Rick Santorum says murder of Iranian scientist was ‘wonderful thing’

Santorum
Santorum

Santorum is on the case:

“On occasion scientists working on the nuclear program in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing, candidly.- Rick Santorum

Got this from Mark Wauck, from Mark Shea’s Catholic site: “Murderers for Jesus.”  “Some people will try to make the claim that he was not a civilian. Sorry, but we are not at war with Iran. The scientist is part of the military-industrial infrastructure of Iran–just like the occupants of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were. If you say it is legitimate to murder him, you are saying it was legitimate for Osama bin Laden to murder his victims on 9/11.”

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Iran, US Politics

{ 33 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. seafoid says:

    Your fundi American Christians will have a hard time recognising Jesus when the Rapture comes around. He looks Muslim.

    • Dan Crowther says:

      Rick Santorum would probably like to see all scientists, regardless of where they work turn up dead….

      • Avi_G. says:

        Dan Crowther says:
        January 13, 2012 at 10:18 am

        Rick Santorum would probably like to see all scientists, regardless of where they work turn up dead….

        :)

        He’s probably allergic to science and knowledge to the point where he gets hives and goes into anaphylactic shock the moment any well-informed person says something remotely factual or balanced.

    • Bumblebye says:

      B-b-but…..He was blond and blue eyed in all of little Ricky’s Bible storybooks!
      ‘Course he’ll recognize him!

  2. Tuyzentfloot says:

    Osama Bin Laden was an indignado sent by Iran to occupy the World Trade Center but his Farsi wasn’t too good.

  3. And this ignorant Pinocchio/puppet wants to become American President??

  4. mhuizenga says:

    Pro life Catholic, my arse. Santorum has been the subject of a lot of internal catholic fights, witness his inability to win the Catholic vote in NH with Romney getting 45%. At bottom, he’s a sellout from everything from assassinations and wars to political profiteering. Too bad the next primary is in SC, otherwise he might already be gone. Good riddance!

    • Speaking as a catholic myself, I can tell that He will ( probably) be one of those many catholic ,who will pave sidewalks in Hell.
      Ok, having said that I hope/pray that I won’t join him , (catholics should not assume ,who will be eternally condemned , who not, since this is God’s decision as a final Judge).
      So God ,please forgive me for giving you hints.

    • lysias says:

      Santorum isn’t doing too well in SC. New SC poll has him at 7% (down from 24% on Jan. 4-5). Meantime, Ron Paul is up to 20% (up from 9% on Jan. 4-5). Romney 29%. Gingrich 25%. Perry 9%. Huntsman 1%.

      • Ron Paul HAS TO go up and Romney down.
        C’mon people, open your eyes , and smell the coffee.
        Soon your morning coffee may start smelling with gun powder, and shine in the darkness with radioactive ingredients.
        That’s what you want??

  5. dahoit says:

    If he is Catholic,the Popes Jewish.
    He is a moonie loonie gone mainstream.(like all the rest of the blasphemers)
    Remember the vocal rage at the moonie loonie mind stealers back in the 80s?
    Well,they pulled it off,a generation of Christians gone mad.

  6. pabelmont says:

    Santorum is doubtless an opportunist/sellout — he is, after all, a politician — but this murderousness (and The Geller phenomenon) attest to the permissiveness we’ve gotten to in the USA with the “War on Terror” becoming endless-in-time and borderless-in-geography and assassination and kidnapping and torture the order of the day, carried out OPENLY and PROUDLY (not SECRETLY and APOLOGETICALLY as one might have hoped) by successive USA governments, so that the WoT is also a war on international law generally and also, often, a war against local law (where people are kidnapped from a country where, one supposes, kidnapping is a local crime).

    • seafoid says:

      Santorum would be in lieberman’s party if he was Israeli. These hate mongering shit stirring parties aimed at the local ignoranti are all the rage these days. The Tea party is replicated in Switzerland’s SVP, Israel’s Israel beitenu and the far right nutjob parties in Austria, France and Holland.

  7. Kathleen says:

    onward Christian soldiers…killing for peace (cough)

  8. HarryLaw says:

    Rick Sanitarium. An institute for long term mentally ill people.

  9. richb says:

    Ricky is not the only one scientifically clueless. The author of the The Note linked above is too:

    Iran announced today that it had created the country’s first nuclear fuel rod, a key component in a reactor that can also be used to produce weapons grade uranium.

    No it’s a key component in a civilian reactor. We don’t even know whether there’s enough enriched Uranium for that or rather that this is a non-working prototype. The amount of enrichment needed for weapons grade Uranium is 85% while the enrichment for civilian reactors is 3-5%. The former takes SO much energy that we will know if the Iranians are doing it.

  10. tombishop says:

    Rachel Tabachnick at Talk to Action has details on the chaos in Religious Right circles over the Republican nominee. “New SC Poll: Romney 23, Gingrich 21, Santorum 14, as Religious Right Leaders Meet in Texas to Unite” is at:

    link to talk2action.org

    • tombishop says:

      And the winner is….

