Key’s sickening opportunism over Norway attacks

Written By: - Date published: 12:55 pm, July 23rd, 2011 - 263 comments
Categories: afghanistan, Minister for Overseas Holidays, scoundrels - Tags: ,

The bombing and shootings in Norway overshadowed Key’s meeting with Obama. But he was quick to exploit Norway’s tragedy for political gain saying: “I think what it shows is no country large or small is immune from risk [of ‘global’ terrorism] and that’s why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan.”

In reality, the gunman, who also appears to have been the bomber, was a Norwegian connected to rightwing groups. He was attacking the country’s Labour government and the youth wing of the Labour party. Quite how being in Afghanistan protects us from violent rightwingers, I don’t know.

Just to make that clear:

A Norwegian police official says the man suspected of the Oslo bombing and a shooting at a youth camp does not appear to be linked to Islamist terrorism.

The official says the attacks probably have more in common with the 1995 attack on a US federal building in Oklahoma City than the September 11, 2001 attacks.

He says the suspect appears to have acted alone, and “it seems like that this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all”.

“It seems it’s not Islamic-terror related,” the official said. “This seems like a madman’s work.”

After the Madrid bombings, Spain’s rightwing government tried to hide the truth of who was behind the attacks. They blamed the Basque to justify a campaign against ETA. That opportunism led to the downfall of the government.

Key, of course, has been sickeningly opportunistic, but not that bad. He just jumped on an opportunity to justify continuing the military deployments in Afghanistan. He still needs to apologise to the people of Norway for crassly using their hour of pain for his domestic political purposes.

263 comments on “Key’s sickening opportunism over Norway attacks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Peter Bains 1
    23 July 2011 at 12:57 pm

    As they say timing and opportunism is everything in politics.
    Good on ya Key.

  2. handle 2
    23 July 2011 at 12:59 pm

    I bet that was McCully’s line.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    23 July 2011 at 1:02 pm

    What’s next from Key’s pretend universe, the one where everyone is better off at the moment (as opposed to just him and his mates)?

    BTW he’s just made us look more stupid and disconnected, in front of the American leadership.

  4. Nick C 4
    23 July 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Could you please show some evidence that the bomber is ‘connected to right wing groups’?

    • Zetetic 4.1
      23 July 2011 at 1:08 pm

      “The 32 year old ethnic Norwegian national arrested for the Utøya shootings belongs to a right-wing group, reports TV2.”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jul/22/oslo-explosion-live-coverage

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 1:10 pm

        What? From that Lefty Wing rag? That’s not going to satisfy Nick C’s thirst for “evidence” mate 🙂

        edit – or it might :mrgreen:

      • Nick C 4.1.2
        23 July 2011 at 1:10 pm

        Thank you

      • Tangled up in blue 4.1.3
        23 July 2011 at 1:27 pm

        Also from that link:

        A terror group, Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad), issued a statement claiming responsibility for the attack, according to Will McCants, a terrorism analyst at CNA, a research institute that studies terrorism. The message said the attack was a response to Norwegian forces’ presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad. “We have warned since the Stockholm raid of more operations,” the group said, apparently referred to a bombing in Sweden in December 2010, according to Mr McCants’ translation. “What you see is only the beginning, and there is more to come.” The claim could not be confirmed.

        • Zetetic 4.1.3.1
          23 July 2011 at 1:37 pm

          false claims of responsibility are regularly made after such events.

          the assumption from Key and some media early on that it must have been islamists/immigrants is just racism and opportunism. They should have waited to get the facts first.

          They have the guy. He’s a Norwegian. He’s a member of a far-right group. Case closed.

          • Tangled up in blue 4.1.3.1.1
            23 July 2011 at 1:49 pm

            Sure Key should have waited for the MSM to confirm, this was opportunism.

            How is it racism?

            • Zetetic 4.1.3.1.1.1
              23 July 2011 at 1:59 pm

              how is it racism that whenever there’s a bombing everyone assumes it’s muslims? It that what you’re asking?

              • Tangled up in blue …
                23 July 2011 at 2:16 pm

                There’s a difference between “assuming it’s muslims” and assuming the truth of a statement claiming responsibility form a Muslim terror group.

                But more to my point is that Islam is a religion and not a race.

                • Ianupnorth …
                  23 July 2011 at 2:19 pm

                  And Judaism is a religion, and millions were sent to death camps, was this a religious act or a racist act, given most had olive skin, dark hair and didn’t look the slightest bit Aryan….

                • Zetetic …
                  23 July 2011 at 2:26 pm

                  semantics. that’s all you’ve got?

                  the ‘it’s gotta be muslims’ angle was out well before that false claim of responsibility.

                  look at the wikipedia page and key is alone among world leaders in claiming this had something to do with afghanistan.

                  • Tangled up in blue …
                    23 July 2011 at 2:33 pm

                    the ‘it’s gotta be muslims’ angle was out well before that false claim of responsibility.

                    Of course. What does this have do to with John Key being racist?

                    • Zetetic …
                      23 July 2011 at 2:40 pm

                      I said Key was opportunistic. See, he’s been coming under pressure to explain why we are in Afghanistan. Along comes this tragedy in Norway and, despite not having any evidence it is anything to do with Afghanistan, he callously uses it for his domestic political purposes.

                    • Tangled up in blue …
                      23 July 2011 at 2:49 pm

                      @ Zetetic – I’ve already agreed that it was opportunism. And yes it was callous and self-serving. My query was to do with your statement:

                      the assumption from Key and some media early on that it must have been islamists/immigrants is just racism and opportunism.

                      Anyway, moving along.

                    • felix …
                      23 July 2011 at 3:14 pm

                      Do you really not get that it’s a bit racist to automatically assume muslims whenever something gets blown up?

                      Really?

                    • Tangled up in blue …
                      23 July 2011 at 9:51 pm

                      felix said:

                      Do you really not get that it’s a bit racist to automatically assume muslims whenever something gets blown up?

                      Really?

                      FFS. Yes of fuckin course it’s racist. My point is that Key didn’t do this and so his premature opportunism makes him look stupid but it is not racism. Zetetic said Key’s actions were racist. Either he is mistaken or is being intellectually dishonest.

                    • felix …
                      24 July 2011 at 9:12 am

                      Then why the link to the Afghanistanians?

              • TightyRighty …
                23 July 2011 at 4:30 pm

                do a little venn diagram zetetic,

                If most bombings are terrorism and most terrorists are muslim, probability states that most bombings are carried out by muslims.

                • Mike Smith …
                  23 July 2011 at 4:34 pm

                  Most? proof/source/link?

                • bbfloyd …
                  23 July 2011 at 5:36 pm

                  except that the conception that muslims are responsible for the majority of “terror” attacks is a myth pushed by the western media at the behest of western governments.

                  this idiocy only looks remotely credible if you ignore human history before 1970…. plenty of “terror” attacks going on then, by many, many different groups… they used to call them freedom fighters, or insurgents, mainly because they were blowing up communists. they were hero’s of democracy.

                  what’s different now?

                • jackal …
                  23 July 2011 at 10:14 pm

                  Most bombings are carried out by America.

                  • rosy …
                    23 July 2011 at 10:18 pm

                    Small point…although I agree with your conclusion, can you use USA instead of America? Much of US foreign policy has had significantly negative impacts on other countries on the American continents.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    23 July 2011 at 10:50 pm

                    The USA has pretty much been in a continual state of war for at least the last 120 years.

                    All these interventions directly served corporate interests, and many resulted in massive losses of civilians, rebels, and soldiers.

                    The biggest terrorist/rogue state in the world is the USA and yet our PM is over there kissing arse.

                    • jackal …
                      23 July 2011 at 11:54 pm

                      I guess it’s all about public perception of who the real terrorists are. In my opinion the US* has instigated the wars that have created many “terrorists” in other countries in the first place.

                      Key’s comments seem somewhat similar to George Bush when he said:

                      “Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.”

                      He obviously has a completely different understanding of what the word “free” means, and is ignoring the fact that the US has the most weapons of mass destruction in the entire world.

                      *Not such a small point rosy… One cannot say that the policies of Brazil for instance contribute to the United State’s foreign policy of mass murder in places like Afghanistan.

                • rosy …
                  23 July 2011 at 11:54 pm

                  If most fruit in shops is bananas and most bananas are from France, probability states that most fruit in shops comes from France.

                  Your assumption needs to be proved correct for the logic to be relevant.

                  • jackal …
                    24 July 2011 at 12:17 am

                    If most of the bombs are made by US companies and the US army kills more innocent people than any other nation, who are the biggest terrorists?

                    The law of probability therefore shows that anybody who thinks terrorists are only Muslims, is an idiot!

                    Such a stereotypical belief system must be difficult to maintain TightyRighty, especially in light of recent events.

                • AAMC …
                  24 July 2011 at 10:13 am

                  Tighty, from Juan Cole to you. Your Islamaphobia is fantasy.

                  ” In 2010, according to Europol [pdf], 7 persons were killed in terrorist attacks. Some 160 of these attacks that year were carried out by separatists. The number launched by people of Muslim heritage? 3.”
                  http://www.juancole.com/2011/07/white-terrorism-in-norway.html

                • KJT …
                  24 July 2011 at 11:22 am

                  Most bombings are carried out by the USA. Closely followed by Israel.

                  Killing several hundred Palestinians for every Israeli that gets bombed. Or a thousand Muslims for every American smacks a bit too much of the things we condemned the Nazis for.

                • Vicky32 …
                  24 July 2011 at 3:16 pm

                  If most bombings are terrorism and most terrorists are muslim, probability states that most bombings are carried out by muslims.

                  Except that while the first premise might be true, the second isn’t! It is manifestly untrue that most terrorists are Muslim. (The first I ever heard about terrorist bombings was when I was a small child, among the victims, someone my father had known when he was young, the perps the IRA. (This was in Liverpool, long ago).

      • SHG 4.1.4
        24 July 2011 at 2:41 am

        Another religious nut.

