What's new

Iran Assassinated over 180 Iraqi Pilots to ensure IQIAF doesn't become a threat again.

Iraq with it’s majority Shia and minority Sunni disproportion is bound to be become Iran’s lapdog.

Saddam was an accident, and even if another Saddam comes about he’s going to have to go on a massacre to keep the Shias and Kurds in check. And even if the previous Saddam remained in power he would have had to commit many atrocities against the Shias and Kurds.

Iraq as a nation is a complete mess... what Iran is doing within that nation is only and I mean only because of that Shia majority.
 
Probably Israel did this. Although many of the pilots deserved it, I don't see Iran taking such extreme measures. On many occasions Iran showed mercy to its enemies.
 
Last edited:
Iranian milities? Come on, use some common sense and critical thinking.

Iraqi militias backed by Iran. They are not Iranian by birth.
Yeah but still killed many experienced military personnel and alienated the rest by the debaathization policy which lead to terrorism rise
Probably Israel did this. Although many of the pilots deserved it, I don't see Iran taking such extreme measures. On many occasions Iran showed mercy to its enemies.
Israeli and Iranian intelligence agencies did it
Revenge is sweet. They bombed Kurdish kids and women the so called majoosis by chemical weapons. I am not a kurd but i feel for them.

By refusing to stay in Iran they indirectly announced that they don't regret the past hence signing their own death sentence. They could be potential US allies to destroy ANTI-ISIS allies of Iran therefore ISIS could have a Path into Iran what Americans and the Sauds had planned for. Let's not forget that they were former US allies.
You speak as you didn’t bomb the Kurds or there wasn’t a Kurdish rebellion in Iran or as if the Kurds love you
 
Good read.

This is total propaganda article and none of it makes sense.
How can Kurdish attack Iraqi pilots deep inside baath party brigade??
There is a lot of fake information in Iraq vs coalition forces.
 
I almost spite out my water.. By assassinating old *** pilots by that time while in truth they bombarded Iran in the 80s but some ragtag local militias assassinated them 2 decades to late when there was absolutely no need for them since the entire regime had fallen to Americans anyways.

An irrelevant act by itself and had no benefits or gains whatsoever. No strategic value whatsoever. It's like emptying a machine gun into open desert aiming at nobody

This is the poison of the regime of Iran that Iraq has been having to deal with since 2003. Iran which could do nothing to Iraq, had to wait for America's invasion. Today, when you step into Iraq you have to breath Khamenei's shit.

The country is an utter shithole under that failed IRGC influence which some forumers here seem very proud of heh, Iraqis are allowing this themselves unfortunately as they're uneducated and cry for Imam Hussain all day. Once they wake up they can take care of themselves, or perhaps the USAF can tear another IRGC general up to show us once again how mighty Iran is.
Iran was invaded by Iraq. this is an undisputable fact.

Iraqi pilots commited grave war crimes against Iranian soldiers and civilians by using chemical weapons to commit mass murder.

these "pilots" were war criminals. Iran had every right to get justice from them 1 way or another.

let this be a reminder to the trumpists and all the people mocking Irans "enteghame sakht"

Iran has a very long memory, and if they didnt forgive iraqi war criminals, they will certainly not forget the criminals who murderered Soleimani.

american pilots involved in the soleimani assasination should look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives.

the zionists heavily went after "nazis" after ww2. The US executed many german officer post ww2 for supposed "war crimes" (executing captured american intel officers)

Those chemical attacks were needed to remove the Khomeini loyalists from the south, today we need the same in Karbala to remove the countless of retards.
Yeah but still killed many experienced military personnel and alienated the rest by the debaathization policy which lead to terrorism rise

Israeli and Iranian intelligence agencies did it

You speak as you didn’t bomb the Kurds or there wasn’t a Kurdish rebellion in Iran or as if the Kurds love you

Once you and other Iraqis (who largely happen to be Shias) stop living the false dream and acknowledge that Iran is an enemy, we can progress. Iran capitalized on the ISIS tragedy by spawning their militia's which now challenge the Iraqi state. Same as they capitalized on the US military wars against Iraq, they can't do anything on their own.
 
Last and not least, Khamenei should thank the US military. Otherwise we would have done some major damage after 1991 with Kuwait's oil funds. Khamenei himself would've been Pirouz Nahavandi the second.
 
