Malaysia's Mahathir warns World War 4 looming
 

AFP | June 7 2006

A new world war involving nuclear weapons may have already begun, Malaysia's former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said Wednesday, warning that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.

Mahathir said that bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan could have marked the start of the world's fourth conflict after the two great wars and the Cold War, which ended with the collapse of Russia.

The veteran leader who ruled Malaysia for two decades until stepping down two years ago said he was convening a "peace forum" later this month bringing together experts who were sounding the alarm on the looming conflict.

"They feel that the threat is very real, certainly the fourth world war has already begun... they are convinced nuclear weapons will be used, maybe not immediately, maybe some time later," he said.

"It's not acceptable that the world should endure a prolonged fourth war," he added. "I'm convinced this might happen unless they change leaders or something like that."

Mahathir said he feared that an attack by the United States on Iran, which is insisting on pursuing nuclear capability, could trigger a global wave of suicide bombings that would create widespread insecurity.

"I went to Iran myself ... and the Iranians seem to be very determined that they will defend their country. They will not give in nor will they give up their right to do research in nuclear material," he said.

"They will fight back and I believe that they have the capacity to inflict damage on whoever attacks them."

Mahathir said without providing evidence that he had read reports of up to 14,000 suicide bombers being trained in Iran.

"They will not confine themselves to Iran. We will not know where they are and as we have seen, people who are desperate and angry will not be very particular about whom they attack," he said.

"So the world will become very insecure if Iran is attacked. Anywhere at all they may decide to take action, they may blow themselves up wherever."

Mahathir said that terrorism was the result of powerful countries attacking nations that had no other means to defend themselves, and compared their actions with independence movements during the British colonial era.

"We think that nobody should kill but there are instances where people have no other means of defending themselves -- they are being attacked using helicopter gunships, bombs, rockets etc and they are without any means of fighting back."

"They are in fact defending themselves. I'm not going to excuse them for killing children etc but one has to remember that children are also being killed by government forces," he said.

"So what is needed here is a proper perspective. If your country is being attacked, I think it's legitimate to fight back."

He's got some valid points, attacking Iran would be a fatal mistake, not for the people high up but for people like us.

I dont have to raed all of that do I?

didn't read it, but wanted the sig spot

Didn't read it either, but does it mention how it jumps from World War 2 to World War 4.

it calls the cold war between the us and russia the 3rd world war

so did i sleep through WW3?

hahahaaaahaaa im not gonna worry about it until midway, WWIII, mmkay?

Hmm, so if we let Iran get nukes we get nuked, and if we don't let them get nukes we get suicide bombings. I'll take the suicide bombings please.

lol Iran nuking the US would be like a suicide bombing on a massive scale. Iran would be eliminated within minutes - VERY unlikely they'd ever do that.

Look beyond what the media is telling you. Iran plans to start a new Oil market using Euros instead of USD - and suddenly we need a war with them? It all makes sense ;)

ww3 was ghey

They name the Cold War as the third major world conflict, that ended with the collapse of Russia.

This is what's accelerating our nuke Iran plan. We already wanted to do it, now they are really pissing us off.

it's cute how these pimples on the world's ass talk tough about the US right up until we arrive.:1orglaugh

Why not skip a few more numbers and start directly with WW X?

It will look so much better in history books :winkwink:

and where is your sig? :1orglaugh

sorry, i didn't read the text - too long and i didn't understand the beginning about the wars and Russia.

so basically they are theatening the whole world if they get invaded

nice way to drum up some sympathy

I pay little attention to the media. The MSM lost almost all it's objectivity and ability to report honestly a long time ago. The media calls terrorists 'militants' and pretends that if only we show 'sensitivity' no-one will want to kill us.

However, those who do read the 'new, progressive, reality-based media' :1orglaugh might well be led to believe that the US will go to war just because Iran would like to promote the Euro.

Iran wants to develop nukes to hasten the coming of the Mahdi (a mythical Islamic figure who will return to Earth in times of chaos to kill all the infidels and make an 'Islamic paradise' on Earth).

So, we either let them develop and use nukes or we fight them. No-one's nuking me without a fight. I'll even do your fighting for you if you think there's nothing to worry about. You can thank me afterwards that you're able to raise children and have a job and leisure time and live in relative peace.

Those who think that freedom does not come at a price and that everyone in the world just wants to get along and that one man who stutters (Bush) is the root of all evil can carry on visiting indymedia.org and dailykos.com, because intellectually and morally they do not have a leg to stand on, and to be honest just come across as ideologically-challenged young college teens desperate so show how sophisticated they are.