    • Vicky32 4.2
      24 July 2011 at 3:10 pm

      By now, Nick C, it’s well known, from his own confession!

  5. Afewknowthetruth 5
    23 July 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Key is being richly rewarded by his corporate mates for promoting global corporatism.

    The big question is: when will the covert fascism morph into overt fascism? Whenever I look at Key I see the black peaked cap, the black uniform and the SS insignias.

    • Bored 5.1
      23 July 2011 at 1:34 pm

      Perhaps he needs a good word with his mother about what it was like to be Jewish in pre-war Vienna.

    • higherstandard 5.2
      23 July 2011 at 1:36 pm

      I suggest you increase your olanzapine dose to 20mg per day and supplement with lithium or valproate.

      • mickysavage 5.2.1
        23 July 2011 at 6:09 pm

        Effin RWNJs.  Innocent young lefties have been killed and you have to go on the attack.  And our effin PM uses their death to score a cheap political point.

        Absolutely appalling. 

        • Pete George 5.2.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 6:12 pm

          Micky, read your post, then read the headline of this post, and pause for thought.

          • felix 5.2.1.1.1
            23 July 2011 at 6:50 pm

            What makes you think we’re not allowed to point out Key’s disgraceful behaviour, Pete?

            Make the actual argument instead of hiding behind innuendo and cheap smears.

            Put your case so it can be addressed.

          • mickysavage 5.2.1.1.2
            23 July 2011 at 7:25 pm

            I did Pete and I though the headline was expressing the same thought except in more civil terms.

            Shame on Key.

            I have brooded on this all day.  I heard the news this morning at 8 am and it is just appalling that young idealistic lefties should lose their lives at the hands of a madman.  

            And Key’s comments are effin appalling.  I think I will go and make a significant donation right now because of it.  How dare he.  Couldn’t he just say it was a tragedy to occur to a country that was similar to New Zealand and that his heart went out to the parents of the young idealistic people who lost their lives and left it at that? 

            • mik e 5.2.1.1.2.1
              24 July 2011 at 1:38 pm

              Key otherwise known as smile and wave or earlier mister wishy washy[ie broken washing machine permanently stuck on spin]

        • higherstandard 5.2.1.2
          24 July 2011 at 8:56 am

          Gosh Greg the standard of your debate is magnificent, the Law society must be so proud to have professionals of your character foaming all over the interwebs.

        • Blue 5.2.1.3
          24 July 2011 at 9:36 am

          Why does it matter if they were “lefties”. The point is they were killed by a lunatic, his politics are of no importance. You describe these poor young people by their supposed political affiliations, which I also find sickeningly opportunistic. How about instead of your usual pants wetting hysteria at Key, try some sympathy for their deaths, for their families, instead of points scoring. Would you have been as outraged is they weren’t “idealistic lefties” and had other politic views, or wouldn’t those young lives count as much? Key has described terrorism and our role, nothing more in his statement, the point was we cannot live in a vacuum and watch the world from the sidelines. FFS get some perspective. Its no wonder you languish in the polls. Cold hearted moron.

      • mik e 5.2.2
        24 July 2011 at 12:53 pm

        The right lowering the standard again it seems as he knows hoe to use these drugs so well

    • Tangled up in blue 5.3
      23 July 2011 at 1:49 pm

      Whenever I look at Key I see the black peaked cap, the black uniform and the SS insignias.

      You sure put the loony in lefty. Thanks for nothing arsehole.

      • Ianupnorth 5.3.1
        23 July 2011 at 1:58 pm

        Tory trolls are back…..

        • handle 5.3.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 2:02 pm

          How is deploring stupid Godwinning the mark of Tories?

          • RedLogix 5.3.1.1.1
            23 July 2011 at 2:13 pm

            Yeah sure.. the Godwinning rule is useful otherwise threads descend into a ‘whose a bigger Nazi?’ pissing contest.

            At the same time it’s equally useful to keep in mind that we only demonise Mr A Hitler in hindsight. IIRC didn’t Time magazine select him as ‘Man of the Year’in 1935?

            • TightyRighty 5.3.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2011 at 4:33 pm

              Or that before world war II he was considered by most outside of germany to be the consummate gentleman and statesman? context and relevance can reveal some amazing traits in otherwise demonised individuals. I would place recent ex labour leaders on both sides of the tasman in that category when you only look at what their opponents had to say about them.

              • mik e …
                24 July 2011 at 1:02 pm

                Only in America Tighty which sold them the infrastructure to annihilate 50 to 60 million people. Not unlike this right wing nutter who was most likely inspired by their hero Hitler.This annihialistic attitude pervades the right only to become more extreme the more fanatical they are!

          • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.1.2
            23 July 2011 at 3:48 pm

            Godwin’s Law

            Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%).”[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

            It says nothing about the said comparison being wrong. Doing that would require argument based around observed fact rather than asserting Godwin11!!1 as if that proved the argument which, really, is all you’ve done here handle.

            • handle 5.3.1.1.2.1
              23 July 2011 at 5:35 pm

              My comment questioned the assumption that only RWNJs would be annoyed by someone introducing “SS insignia” into a discussion. If you want to be all literal about Godwin, that’s your funeral.

              • felix …
                23 July 2011 at 5:48 pm

                By “be all literal” I assume you mean “know what it actually means and understand how it relates to this discussion”.

                And yes, tories do tend to shout “Godwin” without knowing what it means more often, because they have more opportunity to do so.

                The reason they have more opportunity to do so is because they’re more likely to be compared to fasc1sts, and the reason for that is that they have more in common with them.

                As for the reason they shout it without knowing what it means, that’s because they tend to have lower IQs and fewer education.

                Gosh I feel smug after that, I think I’ll go have a lie down.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 July 2011 at 5:59 pm

                  Its interesting that RWNJs also buy completely into the idea of an extreme post-modernism: that there is no true meaning in anything apart from the meaning you choose to give it on a particular day.

                  The thing is, no matter how you wish to define, redefine, or spin it, gravity will still kill.

                • Locus …
                  24 July 2011 at 12:16 am

                  my first laugh of the day – thank you Felix 🙂

                • higherstandard …
                  24 July 2011 at 8:58 am

                  “As for the reason they shout it without knowing what it means, that’s because they tend to have lower IQs and fewer education.”

                  Is that a bit like lefties being more likely to being raving benders ?

        • Tangled up in blue 5.3.1.2
          23 July 2011 at 2:23 pm

          Because anyone who doesn’t think that Key is an ‘evil Nazi’ must be a RWNJ? Right?

          • jackal 5.3.1.2.1
            23 July 2011 at 4:23 pm

            Wrong!

            I think you missed the point tangled. The fact that a comparison between Nazism and National is able to be made at all is something that is abhorrent to most people, and not determined by their political allegiances. The question posed concerned how open John Key will become with his covert fascism, not peoples opinion. You would do better arguing that he is not an “evil Nazi,” instead of determining who does and doesn’t believe it.

            Many on the right wing will see that the policies that National’s been promoting are akin to many Nazi ideals, and those that support such can readily be labeled as RWNJ’s if you like. There will be many who are not learned or aware of history and its similarities with current occurrences, who do not think John Key is a fascist and I would not label them RWNJ’s for their ignorance.

            Your argument amounts to the labeling of people who do not think John Key is an “evil Nazi,” when many who support National are openly fascist. In this way your argument makes no sense.

            Some RWNJ’s are Nazi’s and support John Key because they believe he’s like them, making your statement that they do not think John Key is a Nazi incorrect. Some people will think John Key is a fascist but vote National anyway for other reasons putting their good judgement aside, while some people will not think that there are similarities between Nazi’s and National at all and still be RWNJ’s.

            You sure put the Nut in RWNJ Tangled up in poo. I’m looking forward to the November roasting.

            • higherstandard 5.3.1.2.1.1
              23 July 2011 at 4:34 pm

              I suggest you find yourself a girlfriend [name deleted].

            • weka 5.3.1.2.1.2
              23 July 2011 at 5:30 pm

              The problem there Jackal is you’re equating nazism with facism. Shouldn’t there be a venn diagram? If Key and/or the Nats are to be compared to either the Nazis or called facist in general, we need a bit more detail otherwise it renders the argument to name calling.

              • jackal …
                23 July 2011 at 7:03 pm

                True! Perhaps somebody should do a Venn diagram, but it’s easier to just throw them all in the same hole.

                The first thing to spring to mind is the Welfare Working Group’s recommendation for a eugenics program for the poor. As far as I’m aware, National has neither confirmed or denied if they will implement such an obviously Nazi inspired policy.

                More recently Bomber outed a White Supremacist in the anti MMP group. So it’s not baseless name calling, there are specific cases that align the right wing with fascism and Nazism.

                Specifically I can think of a few of Key’s statements that are incorrigibly sexist, racist and against the poor. One can pose that his motivation is inspired by fascist ideals, and then make the comparison to those who extoll similar beliefs.

                • weka …
                  24 July 2011 at 11:18 am

                  I’m not saying it’s baseless, I’m saying it’s inaccurate to use the term Naz1 in the way you do and if you want it to be taken seriously then you need accuracy.
                   
                  As evil as the WWG’s report is, comparing their recommendations around contraception to Naz1s killing millions of Jews in order the purify the race is ridiculous and counterproductive hyperbole. Yes the WWG’s ideas around welfare and how women get pregnant are probably fascist, so call it that. But don’t call them Naz1s because it will just make people roll their eyes and dismiss what you are saying.
                   
                  I understand the links between the right in NZ and fascism. But again, calling people like Key a Naz1 is counterproductive because it’s inaccurate and it deflects from the intricacies of the real issues and situation. It lessens our ability to criticise his individual actions and the people that need to see the immense problems that he is causing are not going to listen to people that call him a Naz1. It’s also lazy.
                   
                  This is why people call on Godwin’s Law. Even though it’s not technically correct, there is now a common usage of the term on the internet that says that inappropriate use of the term Naz1 loses you the argument.