This is the poison of the regime of Iran that Iraq has been having to deal with since 2003. Iran which could do nothing to Iraq, had to wait for America's invasion. Today, when you step into Iraq you have to breath Khamenei's shit.

That is rich coming from a guy whose country (Iraq) relied on American intelligence in the Iran-Iraq war, up to the point that it assisted its chemical weapon attacks to prevent it from being defeated. Iran would have captured Baghdad if it wasn't for the yanks. You are distorting history; it was Iraq which could do nothing against an Iran that underwent a bloody revolution, subsequent destabilization and purge of its professional army.

The Americans might have speed up Saddam's demise, but Iran would have eventually surpassed Iraq and reckoned with the dictator.

Having said that, @Dariush the Great is the biggest clown of this sub-forum.
 
That is rich coming from a guy whose country (Iraq) relied on American intelligence in the Iran-Iraq war, up to the point that it assisted its chemical weapon attacks to prevent it from being defeated. Iran would have captured Baghdad if it wasn't for the yanks. You are distorting history; it was Iraq which could do nothing against an Iran that underwent a bloody revolution, subsequent destabilization and purge of its professional army.

The Americans might have speed up Saddam's demise, but Iran would have eventually surpassed Iraq and reckoned with the dictator.

Having said that, @Dariush the Great is the biggest clown of this sub-forum.

America propped Iran's military up when the white-envying Shah was ruling the country, being equipped with F-14's wielding the AIM-54 missiles means you are a privileged one back in the 80's. We could say that you were the UAE of the 80's when it comes to weapons you wanted.

Iraq had to uparm its military to deal with the shiny American equipment Iran had, whilst fighting a larger enemy with more manpower. An enemy which can utilize its Shia force, as well as influence Iraq's Shias. Whilst Iraq had to rely on a smaller population, and infact.. a certain percentage of that population.

The chemical attacks were needed due to the human-wave tactics used by Iran, deploying even children whom were brainwashed as you can see in the video below.


You keep mentioning this revolution and say that I distort history. The US/Israelis armed Iran with ATGW to balance Iran further against Iraq when needed.

Let me tell you something and this is without pride, Iran's military performance in the 80's was a joke. A tactic (human wave assaults) which the PMU, our Iran worshipping lot copied in the battle of Tikrit. As a result they lost a lot of people with little gain, then the military stepped in and did a better job. Today your land forces are not any better, your technology has improved, although some of you have become delusional thinking this would save you in an all out war with the US. Better hope there won't be an all out war, you won't survive it.
 
America propped Iran's military up when the white-envying Shah was ruling the country, being equipped with F-14's wielding the AIM-54 missiles means you are a privileged one back in the 80's. We could say that you were the UAE of the 80's when it comes to weapons you wanted.

Iraq had to uparm its military to deal with the shiny American equipment Iran had, whilst fighting a larger enemy with more manpower. An enemy which can utilize its Shia force, as well as influence Iraq's Shias. Whilst Iraq had to rely on a smaller population, and infact.. a certain percentage of that population.

Say what?

Iraq enjoyed a far numerically superior (professional trained) fighting force, as well having more military hardware in its inventory.

Iraq: 9 well-armed divisions, 2750 tanks, 1400 artillery pieces, 4000 ACPs and 340 fighter bombers

Iran: 2 badly-depleted divisions and equally brigades, 500 tanks, 300 artillery pieces and no less than 100 operational aircraft.

I'm quoting Kenneth Pollack:

''Iraq's ground assault was no better. Its greatest problem was that Iraqi forces moved at a snail's pace against meager Iranian resistance. Overall, the balance of forces heavily favored Iraq because the desertions, demoralization, purges, and other distractions attending the Iranian revolution had left few operationally ready military forces. Iraq deployed 2,750 tanks, 1,400 artillery pieces, 4,000 Arcs, and 340 fighter-bombers. Against this, Iran could muster no more than about 500 operational tanks, probably no more than 300 functioning artillery pieces, and less than 100 operable aircraft. Iran had close to 100,000 troops in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), or Revolutionary Guard, but at the time these were little more than militant students and street thugs who had secured the revolution but had no formal military training. Roughly one-quarter of Iran's army was tied down fighting a Kurdish revolt, and Iran had only two badly depleted divisions, two equally reduced brigades, and some lightly armed security forces along the border to contend with the nine wellarmed divisions that Iraq committed to the invasion.