Pretty much any history teacher arround the world will tell you that cold war was WW3

If you hurry you can get your sig in dozens of threads before lunch:winkwink:

really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III

Good sources for underground information and alternative views below.

www.prisonplanet.com
www.infowars.com
www.rinf.com

They don't give a fuck about sympathy nor do they want any.

The Iranians, like all Islamists, know exactly what buttons to press to divide the free world. They know perfectly well how to manipulate the bleeding hearters amongst us, as well as being adept at frightening the hell out of the types of leaders who have no common sense (most of Europe's leaders).

They know full well that the only thing which can hold back the true leaders amongst us (those who will fight to defend us) is the lunatic fringe of elitist, 'sophisticated' :1orglaugh , new age, post-Christian former 60s hippies who now have control of almost all Western governments and media/ opinion-forming organisations.

As an example, I give you the letter the Iranian president sent to George Bush last month. Only a handful of media outlets identified it for what it really was (a call to Islam and declaration of war combined). The huge majority of people were actually taken in by it and were fooled into thinking that the Iranian president is a peaceful, reasonable man.

Although our Western values are worth defending, as a people I'm not sure we have a right to survive. We're just too stupid. We think that our enemies are our friends and that our own leaders are the cause of all the world's problems. All the soldiers and civilians who died and suffered throughout history so that we have the freedom to post on adult web forums must be turning in their graves that we are so willing to let our enemies destroy us now.

But then again, what do I know; I don't think that Islam is a religion of peace or that Guantanamo is worse than Auschwitz :winkwink:

:1orglaugh

Yes, if you want an alternative to actual reality then feel free to visit those sites. However, most people achieve the same effect with crystal meth.

I've been reading this place for years now and this is the first time ANYONE other than myself has mentioned this. Thank god I'm not alone in understanding the truth :thumbsup

All the current conflicts in the middle east are about keeping the dollar the ONLY currency for selling oil because without it America's imperial empire will fall and you will become a third world country.

All these wars in the middle east are a direct result of what happened in 1999 (when the european currency was launched)

Its number one goal was to become at the very least a rival to the dollar for trading in oil. Then in 2001 Saddam hussein decided to trade oil in euros which results in America needing an excuse to invade Iraq (to change back oil trading to dollars)

Hence in 2001 we have 9/11 which paved the way for the war in Afganistan which is a stepping stone to get us reading for the push into Iraq.

Iraq is invaded and oil goes back to being traded in dollars like it was before Saddam changed it.

Now in 2006 we have another OPEC country which is about to do more economic damage to America than a nuclear weapon could do, Iran one of the worlds top oil producers is about to start a new Oil market using Euros instead of USD

If Iran succeed in creating this new Oil market it could be the beginning of the end as America as a world super power.

Thats some scary shit if you ask me ! Everything we are seeing today is directly a result of europe creating their own currency in 1999 - This was the reason why so many european countries decided to change to the euro because of the economic benifits it would create if the euro could rival the dollar in the oil market

To prove what I'm saying even more, in 2001 the US dollar went down the shitter, ANY european webmaster can attest to this :) The dollar hasn't be worth as much to us europeans since 2001 - Funny how in 2001 Iraq started trading oil in euros instead of dollars. Look this shit up ! it all links in economically !

Also why the fuck do you think France and Germany amongst other european nations where against the war in Iraq ?

Wouldn't you be if economically you had just been made a lot better off and then someone took that away from you ? Anyone who thinks France and Germany where against the war in Iraq based on moral grounds is a retard !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/2683409.stm

Like all Governments do, protecting their own interests !

when this stuff is taken as fact, I just gotta shake my head.

not in the US... dunno about anywhere else

Well if it need to be reported on the news as fact your never going to hear about it.

May I ask, why is it so hard to believe ? Your one of the more inteligent people on this board, whats your thoughts on the current situation in the middle east ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar

U got some valid points there.

what about WW3?

Any nukes that Iran made would NOT be able to reach the US, idiot.

I think you forgot that you were responding to 12clicks.

missiles aren't the only method of deploying nukes. suicide bombers could just end up making a bigger boom

if there was an opinion that I valued, it came from this guy... LOL

congrats to all the winners


.

well, first, this quote of yours argues directly against your point:
"""it may even be argued that crude oil trading may, in the long term, be a significant liability for the stability of the currency in which the trade is conducted."""

beyond that you're arguing that 9/11 was somehow staged to get to iraq?
that just doesn't hold water.

you're kinda looking at past events and making them fit your scenario while discounting events that don't fit.