                  • jackal …
                    24 July 2011 at 3:28 pm

                    Perhaps an inappropriate use of the term Nazi might lose an argument if it is incorrectly and/or inarticulately applied, however using the term Nazism to define the WWG proposal of contraception only for the poor is not hyperbole. You’ve failed to argue the merits of the case weka, and instead equated your own repugnance at such a comparison, to an argument.

                    The fact that it’s a minority group that is predominantly Maori that’s being targeted, opposed to Jewish or Gypsy people makes no difference to the contextual reality of fascism. The right wing believe that the poor are not entitled to breed and this is just one example of that fascism being openly displayed.

                    Although Nazism is a specific form of fascism, making a definition, (in this case the WWG’s biologically racial and financially inspired eugenics program) does not restrict the use of such a comparison. It is the definition of fascism that is being debated, not the level of that fascism as it is acted upon.

                    Remember, Nazism was once very less extreme than the harshness and reference you might imagine is being made. Nobody is arguing that John Key is going to exterminate millions of people, but that there are similarities in National’s policies to Nazi Germany is indisputable.

                    Your proposal that Nazism is not equated with fascism is incorrect. In fact the main difference is with antisemitism, which nobody could rightly accuse Key of being. In this respect your request for a specific definition is justified, but in terms of the eugenics program it is not.

                    The comparison to Key being a Nazi might be over the top if the similarities between the policies of Nazi Germany and National were not so obvious. The rhetoric, media manipulation and obfuscation to mention but a few comparisons, is so akin to Nazi ideals and fascist propaganda, that I’m wondering if they’re taking cues from Mein Kampf.

                    As you’ve mentioned, Godwin’s Law does not apply when the specific reference is reasonably equivalent and therefore justified. If you cannot argue that the reference has been inappropriately applied in the first place, then no amount of theorizing can fix that weka, not even a straw man.

                  • Vicky32 …
                    24 July 2011 at 3:35 pm

                    As evil as the WWG’s report is, comparing their recommendations around contraception to Naz1s killing millions of Jews in order the purify the race is ridiculous and counterproductive hyperbole. Yes the WWG’s ideas around welfare and how women get pregnant are probably fascist, so call it that. But don’t call them Naz1s because it will just make people roll their eyes and dismiss what you are saying.

                    I have two comments: if Nazism wasn’t fascist, what was it? There’s no other category into which it can possibly fit!
                    Also, although it’s a widely held belief, especially amongst NZ teens and 20-somethings, and afaik all Americans, it is not true that the Nazis killed or wanted to kill only Jews! When my son was studying WW2 at Western Springs College in 2005, he learned that his classmates almost all believed that World War 2 began in 1942, when the noble USA rose up against Hitler in order to save the Jews. That’s simply not how it was. 🙁

              • higherstandard …
                24 July 2011 at 8:59 am

                Yes more Venn diagrams will clearly sway the audience.

            • Tangled up in blue 5.3.1.2.1.3
              23 July 2011 at 10:02 pm

              You are a blinkered moron. How’s this for you ignorant generalisations:

              I can’t stand John Key. I don’t think he is Nazi. I am easily left-wing. I have voted Greens Party vote my whole life.

              But the left & right are homogeneous groups huh?

              • jackal …
                23 July 2011 at 11:12 pm

                Are you arguing that what the leader of a group says does not define that group Tangled up in poo? The reality is that a leader should speak for the group he represents. In this case John Key was speaking on a world stage and meant to be representing all Kiwi’s when he said:

                “I think what it shows is no country large or small is immune from risk and that’s why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan.”

                The fact that Key cannot differentiate between what is happening in Afghanistan and what has happened in Norway or that he chose to ignore the facts of the matter to promote his own ideals is unacceptable.

                Such ignorance/opportunism shows that he’s representative of a very small minority of liars who use any means to justify their goals… even the suffering of innocent people. Key is therefore not representative of the majority of New Zealander’s and is clearly unfit to be Prime Minister.

                However, I think that such an ignorant and/or opportunistic statement still represents the National Party to a large degree, as this type of incomprehensibly stupid/heartless statement is not an isolated incident.

                It’s your generalization Tangled that we should label anybody who thinks Key is an “evil Nazi” as a RWNJ. I gave you many other situations that diverge from that generalization, which you have chosen to ignore. It appears that you cannot mount a proper argument and have resorted to calling names, which ironically is what you seem to be arguing against.

                The term you’re looking for is effective medium approximation. When Key is surrounded by New Zealand mainstream media he appears representative, but when he is removed from that supportive approximation and required to act like a leader, he fails!

                That failure is what we should be concerned with, not what names to bestow it with. However when there is a direct comparison, as the two I have mentioned above, then people should call it like they see it.

                In this latest case Zetetic says opportunistic, and I have to agree… Although stupid and insensitive also spring to mind to describe john Key’s “representation.”

      • bbfloyd 5.3.2
        23 July 2011 at 5:41 pm

        tanglefoot…that statement demeans you..nobody else… just you. H.S. has issues that preclude him from serious consideration….

        it was fine to paint swastika’s on photo’s of helen clarke, but now that the truth is showing through the wall of bullshit the tories have been assisted in foisting on us you have a problem?

        fuck off numbnuts.

        • Tangled up in blue 5.3.2.1
          23 July 2011 at 10:04 pm

          “It’s was fine to paint swastika’s on photo’s of helen clarke”

          O RLY?

          When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

      • Afewknowthetruth 5.3.3
        23 July 2011 at 11:39 pm

        As usual, the ignorant and the deceived resort to insults when presented with the truth.

    • SHG 5.4
      24 July 2011 at 2:43 am

      Whenever I look at Key I see the black peaked cap, the black uniform and the SS insignias.

      Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Standard.

      [lprent: Nope – what you have is afewknowthetruth. We allow all kinds of political nutters here including you (and much of the time I have problems distinguishing you two apart from the sides and afktt tends to be better at arguing his point of view). Provided they conform to our pretty minimal behavioral limits we don’t constrain commentators. ]

    • Blue 5.5
      24 July 2011 at 9:39 am

      Whenever I read your poorly constructed prose – I think of Stalin, Mao and the millions they killed in the name of “equality”. Fascism doesn’t allow people to vote, you back woods hairy back, so there is no comparison.

      • Colonial Viper 5.5.1
        24 July 2011 at 1:06 pm

        Hey dude have you read about the millions who have been killed in the last 10 years in the name of “oil”?

        Fascism doesn’t allow people to vote, you back woods hairy back, so there is no comparison.

        Now don’t go living in la-la land, ‘being able to vote’ is not the same thing as having democracy.

        For instance in the US they have a choice of voting between The Bankers Party and The Other Bankers Party. Fat lot of use that is in terms of ‘democracy’.

  6. Sanctuary 6
    23 July 2011 at 1:38 pm

    Key was inept in even making a comment when in possession of no more facts than anyone else.

    That he felt the need to put in his 2c worth – and fuck up (again) is beyond belief.

    What an idiot.

  7. Lazy Susan 7
    23 July 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Second stuff-up of the week by Key. This guy just cannot think on his feet and is an embarrassment

    • Sanctuary 7.1
      23 July 2011 at 1:48 pm

      Whenever he is outside of carefully scripted set-piece media events with sycophantic media he screws up. Inexperience is no longer an excuse – he has been PM for three years.

      • handle 7.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 1:56 pm

        You seriously believe he wasn’t prepped with a variety of lines to justify sucking up to the Americans?

    • Anne 7.2
      23 July 2011 at 3:25 pm

      My immediate thought to Lazy Susan.

      The man’s a walking embarrassment!

      What about the comment re- the Israeli affair: “the SIS Officers got quite excited about it”.

      Bet that went down well…

  8. randal 8
    23 July 2011 at 1:48 pm

    so johnnyboy is tight with the Norwegianians now too?

  9. jbc 9
    23 July 2011 at 1:53 pm

    It does look like a particularly dumb comment in the context of some of the facts, but I’m not clear on the timing of the PM comment and the arrival of news.

    The same ‘updated’ Herald article mentions: “Norway has been grappling with a homegrown terror plot linked to al-Qaeda. Two suspects are in jail awaiting charges.”

    And earlier news items make no mention of a right-wing gunman, but do speculate on “jihad-inspired terrorism”:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/22/oslo-explosion-government-building
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/22/oslo-explosion-terrorist-bomb-attack

    So it is possible that the Afghanistan comment might not have been quite as dumb as it looks now. Obviously unwise to speculate before all the facts are out though.

  10. Samuel Hill 10
    23 July 2011 at 2:27 pm

    This is what its all about though. Keeping the system of control in place. Key’s comments were made to justify his ideological view of his country and his leadership. John Key believes in the strength of the current globalized, capitalist, consumer system. John Key’s view is probably not too different to many leaders. Perhaps he should not have mentioned Afghanistan, but he can hardly add any more content to the debate can he? We’ve never seen anything like it. We DO protect many Afghanis from terrorism. He doesn’t have anything else to reference. So maybe he should have said nothing. But I don’t think its a biggy. How about the comments of the Norwegian leader? He has said that ‘this will not break our democracy’, ‘we shall be more open’ etc. This is essentially the very view that the person making the attacks seems to have targeted. An attack of this scale, with the government and liberal social views clearly the focal point for the violence, should not be brushed aside simply because the level of horror is so surreal and on such a massive scale. Innocent victims, yes. But you would be correct to question what difference is this violence to that acted out by militaries around the world. The state justifies it’s own existence via democracy. Global power is vested in the state, and expressed via corporate rule.

  11. John D 11
    23 July 2011 at 2:59 pm

    I am very sorry to hear about this dreadful tragedy. Norway is a small and peace loving country not dissimilar to NZ.

    The many islands that dot Oslofjord are similar in some respects to the islands of the Hauraki Gulf.
    If you try to imagine a camp located on Waiheke Island, and 80 of our kids being slaughtered by a gunman, then it gives some idea of the horror.

    I can’t condone Key’s opportunism, nor can I condone the politicisation of this issue in this thread.