The local balance of forces in Khuzestan was even more favorable to the Iraqis. The 92d Armored Division at Ahvaz was the only major Iranian formation in the area, and it took several days before it could deploy even company-sized formations let alone the entire division. Otherwise, the Iraqis faced small platoon- and company-sized elements from the Iranian army, Revolutionary Guards, and Iranian gendarmerie fighting mostly with small arms and without any central direction. Most of the Iranian forces did not even try to delay the Iraqi invasion but retreated to the cities and other defensible positions. Nevertheless, two weeks into the campaign, the deepest Iraqi penetrations were only 65 kilometers into Iran, and in most sectors the Iraqis had gone no more than 20-3o kilometers. Whether in the mountains of the Zagros or the dry, open terrain of Khuzestan, the quickest Iraqi units advanced only an average of 5-6 kilometers per day, facing only scattered bands of lightly armed and, in the case of the gendarmerie and Revolutionary Guards, essentially untrained Iranian defenders.The primary reason for this glacial advance was Iraq's tactical doctrine.''

The chemical attacks were needed due to the human-wave tactics used by Iran, deploying even children whom were brainwashed as you can see in the video below.

The chemical attacks were coordinated with American intelligence, which proved to be pivotal, as Iran was about to breach Iraqi defenses. Quote:

''In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.''


Let me tell you something and this is without pride, Iran's military performance in the 80's was a joke. A tactic (human wave assaults) which the PMU, our Iran worshipping lot copied in the battle of Tikrit.

You keep referring to these human wave assaults as if they were some WW1-like tactic. It wasn't.

Quote:

According to historian Stephen C. Pelletiere, the idea of Iranian "human wave attacks" was a misconception. Instead, the Iranian tactics consisted of using groups of 22 man infantry squads, which moved forward to attack specific objectives. As the squads surged forward to execute their missions, that gave the impression of a "human wave attack". Nevertheless, the idea of "human wave attacks" remained virtually synonymous with any large-scale infantry frontal assault Iran carried out. Large numbers of troops would be used, aimed at overwhelming the Iraqi lines (usually the weakest portion manned by the Iraqi Popular Army) regardless of losses.
According to the former Iraqi general Ra'ad al-Hamdani, the Iranian human wave charges consisted of armed "civilians" who carried most of their necessary equipment themselves into battle and often lacked command and control and logistics. Operations were often carried out during the night and deception operations, infiltrations, and maneuvers became more common. The Iranians would also reinforce the infiltrating forces with new units to keep up their momentum. Once a weak point was found, the Iranians would concentrate all of their forces into that area in an attempt to break through with human wave attacks.
The human wave attacks, while extremely bloody (tens of thousands of troops died in the process), when used in combination with infiltration and surprise, caused major Iraqi defeats. As the Iraqis would dig in their tanks and infantry into static, entrenched positions, the Iranians would manage to break through the lines and encircle entire divisions. Merely the fact that the Iranian forces used maneuver warfare by their light infantry against static Iraqi defenses was often the decisive factor in the battle. However, lack of coordination between the Iranian Army and IRGC and shortages of heavy weaponry played a detrimental role, often with most of the infantry not being supported by artillery and armor.


As a result they lost a lot of people with little gain, then the military stepped in and did a better job. Today your land forces are not any better, your technology has improved, although some of you have become delusional thinking this would save you in an all out war with the US. Better hope there won't be an all out war, you won't survive it.

I don't think a professional fighting force ever ridiculed itself as much as Iraq's in its fight with ISIS. If it wasn't for a certain Iranian ayatollah in Najaf, American aerial support and Iranian assistance, your Sunni compatriots would have still ruled over large swaths of your territory.

Don't come here whining about Iran toxics influence in Iraq, while your country shamelessly and purposefully invaded its neighbor in the '80s while using chemical weapons on both civilians and soldiers. Iran has every reason to distrust both its neighbour as well as the western forces that it is housing.
 
Last edited:
America propped Iran's military up when the white-envying Shah was ruling the country, being equipped with F-14's wielding the AIM-54 missiles means you are a privileged one back in the 80's. We could say that you were the UAE of the 80's when it comes to weapons you wanted.

