceased by May 1945 and in June the USATC withdrew its RSD-1's [35] and returned control to the British authorities. Shortly afterwards the British restored the line to Iranian State Railways.[31] Iranian State Railways is now Islamic Republic of Iran Railways.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Map of the current rail network in Iran

en.wikipedia.org...:Iran_railway_en.png


Many Americans and British opposed the Trans-Iranian Railway, suggesting more efficient and less expensive modes of transportation, such as the U.S. Army’s Motor Transport Service, which hauled about a fourth of the volume hauled by the railroad to the Soviet border. Some British critics, including General Percy Sykes, opposed the railway because it ran north to south, rather than from west to east. The west to east route was preferred because it would allow the British direct access to their military bases in India and Mesopotamia, and at the same time, avoiding the threat of commercial loss of profit to Russia and any foreign rival.[24]


en.wikipedia.org...

This is very interesting...while Britain was keen to ensure supplies to Russia, it was not keen to extend links that would create a network linking other Persia gulf states...this seems to have remained as such...the current system seems designed on strategic points, and does not solve the problems of servicing the remotest regions or rural populations. There are of course some good reasons for this as some of those regions have rock that makes construction very difficult. Basalt, pumice and huge salt deposits. None of which are particularly suitable for tunnelling, and it is of course mountainous. However, as even someone like me with only the most basic knowledge of geology and rock petrology knows, it is those rocks, particularly the salt, that are the best indicators of natural gas and petroleum deposits. And at that time, the British were at the forefront of developing both those sciences and must have been able to recognise them as possessing such. If they didn't then, they most certainly do now.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
It would, therefore, be my best guess that all eyes in the West are on obtaining, or preventing others from obtaining, exploration rights in the Zagros mountains.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
The region in question is currently protected, it is one of the most biodiverse areas in the world, and a UNESCO site. But of course, war would make such protection moot.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
A little oil history....


Small amounts of petroleum have been used throughout history. The Egyptians coated mummies and sealed their mighty Pyramids with pitch. The Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians used it to pave their streets and hold their walls and buildings together. Boats along the Euphrates were constructed with woven reeds and sealed with pitch. The Chinese also came across it while digging holes for brine (salt water) and used the petroleum for heating. The Bible even claims that Noah used it to make his Ark seaworthy.

American Indians used petroleum for paint, fuel, and medicine. Desert nomads used it to treat camels for mange, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, used petroleum it to treat his gout. Ancient Persians and Sumatrans also believed petroleum had medicinal value. This seemed a popular idea, and up through the 19th Century jars of petroleum were sold as miracle tonic able to cure whatever ailed you. People who drank this "snake oil" discovered that petroleum doesn't taste very good!


www.pafko.com...

Those blessed with a classical education, and perhaps some more devoted archaelogists, will also know that Strabo and Herodotus give some information of bitumen deposits, though it is often hard to trace the exact spots that they are referring to. However, someone like D'Arcy in Persia, and later Harry St John Philby in Saudi Arabia, would have had a rough idea of where to look by exploiting their knowledge of ancient literary sources. In Saudi Arabia, where the people were largely nomadic and had little or no use for liquid petroleum and only the bitumen, it was fairly easy to make such concessions, but the more settled Persians were unwilling to give up large tracts of grazing and farming land, thus hampering Britain's access to all of the deposits.
edit on 22-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Now we get to the really interesting stuff, the majority of sources will tell you that the origin of the term 'Mummy' comes from the Egyptians and their practice of embalming the bodies of their dead, however this is not so. Mummy is Persian in origin, and refers to an ancient substance and cure-all derived from a very specific bitumen deposit. And here we find we return to the German connection...as the first Westerner to describe this substance was a German by birth...


Engelbert Kaempfer (September 16, 1651 – November 2, 1716), a German naturalist and physician is known for his tour of Russia, Persia, India, South-East Asia, and Japan between 1683 and 1693. He wrote two books about his travels. Amoenitatum Exoticarum, published in 1712, is important for its medical observations and the first extensive description of Japanese plants (Flora Japonica). His History of Japan, published posthumously in 1727, was the chief source of Western knowledge about the country throughout the 18th century.



In 1681, he visited Uppsala in Sweden, where he was offered inducements to settle; but his desire for foreign travel led him to become secretary to the embassy which Charles XI sent through Russia to Persia in 1683. He reached Persia by way of Moscow, Kazan and Astrakhan, landing at Nizabad in Dagestan after a voyage in the Caspian Sea; from Shemakha in Shirvan he made an expedition to the Baku peninsula, being perhaps the first modern scientist to visit these fields of eternal fire. In 1684 he arrived in Isfahan, then the Persian capital. When after a stay of more than a year the Swedish embassy prepared to return, Kaempfer joined the fleet of the Dutch East India Company in the Persian Gulf as chief surgeon, and in spite of fever caught at Bander Abbasi he found opportunity to see something of Arabia and of many of the western coast-lands of India.


en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 22-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Observation III, Muminahi or Native Persian Mummy

The Persians prefer a certain native liquid with wonderous powers to the local pearls and precious stones that are the show pieces of their treasures. The Persians term the liquid Muminahi, which is it;s proper name and means Mummy. They also call it either Belessooon which is a general term of lofty significance and means Balsam, or Kodretti, which is a laudatory title and denotes a truly free gift from God and nature: natural mummy.