    Who cares whether the gunman was “right-wing”? Most people can’t even define what that term means.

    • handle 11.1
      23 July 2011 at 3:18 pm

      Key ‘politicised’ this when he linked it with Afghanistan. No one forced him to do that.

    • Deadly_NZ 11.2
      23 July 2011 at 5:26 pm

      What a tosser. It’s as if he’s inviting terrorism to NZ. Come to NZ, a country of 4 million people, who’s police force is used for gathering income for the government. The Military is comprised of a few thousand soldiers with NO tanks; NO modern weapons. Come one come all, just tell em John KY sent you.

      • jackal 11.2.1
        23 July 2011 at 7:42 pm

        Is that John KY jelly?

        Personally I put this down to the Prime Ministers stupidity. Clearly New Zealand’s involvement in the “war against terror” has nothing to do with a right wing nut job killing people in Norway. His comparison was disrespectful and ultimately designed to promote a failed ideology based on lies.

        I notice that John Key’s stupidity wasn’t reported on at all by New Zealand’s mainstream media today. God forbid that his smile and wave brand is threatened with the truth. We can’t have people realizing the Prime Minster is an idiot after all.

        Our involvement in Afghanistan has assuredly increased the danger of a terrorist attack in New Zealand. Perhaps the threat is closer to home though and the SIS should start investigating people like Kyle Chapman.

    • mickysavage 11.3
      23 July 2011 at 7:38 pm

      I can’t condone Key’s opportunism

      You can say “I condemn Key’s opportunism”.

      And then realise this post is a response to him.  If he had not said what he did I am sure this post would be one of regret and remembrance. 

      • U 4 United 11.3.1
        24 July 2011 at 9:11 am

        Are you silly enough to infer Key had beforehand knowledge? Otherwise how can your absurd meanderings constitute “opportunism?”

        What a sewer this blog is! Bye forever!

  12. Samuel Hill 12
    23 July 2011 at 3:22 pm

    I agree John D. The title of this post “Key’s sickening opportunism over Norwar attacks” is pretty sickening in itself.

  13. higherstandard 13
    23 July 2011 at 3:32 pm

    So have you got a link to what Key actually said that’s made you have a such a big grizzle ?

      • higherstandard 13.1.1
        24 July 2011 at 9:00 am

        Gweg Pwessland ?

        • jackal 13.1.1.1
          24 July 2011 at 10:38 am

          Cameron Slater ?

          • higherstandard 13.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2011 at 10:56 am

            Harpoon ?

            • jackal 13.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2011 at 12:04 pm

              I presume you’re the person who’s been making bottom sex comments at the Jackal Cameron Slater… are you willing to stand by those statements now?

              • higherstandard …
                24 July 2011 at 5:04 pm

                I’ve been to your site once and after seeing pictures of current parliamentarians shopped to appear as Nazis and members of the KKK decided not to bother again as you’re clearly a pimply bottomed youth who’s got too much time and a rather warped view of the world.

                So no not me, someone else must be lusting after your young cheeks.

                • jackal …
                  24 July 2011 at 7:19 pm

                  Cameron Slater’s stalking me.

                  [lprent; hs is not Cameron Slater. Apart from anything else, he has too large a vocabulary. ]

  14. JamesMeager 14
    23 July 2011 at 3:37 pm

    You know what’s sickeningly opportunistic?

    This article.

    For shame.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      23 July 2011 at 3:51 pm

      Difference being this is a boring political website, whereas John Key is our Prime Minister.

      • joe bloggs 14.2.1
        23 July 2011 at 4:01 pm

        [deleted]

        [lprent: You’re still banned until the 29th ]

      • Draco T Bastard 14.2.2
        23 July 2011 at 4:04 pm

        EDIT:
        ODT Article

        “If it is an act of global terrorism then I think what it shows is that no country, large or small, is immune from that risk,” Mr Key said.

        “And that’s why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan as we try and join others like the United States to make the world a safer place.”

        No misrepresentation by the post author. John Key really did use it to try to explain why we’re in Afghanistan.

        • higherstandard 14.2.2.1
          23 July 2011 at 4:18 pm

          Must be just me but I’m not sickened by Key saying that and find myself thinking that it’s a pretty reasonable thing to say while you’re over in Washington as PM.

          I wonder what Helen clark would’ve said ?

          • Colonial Viper 14.2.2.1.1
            23 July 2011 at 4:28 pm

            Note how Key designed his statement to fit what he thought his audience would want to hear.

            • higherstandard 14.2.2.1.1.1
              23 July 2011 at 4:36 pm

              Crikey a politician who fits statements to what they think the audience wants to hear…. we’re through the looking glass here people.

              • Colonial Viper …
                23 July 2011 at 7:11 pm

                Last thing we need is a poodle for PM, don’t you agree? How about someone who can keep his trap shut for 30 mins until he finds out what is actually going on?

                • higherstandard …
                  24 July 2011 at 9:02 am

                  I don’t know – if there’s a choice between Key, Goff and a standard poodle I’d give the poodle a tack at election time.

        • joe bloggs 14.2.2.2
          23 July 2011 at 4:27 pm

          there’s a test of reasonableness that can be applied to Key’s comments.

          In light of the two al Qaeda suspects that are in Norwegian jails awaiting charges on a terror plot hatched in Norway, and in light of claims made by the “Helpers of Global Jihad”, which claimed initial credit for the bombing, and the claims by Ansar al-Islam taking the credit for the bombing on some jihadist web sites, then Key’s comments are entirely reasonable.

          Whereas the claim of sickening opportunism made by this post’s author are unreasonable and a sickeningly opportunistic attempt to make some political capital from Key’s comments.

          • Zetetic 14.2.2.2.1
            23 July 2011 at 4:54 pm

            key saw an opportunity to use this tragedy for his political gain, giving him cover for the afghan deployment. that wouldn’t have necessarily made sense even if the bombers were islamists.

            • felix 14.2.2.2.1.1
              23 July 2011 at 5:08 pm

              “that wouldn’t have necessarily made sense even if the bombers were islamists”

              You’re splitting hairs there Z. All them Arabs is just Arabs, no matter what part of Arabastan they’re from.

          • felix 14.2.2.2.2
            23 July 2011 at 5:04 pm

            There’s a test of bullshit-ness too.

            Key failed it.

          • Draco T Bastard 14.2.2.2.3
            23 July 2011 at 5:08 pm

            You claim there’s a test and then don’t apply it to one side, merely assert that Whereas the claim of sickening opportunism made by this post’s author is true. If we apply you “test” to Jonkey’s actions in going for photo ops at disasters (Pike river, Chch) and then doing nothing about those disasters (admitting that our safety standards are not up to Australia’s and then not upping ours to meet those standards etc) it can be shown that you’re wrong. Jonkey did engage in opportunism as that’s what he does.

          • Murray 14.2.2.2.4
            23 July 2011 at 6:25 pm

            What do you expect from these clowns.
            The level of hysteria and attempted muckraking on the standard seems to be in direct proportion to Goffs slide in the polls, all rather pathetic .

      • McFlock 14.2.3
        23 July 2011 at 5:27 pm

        An opportunistic blog about an opportunistic comment about a freaking tragedy is sickenly opportunistic, so a blog about said blog would probably be only mildly nauseating.

    • Puddleglum 14.3
      23 July 2011 at 8:18 pm

      Sorry James, but your post (on your blog) misses the obvious aspect of the opportunism.

      The ‘If’ in John Key’s statement actually makes the opportunism clear yet you seem to think the presence of the ‘if’ somehow makes Key’s comments reasonable??!!

      The point of this post, as I understand it, is that he didn’t have to speculate on the cause at that stage and the fact that he did – by employing the speculative ‘if’ when no speculation was called for -suggests that he saw an opportunity to defend his government’s stance on continuing deployment in Afghanistan that he intended to take advantage of. 

      Think about it for a moment. It’s a classic case of opportunism and, what is worse, opportunism before the facts are in. The ‘if’ pretty much nails the opportunism.

  15. Jim Grant 15
    23 July 2011 at 3:50 pm

    I trust DonKey will also be giving Obama advise on the debt crisis – no more taxes and deeper cuts to gov spending – come on John – show us what you are really made of .

  16. Tom Gould 16
    23 July 2011 at 4:50 pm

    I must admit to cringling somewhat over Key’s comments when watching the BBC early this morning. The President, on the other hand, was very careful not to characterise the event too precisely until genuine facts come to light. No such caution from Key, who of course, is more used to dealing with a craven and sycophantic bunch of buddies masquerading as the press gallery, mates he knows will cover for his ineptitude and foolishness.

    • Sookie 16.1
      23 July 2011 at 5:22 pm

      Linking a rightwing christian fundie nutjob to Afghanistan and the usual terrorist boogymen was indeed pathetic, but to be fair he wasn’t possessed of the full facts at the time. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s the most embarrassing PM, ever. He shouldn’t be let out of the country to talk to more dignified, intelligent leaders/journos.

      • felix 16.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 5:35 pm

        “to be fair he wasn’t possessed of the full facts at the time”

        Then that’s what he should have fucking well said.

        But no, he has to be seen as Johnny on the spot, mates with the movers and shakers, got the inside scoop on what’s going down.

        Except he doesn’t and he looks a callous, ignorant fool.

        • handle 16.1.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 5:44 pm

          Key and McCully crave approval from the big boys. The spineless sucking up will continue until they leave office.

      • mickysavage 16.1.2
        23 July 2011 at 7:44 pm

        but to be fair he wasn’t possessed of the full facts at the time

        So he should have STFU until he learned the full facts.

        He did not.

        He is a pillock. 

        EDIT what Felix said.

  17. Carol 17
    23 July 2011 at 5:01 pm

    Actually, I think Key was just following Obama’s line and that of the intitial news reports. Of course I think Obama’s response was more subtle, and, yes, more careful.

    I was watching the continuous coverage of the bombing and shootings in Norway on Al Jazeera early this morning. I must say, I was kinda convinced at the time by the continual linkage of the bombings and shootings with Al Qaeda or something similar, as you can see from my comment on Open Mike – the #1 comment today. That line was constantly emphasised by the Al Jazeera reporters & commenators they highlighted.