Iraq had to uparm its military to deal with the shiny American equipment Iran had, whilst fighting a larger enemy with more manpower. An enemy which can utilize its Shia force, as well as influence Iraq's Shias. Whilst Iraq had to rely on a smaller population, and infact.. a certain percentage of that population.

The chemical attacks were needed due to the human-wave tactics used by Iran, deploying even children whom were brainwashed as you can see in the video below.


You keep mentioning this revolution and say that I distort history. The US/Israelis armed Iran with ATGW to balance Iran further against Iraq when needed.

Let me tell you something and this is without pride, Iran's military performance in the 80's was a joke. A tactic (human wave assaults) which the PMU, our Iran worshipping lot copied in the battle of Tikrit. As a result they lost a lot of people with little gain, then the military stepped in and did a better job. Today your land forces are not any better, your technology has improved, although some of you have become delusional thinking this would save you in an all out war with the US. Better hope there won't be an all out war, you won't survive it.
If chemical weapons were needed then good that 180 baath-dogs died. No one cares, Iraq is not the property of 10% baathi dogs. If they rise up again, they will be killed again. Now they are instrument of saudi-zionist axis. Recently his criminal daughter in Jordan blamed Iran as well. We are doing something great that zionists and their gulfi pups are "united" against us and blame us for all their problems.
 
Say what?

Iraq enjoyed a far numerically superior (professional trained) fighting force, as well having more military hardware in its inventory.

Iraq: 9 well-armed divisions, 2750 tanks, 1400 artillery pieces, 4000 ACPs and 340 fighter bombers

Iran: 2 badly-depleted divisions and equally brigades, 500 tanks, 300 artillery pieces and no less than 100 operational aircraft.

In which year?

It was an 8 year war where equipment levels varied every single year. By the end of the war Iraq did indeed have far more equipment. In 1982 that isn't the case.

I'm quoting Kenneth Pollack:
And I didn't claim Iraq's 80's military is a good example of military skill, Kenneth is pointing out Iraqi military failures, who ever said it didn't exist?

I'm also here telling you how Iran's military failed for 8 years, whilst the US was able to gain superiority over it in months.

The chemical attacks were coordinated with American intelligence, which proved to be pivotal, as Iran was about to breach Iraqi defenses. Quote:

''In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.''

You keep referring to these human wave assaults as if they were some WW1-like tactic. It wasn't.

Iraq's low lands make it an excellent terrain for artillery (area denial zone), and also an excellent terrain for offensive forces to use human-wave assaults. And that is exactly what Iraq did, it turned certain lands into area-denial zones using chemical weapons. The sad part is that some civilians got injured with this, the other sad thing is Khamenei sent kids instead of his own mullah lot to do these assaults.


I don't think a professional fighting force ever ridiculed itself as much as Iraq's in its fight with ISIS. If it wasn't for a certain Iranian ayatollah in Najaf, American aerial support and Iranian assistance, your Sunni compatriots would have still ruled over large swaths of your territory.

Iraq's fight with ISIS was led by a leadership that prays to Khamenei day and night, cries to Hussein every night like some hysterical monkey and prays on a stone.

Not surprised how failed the Iraqi military became. The only organization in Iraq that shows military excellence is ISOF, which ironically is close to the US and has no ties to Iran. Can't say that for the rest of Iraqi state organisations which are close to Iran, utter shitholes that are non-functional.


In stead of crying on the internet about how your country is being occupied by these evil majoosis, why don't you grow a pair of balls and do something about it.

Like what, ISIS? Doesn't work. Iraqis need to be educated, how's Europe going for you, better than Persia?
If chemical weapons were needed then good that 180 baath-dogs died. No one cares, Iraq is not the property of 10% baathi dogs. If they rise up again, they will be killed again. Now they are instrument of saudi-zionist axis. Recently his criminal daughter in Jordan blamed Iran as well. We are doing something great that zionists and their gulfi pups are "united" against us and blame us for all their problems.

Iraqis, and with this I mean the Shias who used to hate on the non-existing Ba'athis day and night have woken up and realized who has turned their life's into a state of misery without water and electricity. The pro-Iran factions. You're not up to date when you come with the zionist story, it's like you're still in 2007.

Twitter is also not a good representation of the popular image over there, the majority sees Iran as hostile.
 