I'm surprized your mom is still paying for your internet connection. can't throw her little bird out of the nest, eh?:1orglaugh

Are you truely that dumb?

hell no!
if I were your mom I'd have kicked you out long ago.:1orglaugh

Well I would have to disagree with that, define long term ? 50, 100 years ? Perhaps afer 50 or 100 years it will become a significant liability for the stability of the currency in which the trade is conducted (due to oil running out)

You have to remember Americas economic prosperity and benifits from selling oil in dollars only started in 1971 - Thats only been 35 years.

So even if there was only 35 years left of oil and the euro was the internation oil currency reserve and was trading oil for euros they would have that economic prosperity that America has enjoyed for the past 35 years !

So I think my point is still valid and stands

The bottom line, any currency that is the reserve currency for every nation in the world is gonna be economically very prosperous

Why does it not hold water ? Iraq started trading their oil in euros in 2001, America had to make a stand pretty fast to stop a potential domino effect with other OPEC countries changing to euros (which would have destroyed Americas economy)

So 9/11 happened, gives them a valid reason to invade Afghanistan to seize the Caspian Basin oil, I'll explain the importance of Afghanistan below

the groundwork for the current U.S. military actions in Afghanistan was being built up for several years. What comes into focus is that the September 11th terrorist attacks have provided a qualitatively new opportunity for the U.S., acting particularly on behalf of giant oil companies, to permanently entrench its military in the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia, and the Transcaucusus where there are vast oil reserves-the second largest in the world. The way is now open to jump start projects for oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan to Karachi on the Arabian Sea-the best and cheapest route for transporting those fuels to market. Afghanistan, itself, also has considerable amounts of untapped oil and gas, as does Pakistan.

Afghanistan was like hitting 2 birds with 1 stone, they seize the oil from Afghanistan in October 2001 and it gives them a base to start their miltary build up for the war in Iraq in 2003

What events don't fit what I'm saying ? I think it all fits in just about right and it also makes logical sense based on whats happened over the past 5 - 6 years

and before that America was unprosperous? why, thats preposterous!:1orglaugh

no it doesn't. The 1960s (before your prosperity hypothesis) were some of the most prosperous times in America and surprisingly, the worst economic times in recent memory were the 70s (after oil was bought with the dollar when you're saying should have been the best of times)


it doesn't hold water because its fantasy.
you have nothing credible to support your "build up of groundwork for afganistan invasion" story.
also, there's been no oil seized from afganistan.

Actually neither Iraq or Afghanistan has much oil. That's why Saddam wanted to invade tiny Kuwait. Anyways Iran does and look which countries are the left and right of Iran. Hmmmmm.

http://www.pnm.my/mtcp/images/maps/Iran-map.jpg

merely calling other people 'idiot' 'dumb' etc while making more of a fool of yourself does not help you.

idiot. :1orglaugh

http://www.harpers.org/art/cartoons/...ce_350x456.jpg

I didn't say America wasn't properous before 1971, I was saying trading oil in dollars only began in 71

Its arguable that the 1973 oil crisis was Americas own doing, punishment for supporting Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Prove America was more prosperous in the 1960s Vs 1980s & 90s

Last time i checked American was still occupying Afghanistan, I'm sorry but your wrong

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1644813.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1626889.stm

Or maybe you do not recognise the BBC as a valid news source

According to this url http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Iraq has 115 billion barrels in their reserve and has the 4th largest oil reserve in the world

Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserve

Afghan pipeline given go-ahead Thursday, 30 May, 2002 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm

your whole argument is based on the US protecting its prosperity by attacking iraq. the simple fact that we were prosperous before 1971 pokes holes in your theory.



the oil crisis was a short term event. the point is, your theory doesn't hold water because we were just as prosperous before the american dollar standard for oil as after.



I don;t have to because thats not the point. You'd like us to believe we went to war to protect the dollars for oil currency because without it (to use your words)"America's imperial empire will fall and you will become a third world country"
well, considering we were never a third world country before 1971, your theory just doesn't add up.

we can't continue to play if you're going to start lying.
I told you we are not seizing oil and your response is to post links to an article about afganistan building a pipeline?
here are some quotes from the articles you've linked to:

this speaks to your theory exactly:
"""Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.
But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.

On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.""""


"""Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.""""
-----------------------------------------

now, if the definition of "seizing oil" means afganistan piping oil to pakistan and india, I guess you've got me:1orglaugh

Alot of shortsightedness in this thread, this war has been raging for thousands of years.