    There was an early report that the guy arrested was a blond Norwegian, then the authorities seemed to withdraw that comment. But one “expert” said it was possibly homegrown terrorism, but it could also be a local AQ recruit, and he thought a non-Norwegian terrorist group was more likely.

    Then, in the middle of all that, AJ went live to the statement by Obama with John Key sitting there beside him saying nothing – maybe Obama told Key he’d do the talking?

    Obama first talked about the important relationship between NZ & the US and gave a summary of the things he and Key had discussed and agreed on. There was a constant clicking of cameras – probably a full contingent of international reporters wanting some Obama statement on Norway. Eventually Obama obliged and referred to the Oslo bombings, and then said, in fact, that he an Key had just been talking about the need for international support against terrorism.

    So I’m guessing, Key’s comments on Afghanistan came from this statement by Obama, which was alluding to NZ support in Afghanistan.

    In later repeats of Obama’s statement, AJ cut out most of the references to NZ except for the line saying he an Key had just been talking about the terrorism issue and the need for international solidarity.

    So, if Key was guilty of racism, I guess I was too, in not thinking more critcally about the AJ coverage. I do think Key was being opportunistic with his Obama photo op & related Norway coverage, but not sickeningly so.

    My immediate response was, that we do not need to be linked to the US and it’s dirty little wars and counter-“terrorist” activities, and I don’t like the way Key is jumping into that area and that he is keen to involve NZ in it.

    • devon 17.1
      23 July 2011 at 5:35 pm

      The war on terror is a fake war on behalf of Israel, America and the elites ( including the Bankers) against Muslims with an eye to weakening them to assume dominance of the region. For anyone who hasn’t heard about “The Project for The New American Century” go take a look at this short ABC news report about the group who dominated the Bush administration and their aims for middle east domination.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCPLHlF_3lE

      They state that this battle may go on for our entire lifetime and that america will use all its resources not just military. This is rare honesty on Main Stream Media. The shock of the honesty pales in comparison to what is been declared. Please get this information out to anyone who will listen.

      Also Go watch the BBC documetary “The Power Of Nightmares” on youtube for more reality about Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is widely used slang for “the Toilet” in Arabic. Hard to imagine why anyone would join a terror organisation called the toilet and clearly made up by someone who didn’t understand musch about the middle east.

    • Puddleglum 17.2
      23 July 2011 at 8:26 pm

      Good comment Carol, although I’d be surprised if Key and Obama were watching Al-Jazeera during their meeting.

      Maybe the briefings to the President are based on Al-Jazeera reports or media reports in general? That would be disturbing in and of itself – at least to me. It would give major media even more ‘clout’ than even I thought they had. I had assumed that ‘our leaders’ would have sought out official information directly (e.g., from the local police investigation) and based their comments on that, especially over such a sensitive incident. Otherwise, our leaders may as well just be another twitter thread.

      • Carol 17.2.1
        23 July 2011 at 8:34 pm

        Puddleglum, I agree with what you say. I wasn’t meaning that Key & Obama got their info from the media, but that the media were clearly all over it and wanting Obama’s reaction. I would have thought in such a situation politicians would be looking to the intelligence briefings before fronting the media. My point was, Key would surely have known the extent of the tragedy at that point.

  18. Hollyfield 18
    23 July 2011 at 5:20 pm

    If you’re going to condemn Mr Key, you had better condemn Mr Goff as well. Have a look at what he’s reported to have said (on the TVNZ website). By the way, I’ve cut and pasted this – the typos are not mine.

    Giff said the attackes were “all the more appalling” given Norway’s prominent peace keeping position in the global arena.

    “Norway hosted and worked hard to negotiate the Oslo Accords in an attempt to resolve the on-going Israel-Palestine conflict, and made a huge effort in its work to find peace in war embattled Sri Lanka,” he said.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      23 July 2011 at 7:17 pm

      Goff talked about the generous international nature of Norway.

      Key talked about his own call to keep soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.

      • rosy 18.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 7:26 pm

        And from the same press release…. “Our profound condolences go to the families of all those killed or injured in these attacks and while it is important those responsible are brought to justice we must not to jump to conclusions about the identity of the perpetrators,” Maryan Street said.

        It looks like they took a little time to contact people before commenting.

    • mickysavage 18.2
      23 July 2011 at 7:51 pm

      Hollyfield.

      What the?

      That is really really weak.  When in doubt a RWNJ says “oh Goff did it too” … 

  19. Tigger 19
    23 July 2011 at 5:25 pm

    Idiot.

  20. Pete George 20
    23 July 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Key, of course, has been sickeningly opportunistic, but not that bad.

    Zetetic has been sickeningly opportunistic with this post. Quite bad.

    • McFlock 20.1
      23 July 2011 at 5:32 pm

      I note you didn’t miss an opportunity to point this out…

      • Pete George 20.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 5:41 pm

        At least you’re not trying to say I’m sitting on the fence.
        Should I not speak up on something I feel strongly about?

        • felix 20.1.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 5:53 pm

          Funny, the only thing you ever seem to have a strong opinion on is that no-one should criticise your glorious leader.

          • Pete George 20.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2011 at 5:57 pm

            Get fucked felix, what’s happened in Norway is bloody awful and doesn’t deserve being use as an excuse for cheap shots.

            • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2011 at 6:04 pm

              Yeah, tell it to John Key, Mr George.

              It appears that dozens of members of the equivalent of our NZ Young Labour died in the island massacre.

              So this is a tragic loss for the Left in Scandanavia, and a severe blow to the future of Norwegian politics. Members of the NZ Labour Party stand with Norway in solidarity.

              • Pete George …
                23 July 2011 at 6:08 pm

                Why don’t you show some respect in solidarity and just leave it at that. It would show you were genuine rather than transferring your bitchiness to someone who had nothing to do with what happened.

                • felix …
                  23 July 2011 at 6:23 pm

                  Key has “nothing to do with” the words that come out of his mouth?

                  Jeez Pete, your usual sycophancy is one thing but you’ve moved into outright idol worship with that line.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 July 2011 at 7:19 pm

                  Why don’t you show some respect in solidarity and just leave it at that.

                  What would you know about solidarity you little ACT aparatchik?

                • mickysavage …
                  23 July 2011 at 7:52 pm

                  Why don’t you say “Key fcuked up”?

            • Redbaron77 20.1.1.1.1.2
              23 July 2011 at 6:42 pm

              I am going to have to go with Pete George. JK was unaware of the full extent of the terrible events at Utoeya when he made his statement following the bombing in Oslo. While this post may have had a valid case in questioning JK’s motives at the time, it has appeared increasingly misframed as the full picture of Utoeya has emerged during the day. The memory of the 80 plus young people who died in such a terrible way would be better served by suspending the ensuing debate.

              • Pete George …
                23 July 2011 at 6:47 pm

                Thanks, and a decent comment here.

                And yes, a good idea, I’m suspending any more comment here.

              • Colonial Viper …
                23 July 2011 at 6:57 pm

                The memory of the 80 plus young people who died in such a terrible way would be better served by suspending the ensuing debate.

                Because suspending debate is what members of a Youth Labour movement would have wanted their memory to be, especially when their governmental and democratic institutions were under attack, and they were made fatal victims of a political statement.

                Total fraking Bullshit. I’ll bet if those people who were on that island are anything like the people I know from Young Labour in NZ, they would not want democratic debate silenced and to let terror defeat democracy by stupid sentimental timidity.

                A crisis demands democratic debate, not some kind of stunned sentimental silence. Failing to do so means that the outcomes and direction of a crisis can turnout very bad indeed.

                I am going to have to go with Pete George. JK was unaware of the full extent of the terrible events at Utoeya when he made his statement following the bombing in Oslo.

                Then Key should have stayed fucking silent, instead of trying to grab media time in Washington.

                • RedLogix …
                  23 July 2011 at 8:28 pm

                  You contribute one hell of a lot to this site CV… much of it I enjoy reading because we do think more or less along similar lines.

                  For a while there the sheer sadness of this tragedy prompted my natural instinct to STFU in the face of the incomprehensible. Like others I was beginning to feel it was too soon to have this debate.

                  But every now and then CV you say something that changes my mind totally. This is the ultimate political act. Silence is not the response. Look at the committment from the activists in Syria, at least 2000 of them killed in recent months… and they too have refused to be silenced.

                  So yes if the emotions are a little raw for us, imagine how they must be in Norway right now. But the people who have been murdered today ALL wanted to make a difference, they sought change, they wanted something better for our future.

                  Certainly they deserved better. We merely insult their memory if we acquiese in the motives of the man who killed them. He wanted to silence them.. we refuse him.

                  Emphatically.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    23 July 2011 at 9:01 pm

                    Thank you RL. Indeed, there will be a time for grieving and remembrance. And this is not it. You can only honour the dead by being true to their ideals.

                    The RWNJs would love nothing more than silencing an opportunity for collective debate, shutting down a chance to understand what these events mean. The US version of this shutdown uses appeals to patriotism and symbolism, denouncing the asking of difficult questions or voicing of doubt as being ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘un-American’.

                    4 or 5 years ago I wouldn’t have given more than a seconds thought a day to NZ politics. Finding The Standard has helped to politicise my thinking, to understand a NZ which was right under my nose but somehow always obscured to me.

                    As individuals we are fragile but as a collective we are mighty.

                    The question I ask myself now is, how to wake up those who are still asleep like I was asleep; those who dream fitfully of a better life and a better NZ but somehow cannot find a way to rise up to it through the heavy blankets of distorted MSM messages and self centred personal struggles.

                    The sleepers must awaken.