Not a failure if a chaotic and revolutionary Iran, with all its destabilization, managed to push back the invading force to its own turf, while continuing to threaten Iraqi heartland for the remaining duration of the war.
Iran with all the sophisticated US military equipment failed for 8 years, lost over 1 million troops against an enemy (Iraq), which the US military was able to deal with effectively in a matter of months.

And you want me to be impressed.. because you had a revolution/issues, which Iraq was having continuously in the south and north all throughout.

Major military failure that costed you 1 million+ life's.

Your failures are intriniic to your nation. ISOF is heavily overrated, and only took the spoils after the US bombarded the place. You failed against a rag-tag militia. Deal with it.

I'm all chills. Thanks for asking.

That's more like your Kurdish cousins. ISOF led the Mosul battle which generals described as the largest Urban battle since WW2, not having mentioned the countless other battles such as Fallujah which was cleared in 4 weeks.

ISIS leadership was not rag tag, neither were its tactics which triumphted over any terror group, and even trashed Turkey's military image as they lost Leopard tanks.

The ISIS leadership was from the Iraqi pre-2003 state institutions, the same leadership that costed 1 million+ Iranian life's. If you call them rag tag, then you lost a lot of men against a bunch of rag tags.
 
Iran with all the sophisticated US military equipment failed for 8 years, lost over 1 million troops against an enemy (Iraq), which the US military was able to deal with effectively in a matter of months.

And you want me to be impressed.. because you had a revolution/issues, which Iraq was having continuously in the south and north all throughout.

Major military failure that costed you 1 million+ life's.



That's more like your Kurdish cousins. ISOF led the Mosul battle which generals described as the largest Urban battle since WW2, not having mentioned the countless other battles such as Fallujah which was cleared in 4 weeks.

ISIS leadership was not rag tag, neither were its tactics which triumphted over any terror group, and even trashed Turkey's military image as they lost Leopard tanks.

The ISIS leadership was from the Iraqi pre-2003 state institutions, the same leadership that costed 1 million+ Iranian life's. If you call them rag tag, then you lost a lot of men against a bunch of rag tags.

You are not impressing anyone here with your distortions and self-congratulatory historical revisionism. I have already proven to you that Iraq had an advantage in every field in that war, and still couldn't do the job.

ISIS was a rag-tag militia, and only managed to score major offensive successes against incompetent armies (Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army). You're patting yourself on the back for defeating a militia that you first run away from, and only managed to turn the tide because the Americans started to level your occupied cities from the air and Iranians (Sistani + IRGC) started to mobilize and train your civillians.
 
Last edited:
You are not impressing anyone here with your distortions and self-congratulatory historical revisionism. I have already proven to you that Iraq had an advantage in every field in that war, and still couldn't do the job.

ISIS was a rag-tag militia, and only managed to score major offensive successes against incompetent armies (Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army). You're patting yourself on the back for defeating a militia that you first run away from, and only managed to turn the tide because the Americans started to level your occupied cities from the air and Iranians (Sistani + IRGC) started to mobilize and train your civillians.

You are not in our league. Never were.

No proof of an outright Iraqi advantage, however many Iranian advantages can be listed some of which are its population size, more homogenous demographics (especially the Shi'a ratio which was decisive in this war), and its US military equipment.

ISIS leadership was the same folks who led the Iraqi army against Iran in the 80's, call them rag tag and you're insulting the Iranian army.

You've distorted reality and made yourself believe in it for years, just like you did with Soleimani who built himself an image of some legendary scary military giant, whilst the US took him out once they decided to do so,.
 
No proof of an outright Iraqi advantage, however many Iranian advantages can be listed some of which are its population size, more homogenous demographics (especially the Shi'a ratio which was decisive in this war), and its US military equipment.

ISIS leadership was the same folks who led the Iraqi army against Iran in the 80's, call them rag tag and you're insulting the Iranian army.

You've distorted reality and made yourself believe in it for years, just like you did with Soleimani who built himself an image of some legendary scary military giant, whilst the US took him out once they decided to do so,.
I know some deep frustration and national embarrassment is making you roam this sub-forum and lash out occasionally with your "khomeinist" rant.

All I can say is: let it go bro. The war is lost.

And don't worry about our fight with the yanks. We will continue to run circles around them and prop up our strategic position at their expense.
 
Back
Top Bottom