      “Rick Santorum Wins Endorsement Of Evangelical Leaders”
      link to huffingtonpost.com

      John Hagee of Christians United for Israel was one of the 150 evangelical leaders. You can be sure that he reassured anyone that had qualms about Santorum’s celebrating the assasinations of Iranian scientists that this is part of the what is necessary in the End Times since there is much more death to come.

  11. HarryLaw says:

    This complaint was delivered to my local police station, they say they will forward it to the Metropolitan police, it should be interesting to see what excuses they can find to reject it, will keep you posted.

    I wish to make a complaint regarding an article which was published in the Guardian newspaper on 12th January 2012, it was headlined, a covert campaign is the only way to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and written by Andrew Cummings, a former advisor to various Governments. He can be contacted at the Guardian, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N19GU.
    The article is a clear breach of sections 1 and 2 of the 2006 Terrorism act, which makes it a criminal offence to publish material which calls for the direct or indirect encouragement and/or glorification of Terrorism as defined by the 2000 Terrorism act. I enclose the evidence. The context surrounding the allegations are the ongoing acts of Terrorism, including bomb explosions and murders of Iran’s nuclear scientists working on nuclear issues.
    Andrew Cummings article not only makes it plain that he supports these covert terrorist acts, but also that they should continue. It is clear that the unknown perpetrators and others could not but find encouragement directly or indirectly in this article, especially when advocated by a former senior advisor to past Governments on these very matters.
    I call on you to prosecute him.

    • lysias says:

      How does the 2000 Terrorism Act define “terrorism”?

      • piotr says:

        This must be interesting. Usually governments try to avoid making their own operations criminal in their own law. For example, an Israeli soldiers was dismissed for killing a man sleeping in his own bad because “he was a wrong person”. The killing of a correct person would presumably be OK. Israel has “incitement laws” and clearly urging to kill “correct people” is not actionable, while urging to laugh at “incorrect people” is (I think that this is the crime of that resulted in the interrogation of Gurvitz of 972+ mag).

        In the case of USA, “terrorism” seems to be defined very conveniently, as something related in some vague fashion to and organization listed by the State Department. This allows to whack anybody we do not like and avoid wacking friends. But quite possibly people who wrote the British laws did not vet them for all inconvenient possibilities.

        • Hostage says:

          In the case of USA, “terrorism” seems to be defined very conveniently, as something related in some vague fashion to and organization listed by the State Department. This allows to whack anybody we do not like and avoid wacking friends. But quite possibly people who wrote the British laws did not vet them for all inconvenient possibilities.

          Under US law:

          *the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
          (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
          link to law.cornell.edu

          *It’s actually a crime to murder an official of a foreign government, including their scientists. “Foreign government” means the government of a foreign country, irrespective of recognition by the United States.
          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00001116—-000-.html

    • ToivoS says:

      I didn’t think Pinochet would be indicted in Britain — old Iran Balls got him out of that jam finally but he had to sweat for a few months there. More power to you with your complaint.

  12. HarryLaw says:

    Lysias. Here is UK definition of Terrorism. Terrorism: interpretation.E+W+S+N.I.
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

    (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

    (a)the action falls within subsection (2),

    (b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

    (c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

    (2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

    (a)involves serious violence against a person,

    (b)involves serious damage to property,

    (c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

    (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

    (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

    (3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

    (4)In this section—

    (a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

    (b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

    (c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

    (d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

  13. HarryLaw says:

    Our Terrorism laws are very broad intentionally so, sections 1 and 2 of the 2006 act drew heavy criticism at the time because people were afraid of praising someone like Nelson Mandela and other freedom fighters, today my reading of it is, you are allowed to say you understand certain acts of terrorism but you are not allowed to justify them, in my opinion Cummings not only justified them he encourages more of the same, In the UK the police handle the first stage of any prosecution then the crown prosecution service headed by the Director of public prosecutions decide if a case goes forward and even then I think the Attorney General can intervene at any stage.Here is a brief summary of section 1 of the 2006 Terrorism Act. Encouragement of terrorism (section 1)

    The Bill originally contained a separate (and highly controversial) offence of “Glorifying Terrorism.” This has now been included in the wider offence of “Encouragement.”

    The offence is committed if a person makes a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all members of the public to whom it is published as “a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them” to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism. The person must publish the statement intending members of public to be directly or indirectly induced by it to commit or prepare such acts. Alternatively, the person making the statement must be reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged etc.

    Statements “likely to encourage” will include a statement that “glorifies” the commission or preparation of terrorist offences, where the public could reasonably be expected to infer that the conduct being glorified should be emulated by them.

    Where a person is charged with this offence, and it is not proved that he intended to encourage or induce acts of terrorism, it is a defence to show that it is was clear that the statement did not express his views, and was not endorsed by him.

    Encouragement of terrorism carries a maximum sentence of 7 years imprisonment.

  14. what would jesus do WWJD…who would jesus kill WWJK.

    • Jesus did not kill anybody. He got killed as a matter of fact.
      People killed in the name of Jesus, in the name of G-d, in the name of Allah, in the name of Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc…
      There is light and darkness, evil and good in this world. We have free will.
      We choose ,which path we will follow. We’ll get there where the path leads us.
      So, we’ better watch out , which path we are choosing and why.

      Great song, great words.