                    • Redbaron77 …
                      24 July 2011 at 2:09 am

                      I did not state that JK’s comments should not be debated but given the scale of the tragedy that it should be suspended. During Saturday we learned that over 80 young Labour activists in Norway lost their lives for following their political beliefs. However looking through this post this reality appeared to have by-passed some of the commentary; which came across as inappropriate mainly because the timing was incorrect. Fortunately The Standard has launched a post commemorating those taken away which will provide us with an opportunity to grieve their passing…

              • felix …
                23 July 2011 at 7:06 pm

                If he didn’t know, he should have said he didn’t know. This is a serious matter he’s commenting on.

                The useless bastard thinks he’s still on Wall Street where “baffling them with bullshit” is an acceptable way to negotiate unknown territory.

                Not good enough Mr Key.

              • mickysavage …
                23 July 2011 at 7:53 pm

                JK was unaware of the full extent of the terrible events at Utoeya when he made his statement following the bombing in Oslo

                So why did he even open his mouth?

                • Carol …
                  23 July 2011 at 7:57 pm

                  The press conference I saw live around 7-8am this morning, with Key and Obama and a loud clatter of cameras constantly clicking, really did indicate Key & Obama were fully aware of the extent of the tragedy in Norway, and of the massive flow of news media interest in it.

                • jackal …
                  23 July 2011 at 8:13 pm

                  Perhaps Key’s statement about something he apparently had little intel on and jumping to conclusions says more than the actual comment itself.

                  But if Shonkey had full knowledge concerning the attack and who undertook it, the comment is totally despicable!

                  “I know who killed those Norwegians, but will use it to justify a war in Afghanistan.”

                  Discussing John Key’s stupidity does not disrespect the dead. People who make unfounded statements concerning the perpetrator of this horrendous crime to try and justify their own policies, shows disrespect.

                  If anything, such occurrences should increase debate. Closing down dissent is the occupation of fascists!

                • Blue …
                  24 July 2011 at 12:13 pm

                  Same reason you do pal, because you like the sound of your own voice. The difference between you both is Key doesn’t live on the fringes with 2% support of the population and is boring as bat shit. Most people actually like the guy.

                • mik e …
                  24 July 2011 at 1:08 pm

                  He couldn,t resist a smile and wave as he was free baseing on power

              • Puddleglum …
                23 July 2011 at 8:43 pm

                “JK was unaware of the full extent of the terrible events at Utoeya when he made his statement following the bombing in Oslo.”

                Which is why the statement was opportunistic.

                Look, I don’t like the fact that people’s gruesome deaths have ramifications – some important, some insignificant – far and wide around the globe. But they do. One consequence is that, for all the world’s ‘leaders’, it represents yet another test of their character and judgment. I see absolutely no reason why Key’s response to this tragedy should not be scrutinised, especially when his comment connects it with actions taken by a military force in a foreign land.

                If Key wants to use innocent deaths to justify a force being in a country thousands of miles from where those deaths occurred – and a force that even the President of that country has repeatedly castigated for the innocent deaths it has caused in his country – then that justification needs to be scrutinised. 

        • McFlock 20.1.1.2
          23 July 2011 at 6:16 pm

          The one time you do state an opinion you’re hypocritical about it. If Z feels strongly about sickening opportunism, by your values Z can’t comment on it. However, if you are disgusted by what you see as Z’s opportunism, you can’t be criticisted for commenting on it?
           
          Or is it opportunism if lefties do it, but not if you or shonkey make a comment?

          • Pete George 20.1.1.2.1
            23 July 2011 at 6:21 pm

            I didn’t say he can’t comment on it. I said his post was sickeningly opportunistic.

            What is your opinion on his headline?

            • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.2.1.1
              23 July 2011 at 6:34 pm

              You spend time attacking a random low level blogger for being ‘opportunistic’ and yet give the PM of NZ a full pass.

              Just bloody typical of you.

              • Pete George …
                23 July 2011 at 6:43 pm

                I didn’t give the PM any sort of a pass. You and felix have decided to paint that from absolutely no facts, which is how you both often to operate.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 July 2011 at 7:03 pm

                  Sure you’ve given the PM a pass: by not accusing him of the same opportunism and instread attacking some kind of part time lowly blogger.

                  (heh no disrespect Z you are a top hand)

                • McFlock …
                  23 July 2011 at 7:10 pm

                  Number of comments you’ve made criticising key’s response?
                  Number of comments you’ve made criticising Z’s response to key’s response?
                   
                  In my opinion you’re a damned hypocrite. Key was wrong to make it about NZ’s involvement in Afghanistan, Zetetic pointed that out, with context of other governments blaming those groups whose spectre would most conveniently assist government policy. And if Zetetic was wrong to point this out so soon, you are also wrong in your rush to your boyfriend’s defense.

                • felix …
                  23 July 2011 at 7:38 pm

                  Nine comments from Pete George in 2 hours.

                  Most of them critical of the post.

                  None of them critical of John Key.

                  That’s a full pass, Pete.

    • joe bloggs 20.2
      23 July 2011 at 5:32 pm

      whereas Phil has been truly statesmanlike – hasn’t mentioned Afganistan at all – just the Israel-Palestine conflict and embattled Sri Lanka. Spot the difference.

      • Colonial Viper 20.2.1
        23 July 2011 at 7:04 pm

        Hey Key mentioned Sri Lanka too, he told those refugees to fuck off last week, remember? How’s that for “statesman like”?

  21. devon 21
    23 July 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Goff is an idiot. Maybe a quick change of leader would be wise. Is there any sensible person in the labour party. We have a choice between really evil and stupid National and “not quite so evil but almost as stupid labour”. I think I’ll go lie down as I’ve got a headache

    • mickysavage 21.1
      23 July 2011 at 7:55 pm

      devon you are a ghoul.  So Key making this appalling statement is Goff’s fault?  I am not sure why I should waste the bandwidth on this comment.

      • devon 21.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 8:12 pm

        Mickysavage

        Granted that was a little unfair, but Goff also sometimes makes unfitting comments for effect and usually pays for them. Key says whatever crap he likes and the media faun and excuse him. He is 100 times worse I know.

        • mickysavage 21.1.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 9:32 pm

          devon

          Agreed that Goff is not perfect and Key says whatever crap he likes …

          • Blue 21.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2011 at 9:46 am

            Subtle difference micky, citizens of a country usually want to hear from their Prime Minister, however in moments of crisis, they couldn’t give a fuck about an opposition leader who is a dead man walking and looking for a media moment. Would you have it that Leaders of countries remain silent at times like this? Of course not.

            • Campbell Larsen 21.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2011 at 12:38 pm

              ‘looking for a media moment’
              …even as prime mincer – he normally calls me john – ‘keys’ (ha ha ha) sucks super power cock while grinning like a fool…hypocrisy much?
              The only thing I want to hear from shonky is his resignation speech, the man is an embarrasment to NZ

            • mik e 21.1.1.1.1.2
              24 July 2011 at 9:15 pm

              dead man walking just another bullying abusive right wing comment that is the sort expression this nut case right winger blogged about on the internet. I don,t mind criticism wit satire but abuse when 92 people have died that are of left wing killed by an extreme right winger.The right are trying too make mileage out of it is sick Key has appologized said he didn,t mean to offend anyone lets leave it at that. BLUE there is only one % point between the two blocks at the moment so its not only incorrect but given that 92 labour people have died using terms like you have is far worse than what John Key said .And John has opologized maybe you should to

  22. gobsmacked 22
    23 July 2011 at 6:01 pm

    I think we can agree that Zetetic shouldn’t be Prime Minister. Let’s all pile on if pigs fly and he gets the job.

    In the meantime, how about the one we’ve got?

    Three times in recent days, Key has mouthed off when he had no facts. 1) SAS at Kabul hotel, 2) Israel/SIS spy story, and 3) Oslo massacre.

    Worse, each time he’s done it overseas, which just attracts more publicity – and embarrassment.

    What is “leftie” about simply wanting the Prime Minister to … act like a Prime Minister? Is that really too much to ask?

    • Pete George 22.1
      23 July 2011 at 6:05 pm

      If that was simply all that was being done, fair enough, but trying to use a tragedy to smear him is despicable, even for political prats.

      • felix 22.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 6:30 pm

        “Using a tragedy to smear him” apparently means quoting his own words and pointing out how stupid, offensive, racist, amateur, and un-pm-like he is to have said them in the context of these events.

        Oh no I said racist! That means I’m being racist against racists!

    • Colonial Viper 22.2
      23 July 2011 at 6:06 pm

      What is “leftie” about simply wanting the Prime Minister to … act like a Prime Minister? Is that really too much to ask?

      Seems that a lot of New Zealanders just want a PM who can talk shit with the hosts on The Rock.

      • Samuel Hill 22.2.1
        23 July 2011 at 6:08 pm

        Thats democracy for ya.

        • Colonial Viper 22.2.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 6:12 pm

          Nope. Its a shallow fast food version of a democracy. And why would you support that?

          Its nothing like ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’ that the Ancient Greeks would recognise.

          • higherstandard 22.2.1.1.1
            24 July 2011 at 9:11 am

            EH what are you suggesting we all go ancient greek on each other ?

      • davidc 22.2.2
        23 July 2011 at 7:53 pm

        Westie munter Rock listeners are voters too!

    • Carol 22.3
      23 July 2011 at 6:12 pm

      The most striking thing about Key’s Photo Op with Obama today was that Key was totally silent and looked out of his depth. He is cringingly embarrassing for NZ. And I hope that before too long we get a PM again who has the nouse & gravitas that fits the office.

      • Colonial Viper 22.3.1
        23 July 2011 at 7:55 pm

        Steven Joyce?

        😛

        • Carol 22.3.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 8:01 pm

          Ha! ooo. A parody of a PM with savvy & statesmanly demeanour? Ermmm…. can someone who keeps pursuing holiday highways of national significance be said to have the nouse befitting a PM. He may have a smalmy kind of gravitas, but doesn’t seem very PM material to me…… but that doesn’t mean he won’t be PM, just not a good one.

  23. queenstfarmer 23
    23 July 2011 at 6:16 pm

    This irony is that this article has done what it falsely accuses the PM of doing. What a disgrace and an insult to the Norwegians.