From
Exotic Pleasures: Fascicles III: Curious Scientific and Medical Observations
By Englebert Kaempfer
(Translated with an introduction and commentary by Robert W Carrubba. Published for the Library of Renaissance Humanism by Southern Illinois University Press, 1996)

Note: This book is not available online as far as I have been able to find, though it may be available in the original German. The above, and subsequent excerpts are transcribed from the copy that I own, and as they constitute less than 10% of the overall book, should not contravene any copyright restrictions.



edit on 22-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: to add note



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Description The mummy, which I propose to discuss, is a bituminous liquid that exudes from the surface rock of a mountain. It has a foul appearance, colour, thickness, and something like a quasi-viscosity of cobbler’s pitch. While the mummy is fresh and adheres to rock, it has a greater fluidity. When heated, it is tractable, mixes readily oil but not with water, it is quite odourless, and is very similar in substance to Egyptian mummy. When placed over live coals, it emits a strong smell of sulphur, which has been tempered somewhat by naphtha and is not entirely unpleasant to the nose. The odour resembles that which is produced through suffumigation by either dry naphtha, or asphalt, or ancient Egyptian mummy, or even dark amber. For all these are bitumens whose substances are by no means unrelated; they differ from one another by degrees of strong odour or sweetness due to the varying dispositions and amount of sulphur or, if you prefer, of their own salt.



Collection of the mummy is said to have been interrupted for several centuries, either because the flow ceased or because the location was lost in the turbulence of wars and buried in forgetfulness. The location was rediscovered and collection again undertaken at the beginning of the seventeenth century after Christ. Since that time, the mummy has been gathered annually with great pomp and ceremony. In order to ensure the authenticity of this precious liquid, which is destined for a place among the treasures of the royal house, the highest administrators of the provinces are themselves responsible for the collecting it at the source. The time of collection is set for that part of the summer when the mummy softens the most from the intense heat of the Dog Star and with minimal effort comes free from the uneven wall of rock.


Above named source, from pages 18 to 29



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   

I have seen a liquid very similar to native mummy pouring forth on a certain mountain of the naphthiferous peninsula of the Caspian Sea. The mountain is located three miles from the Median city of Baku. As the liquid flows from the summit, it is rather fluid at first and gradually congeals as it makes it’s way down. The ignorant rustics only use it for fire to heat bath water. But black naphtha, which is drawn from the wells about a mile away, constant flows over the earth because of careless handling and hardens in a very similar resin...Of the same character and quality is the dry, congealed bitumen of Strabo (Geography 16), whose source he adduces from Eratosthenes to be liquid bitumen of naphtha from the nearby Babylonian plain.


As above source



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
The author, after describing the collection and associated ritual involved, then goes on to describe the numerous medicinal properties, which while not necessarily of relevence to the overall thread, are none-the-less worthy of record...


The mummy is employed both internally and externally. Internally, it furnishes a superbly effective surgical balsam for healing abscesses and ulcers, for dissolving blood clots, and for ruptures and other injuries that harm the internal organs in cases of accidental falls from high places. A small amount of mummy, liquefied with a sufficient quantity of butter, should be imbibed. The patient must carefully avoid wetting his teeth with it, for they say that it harms and loosens teeth. This, they believe, is the distinguishing mark of the nobler unadulterated mummy. Externally, mummy is effective for dislocated bones. After proper reduction the bones are anointed only once with the aforementioned liquid compound in place of a plaster. In fact, if the bones are anointed in this way before being reduced, the tendons they claim, are so contracted after one night that the dislocation cannot subsequently be reset by any technique...


same source



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
He then goes on to explain his own experiment into the effectiveness of the sacred Mummy...


...I was berating as excessive the claims made for the mummy. A member of the household of the governor of Lar immediately came forward to defend the mummy against my mistrust. He intended to prove the excellence of royal mummy (a small amount of which he was fortunate to possess) for uniting bone before, as he said, he would dismiss me. He approached the matter with great confidence before a crowd of spectators...He took a quantity of precious Darabic mummy the size of a small chickpea (two or three grains), and to it he added three times the amount of secondary mummy for a larger subject. He ordered this to be liquefied with a little butter (about a drachma) in a silver spoon that I supplied for the task. While this was being done, a six-month old fowl was brought out and I was assigned the job of breaking either of it’s legs. I completely broke one leg so that the bone protruded from the broken skin. I reduced the fracture, placed a warm band smeared with our balsam around it, and bandaged it firmly. The remainder of the liquefied balsam I poured down it’s gullet. Afterwards I kept the fowl in a small, dark place. All of this was carried out in accordance with the instructions of the mummy’s champion. Those who had been present on the previous day as sponsors and spectators assembled at the precise hour on the following day. The fowl was brought forth from the darkness and set free after it’s bandages had been removed. The fowl spread its wings, flapped them in joy over it’s freedom, and ran off spryly in search of food but with an ever so slight limp... Soon it gave evidence that it was completely free from pain by dashing for the grain scattered about and by the fact that it boldly attacked other fowl in an attempt to drive them off from the food. Those of us who doubted the mummy’s powers stood in awe...


Same source



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
And then describes how he verifies the effectiveness and actual action that the Mummy causes upon the fractured leg (it must be said though, poor chicken)...


I dissected the leg and made a visual examination of the fracture. I found that the out skin covered by the balsam ointment was much thicker than usual and was firmly binding the fractured bones. After removing the skin with a scalpel, I also discovered an amazingly thickened periosteum, which, by wrapping the fracture like a bandage, held and strengthened the bones in their proper position. Once this membrane was scraped away, however, there was no question concerning the belief that the fractured bones united by intermediate callus. Quite the contrary; a gentle touch separated the bones. Instead of the first signs of union, a slight amount of blood was visible on the edges of the fractured bone. Hence, it was clear that nature had admirably begun her work but had not perfected it.


Same source again...
edit on 22-2-2012 by Biliverdin because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum