You’re talking about the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, the group that tried to overthrow the mullahs in Iran. There’s been much conjecture as to whether that group deserves the “terror” label at all.
That said, I’m not lionizing Saddam Hussein. The question was.. would his regime be able to stop ISIS. The answer, IMO is yes. Bad as he was, Iraq would be a far less messier situation than it is now. Like Assad for Syria and Khadafy was to Libya.. the dictators are the least-worst option.
Actually, I was referencing his payments of $25k to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. (if we’re both referencing the same comments)
I didn’t think you were lionizing him. I understood your emphasis pretty accurately, I believe. I just don’t think he would be an overall positive even if he were up against ISIS.
As for Assad, Khadaffy, and Hussein, the only reason I see Hussein differently is because he wouldn’t settle down like the others had. Assad wasn’t as vocal and overt against the U. S. either, at least not that I observed. He was problematic for Israel.
Khadaffy had been terrible, but even he realized the gig was up and settled down.
So dictators yes, to a point...