    BTW I see that Phil Goff made the perfectly reasonable link between the attack and Norway’s international involvement on TVNZ.

  24. joe90 24
    23 July 2011 at 6:37 pm

    A google translation of a Norwegian blog post with a photograph and some interesting but unverified information on Anders Behring Breivik.

    Anders Behring Breivik has previously driven the blog Fjordman and later for many years been a writer for the anti-Muslim and Zionist bloggers Gates of Vienna and Jihad Watch, under the pseudonym Fjordman.

    On July 17, released Anders Behring Breivik a message on Twitter where he writes that “One person with a belief is Equal To The force of 100,000 WHO Have only not raised.”

    • jackal 24.1
      24 July 2011 at 12:47 am

      Interesting considering Norway was apparently allowing a Palestinian Embassy to be built, and the Israeli’s had strongly opposed it. Could this be the work of Mosad agents and what are the implications for New Zealand if we ever built a Palestinian Embassy here?

      It certainly makes John Key’s recent attempt at a cover up concerning possible Mosad agents attaining false passports from New Zealand again seem rather poignant!

      So much for Al Qaeda being to blame huh! Quick, re-write those articles you right wing lackeys!

  25. Tiger Mountain 25
    23 July 2011 at 6:53 pm

    The “Prime Minister” of New Zealand, Shonkey, is a bloody disgrace.

  26. gobsmacked 26
    23 July 2011 at 7:08 pm

    To those defending Key (or trying diversion tactics), could you please answer these simple questions …

    Do you think Key was correct in drawing a link between this horrific massacre in Norway, and Afghanistan?

    If so, can you please explain the link? Were the deaths today in some way affected by NZ having troops in Afghanistan? How?

    If not, do you think Key should withdraw and apologise? If not, why not?

    Genuine questions. Answers welcome.

    • Anne 26.1
      23 July 2011 at 7:25 pm

      The silence is golden. Any chance of it continuing ad infinitum?

    • Dan 26.2
      23 July 2011 at 7:45 pm

      I do suspect there was a genuine confusion in where blame lay, it also seemed to extend to the media as well. I noted that one of our major websites ran the headline “Hints Attacks May Not Be Islamic” or word to that effect. I have a simple question – what suggested they were? I mean intelligence operatives obviously made the same mistake, but this was at about 3pm this afternoon, and it also didn’t fit in with any known previous Al Qaeda MO. While I can understand a Prime Minister getting bad advice (in as much as the advice should be better), I want to know why our media just assumed it was ‘Islamic’ – and don’t even get me started on the phrase ‘Islamic’ as an inference on a whole religion.

      • Carol 26.2.1
        23 July 2011 at 7:50 pm

        Al Jazeera, which doesn’t always/usually take an anti-Islamic line, was running with Al Qaeda as being the most likely suspect from about 6am to 8am this morning. Part of the problem was that such an attack in Norway was totally out of step with most people’s view of the country.

        Also, most people on AJ were saying there must have been at least 3 or 4 perps involved to pull off the bombing and shooting at around the same time. So they were thinking in terms of some sort of well-organised group.

        • rosy 26.2.1.1
          23 July 2011 at 8:05 pm

          I was watching on SkyNews UK and they were very careful to continue noting that there were 4 possible threat sources; a mullah who said he would kill people if he was deported and Norway is in the process of deporting him, Gadaffi because of Norway’s ‘enthusiastic’ intervention in Libya, Islamic extremism over reprinting a couple of the Danish cartoons and local, extremely violent right-wing fanaticism.

          So it definitely wasn’t universally assumed early on that it was an Islamic plot

  27. Carol 27
    23 July 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Part of the problem for Key, I imagine, is that he finally got his photo op with Obama, only to find it was overshadowed by news coming out of Norway. I imagine he was trying to make a statement to skew the focus back to himself & his agenda in the US.

    I noticed that NZ Herald and Stuff this morning also tried to keep Key-meets-Obama as their top headline long after international news media had gone into over-drive on Norway. They didn’t have anything on Norway on those 2 sites for quite a long time, and even then Stuff kept the Key-Obama item at the top.

    • jackal 27.1
      23 July 2011 at 8:45 pm

      You’re not wrong there Carol. Perhaps they had already written the articles prior to the meeting. Even Kiwi’s abroad noticed that New Zealand was very slow on reporting the Norway bombings and shootings. That overshadowing or bad luck if you like is starting to become a common occurrence, and I’m thinking Key is bad luck.

      The stupid statement of Key aside, I don’t think that many New Zealander’s are all that enamored with Obama’s position, considering what America has been up to. It would seem that John Key’s smile and wave campaign is unraveling before the snake oil has even dried. First the Royals tell Key they wont visit because they don’t want to be seen supporting National, now the Obama meeting is overshadowed by the US debt crisis and Norway bombing and killings, and rightly so.

      I wonder what could go wrong with the RWC? Perhaps some security guards cleansing the streets of the homeless caught on tape or too many pigs with their snouts in the trough might be the death knell of the National party, which has been nothing but a crying disaster for New Zealand from the get go.

  28. Hamish Saunders 28
    23 July 2011 at 7:58 pm

    Considering this site purports to crack down on partisan trolls, it’s ironic that this author is the worst sort of partisan troll. I can’t believe how deluded and out of touch this moron is. At least Farrar attempts to be impartial in some areas. Not everything warrants an attack on Key.

    [This thread is about Key’s very own words, words he has uttered on a global stage. What the PM says will be scrutinised. Attempting to drag the moderators into this, in a deluded and out of touch attempt to to silence the debate… will not be indulged in….RL]

  29. Terry 29
    23 July 2011 at 8:11 pm

    I guess it has all been said. Please, in rightly pointing at the frightful Key, look too at the dreadful Obama letting down his own people and the world. He oiled all over Key who seems to much enjoy licking up such oil. We are supposed to gawk with wonder that crisis ridden (deservedly) Obama gave Mr KEYS 35 minutes precious time. I guess it was like a little vacation for Obama meeting with this MINNOW. America is the most terrorist nation the world has known whilst they (with people like ourselves) scapegoat the Muslims. This interview showed us two scumbags imagining they are being lionised. You should hear what my American friends have to day about their devious President, but no, I do not wish to use bad language. I admit to my shame that I too was taken in by the fact that Obama is “black”, even more by his skills in oratory (or better, rhetoric). No longer!

  30. Cassie 30
    23 July 2011 at 8:23 pm

    My heart goes out to all those involved in these terrible atrocities.

    What any politician of any hue said about it anywhere?
    Who cares?

    Do you think the victims’ families or those who escaped the gunman are going to lose sleep over what Key or Goff or anyone else said or didn’t say?

    • Zetetic 30.1
      23 July 2011 at 9:08 pm

      Of course they don’t care. But we should care that our PM is the kind of person who would exploit a tragedy like that.

      • Tigger 30.1.1
        23 July 2011 at 9:34 pm

        I care that Key’s first thought was brown nosing Obama rather than doing what you’ve done and sent out condolances to those who’ve been affected by such an evil act.

  31. Anne 31
    23 July 2011 at 8:58 pm

    I admit to my shame that I too was taken in by the fact that Obama is “black”, even more by his skills in oratory (or better, rhetoric). No longer!

    I am starting to feel the same way Terry.
    Obama’s boot licking this morning (our time) was sickening. He described Key(s) in the following terms “ always intelligent and thoughtful”. God forbid. Where did he get that from?

    But the big eye-opener (in my view) was his comment about ChCh. He talked of America still being “broken hearted for ChCh”. That has to be the most insincere sentiment from a super-power leader that I have ever heard!

    • Colonial Viper 31.1
      23 July 2011 at 9:08 pm

      He talked of America still being “broken hearted for ChCh” .

      I’m sure many Americans thought that he meant the Christchurch in Scandanavia, near where NZ is?

      Yes, exactly.

    • Afewknowthetruth 31.2
      24 July 2011 at 12:07 am

      Obama was sponsored into office by the same corporations that backed McCain. Tne corporations don’t care which party is in office: they control both.

      Obama lost all credibility one week after taking office, when he opened up a new war front. We are not sure how many wars the US is fighting now -some say 5 some say 6. All of them are connected with oil, of course. Orwell had it right: ‘war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedon is slavery’.

      No need for the US to attack Saudi Arabia though and liberate the people there. The Saudis are doing a great job of repressing the people and don’t need Western help (other than weapons bought with petrodollars):

      The Indpendent reports:

      Saudi Arabia’s new law would make political dissent a crime
      Kingdom’s ‘anti-terror’ legislation follows wave of upheavals across the Arab world

      By Patrick Cockburn

      Saturday, 23 July 2011

      The Saudi authorities have drafted new anti-terrorism legislation that makes political dissent a criminal offence and would enable the government to jail anyone who questioned the integrity of the King or Crown Prince for a minimum of 10 years.

      A draft copy smuggled from the kingdom and obtained by Amnesty International shows that the definition of “terrorist crimes” under the proposed new law is so broad as to enable the authorities to detain anybody for as long as they want on such wide-ranging charges as “endangering… national unity” or “harming the reputation of the state or its position”.

  32. Craig Glen Eden 32
    23 July 2011 at 9:16 pm

    Keys a disgrace theirs no doubt he has never been worthy of the job, his response is further proof of that in this situation, simply he is out of his depth.

    My thoughts go out to the parents and families that have lost their children today. That could have have been my son at that conference, shit its so bad its beyond belief. How could some one do this to all those young people. What ever the killers political/religious/racists bents, his actions today are just pure evil.

    RIP young Labour souls.

  33. Windy.City.Struggler 33
    23 July 2011 at 10:44 pm

    I’d like to add my support for those whose hearts sank
    to hear the latest prime ministerial utterance, and convey
    my condolences to the relatives of the deceased.

  34. Budgieboy 34
    23 July 2011 at 11:15 pm

    [Deleted pointless abuse….RL]

  35. Luc Hansen 35
    23 July 2011 at 11:38 pm

    I don’t have time to read all the comments above, so I don’t know if this has been mentioned, but on the Bill O’Reilly show this afternoon (hosted on Fridays by the gorgeous but raving mad Laura Ingraham) the blame was immediately placed on Muslims and that was followed by a piece on the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, although it is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque: it is, in fact, a Lower Manhatten community centre.

    And I also found JK’s comments obscene. As in obscenely opportunistic.

    He said something like if it is a global terror attack then it shows we are not immune to terrorism ourselves.

    We now know it was not a global Muslim plot, so does that mean we are now immune and can drop all those anti-terrorist laws that take the freedom out of being Kiwi?

    I suspect not.

    There must be something under those beds…

  36. Windy.City.Struggler 36
    23 July 2011 at 11:46 pm

    yeah, reds.

  37. Afewknowthetruth 37
    23 July 2011 at 11:48 pm

    According to the commonly accepted definition, fascism is the melding of the government sector, the military sector and the business sector.

    John Key’s actions in sending NZ troops to Afghanistan to facilitate the contruction of oil and gas pipelines and to facilitate looting of resources by western corporations are the actions of a fascist. Helen Clark was also a fascist, of course.

    (Please. please please don’t tell me we are there to promote human rights, freedom and democracy, otherwise I will have ask why we have not invaded Saudi Arabia, which has a far worse record than Afghanistan. It couldn’t be anything to do with oil, could it?)

  38. QoT 38
    23 July 2011 at 11:52 pm

    It’s pretty fucking simple, for everyone crying “Goff did it too!” et cetera …

    When Key was asked about it, his first instinct was to talk about himself (his administration / his defence policy).

    When Goff was asked about it, his first instinct was to talk about Norway.

    I’ve had precious little regard for Goff’s instincts in the past but I’m interested to see how y’all want to argue against them on this occasion.

    • Bill 38.1
      24 July 2011 at 12:17 pm

      Key’s narcissism aside.

      Political leaders of all stripes are in the habit of connecting domestic incidents to international situations. And even when (as is usually the case) the international context won’t hold water, they use the incident to justify passing regressive policies within their own country in the name of security anyway.

      I just ‘love’ being an enemy of interests that treat me as such but won’t overtly state me as such.

  39. Afewknowthetruth 39
    24 July 2011 at 10:48 am

    In this Orwellian world, when you want to invade a nation economically and steal their oil, the first thing you do is send in the ‘defence’ force.

    That was a very clever move changing the name of the war department to ‘defence’.

    Oil addiction now requires more or less constant military intervention. And as peak oil starts to really bite matters must get inevitably worse.

  40. Sean 40
    24 July 2011 at 4:06 pm

    [all caps rant – deleted. You’re welcome to comment. But not like that. Eddie]

  41. Glenn 41
    24 July 2011 at 4:52 pm

    Amazing what an effect you can have by half quoting the Prime Minister, cutting out the all-important “if” clause, trying to paint his own stance on this tragedy in a certain light, and then trying to use it for political gain – while accusing him of using the events in question for political gain.

    ” “If it is an act of global terrorism then I think what it shows is that no country, large or small, is immune from that risk,” Mr Key said.”

    Of course, if it’s not an act of global terrorism, then this doesn’t apply. But you’ve hidden that from your readers by snipping out the inconvenient bits.

    How about giving some context in future eh? Because if that’s “the standard” of honesty you use, you need to lift your standards.

    • Pascal's bookie 41.1
      24 July 2011 at 5:02 pm

      Glenn, it’s the ‘if’ that shows how opportunistic he was being. Are you saying that he didn’t use the event to shore up support for his Afghanistan policy? It seems pretty clear to me that he did.

      As it is, I wonder what lessons can be drawn from the event? None I suppose. Because when Christian conservatives shoot people, they are just isolated mad people.

      • Glenn 41.1.1
        24 July 2011 at 5:16 pm

        PB, so, no comment on why the “if” was sneakily edited out eh? Telling. I suppose no honest reason could be given, so I don’t blame you for not trying to offer one.

        Contrary to what you say, any fair person can see that the “if” clause was very important. At the time of Key’s comment, it was even less clear than it is now on why this tragedy happened. As such, bombings and shootings were quite naturally associated with terrorism (whou’da though?). In that context, it was entirely fair for key to comment on his thoughts IF this was indeed part of wider terrorist operations.

        That the author of this glorified blog entry chose to deliberately hide this part of the quote and then spin the comment for political ends is pretty disgraceful. But not surprising. 

        • Colonial Viper 41.1.1.1
          24 July 2011 at 5:24 pm

          Key made a fool of NZ on the world stage, and that’s not an IF, he actually did it.

        • Pascal's bookie 41.1.1.2
          24 July 2011 at 5:25 pm

          How is the ‘if clause’ at all important to the question of whether Key was using the event to support his Afghanistan policy?

          I note you didn’t comment about whether or not he did that. ‘Telling’ etc.

          Also note you didn’t offer any lessons that could be learned from did happen, and that you seem to think that this wasn’t terrorism, or part of any pattern of such terrorist acts worldwide. Presumably because only muslims do that. ‘Telling’ etc.

          • Glenn 41.1.1.2.1
            24 July 2011 at 5:43 pm

            “How is the ‘if clause’ at all important to the question of whether Key was using the event to support his Afghanistan policy?”

            In the way that I have just explained to you. Why would I repeat it? The comment was made when the motive was even less clear than it was now, and the possibility that this was part of a wider terrorist activity was a real one. In that context, it was quite fair for Mr key to take that possibility into account and point out that if this was the case, then it shows that many nations are at risk from such things, which is why New Zealand does what it does.

            Now I have helped you a second time, how about we even the score by you being a bit more forthcoming: How do you feel about blog authors who deliberately chop out parts of sentences to give a different impression about what a public figure said? Are you OK with that, as long as the political goal is the right one in your view?

            • Colonial Viper 41.1.1.2.1.1
              24 July 2011 at 5:57 pm

              Hey Mr Astroturfer, our PM let us down on the international media stage and all you can do is wail on a lowly blog item?

              In that context, it was quite fair for Mr key to take that possibility into account and point out that if this was the case, then it shows that many nations are at risk from such things, which is why New Zealand does what it does.

              You mean it was quite fair for Key to come up with a fantasy scenario to justify our soldiers continuing fighting in Afghanistan?

              You know, a sort of “IF this terrorist attack happens to justify what we have already decided to do, our decision will obviously be justified”?

              Seriously go away.

              • Glenn …
                24 July 2011 at 6:04 pm

                “You mean it was quite fair for Key to come up with a fantasy scenario to justify our soldiers continuing fighting in Afghanistan?”

                Fantasy? Again, I have addressed this.

                “Seriously go away.”

                As you wish. Don’t let me rain on this parade of dishonesty and partisan hackery. But don’t pretend it’s anything else.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  24 July 2011 at 6:06 pm

                  Mote/eye.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  24 July 2011 at 6:22 pm

                  Don’t let me rain on this parade of dishonesty and partisan hackery. But don’t pretend it’s anything else.

                  Hey dude I am a keen proponent of partisan hackery. Just like you are. So what’s your point?

            • Pascal's bookie 41.1.1.2.1.2
              24 July 2011 at 6:05 pm

              How do you feel about blog authors who deliberately chop out parts of sentences to give a different impression about what a public figure said?

              I think you are begging the question there Glenn. I don’t think the missing if clause changes the meaning of what Key did, which was to use the event to support his Afghanistan policy.

              Firstly, I didn’t think it was at all reasonable to assume, “OMG MUSLIMS!!!1!” when I heard about the attack. Your persistent stated assumption that it was hides a lot.

              While it may have been an impulse for many people to think that, the fact is that Key just came out and said it. Yes, he used ‘if’, But so what? That doesn’t change the fact that he used the event as a platform to launch a defence of his Afghanistan policy. All it does is show that he did so while even he knew that he didn’t have a hold of the facts and that he was working off assumptions. So how does that mean that he wasn’t making an impulsive and opportunistic use of the event for political ends?

              • Glenn …
                24 July 2011 at 6:08 pm

                And now it’s all out – You think John key was bagging Muslims. Sorry, the race and religion card cannot be played.

                I see you have no defence of chopping out parts of people’s sentences when quoting people. That says a lot. You’re in good company here!

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  24 July 2011 at 6:18 pm

                  Umm, What?

                  You might want to look at your presuppositions about what you class as terrorism in your comments on this thread Glenn.

                  • Glenn …
                    24 July 2011 at 6:25 pm

                    Of course – because thinking that bombings and mass shootings might be linked to terrorism is just crazy. Obviously.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      24 July 2011 at 6:30 pm

                      Of course they are terrorism Glenn.

                      There was never a question that these events were ‘linked to terrorism’. They were acts of terrorism. It’s as simple a tautology as one can think of to say that ‘acts of terrorism are linked to terrorism’.

                    • Glenn …
                      24 July 2011 at 6:49 pm

                      Excellent. So we agree that I’m right in what I “class as terrorism.” Sweet.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      24 July 2011 at 7:05 pm

                      Only if you’ve come around. Preciously you’ve implied that Key initially thought (in error, but reasonably so) it might be related to terrorism, and that this was only natural.

                      Implying that terrorism equals ‘muslims blowing things up’

                    • Glenn …
                      24 July 2011 at 7:08 pm

                      Muslims? Interesting that you should freely choose to bring them into it, PB. I never did.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      24 July 2011 at 7:13 pm

                      No Glenn. You’re a sophist. And as such, boring.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  24 July 2011 at 6:20 pm

                  Key let the whole country down by choosing to open his mouth even when he knew nothing about the Norwegian situation.

                  This was especially true an hour or so later when actual facts were emerging and it became clear that he used a made up fantasy scenario:

                  “IF the Norway attack justifies our presence in Afghanistan, our presence in Afghanistan is justified” is about as good as Key could give the world.

                  • Glenn …
                    24 July 2011 at 6:27 pm

                    At least try to think before showing your absurd partisanship – to say nothing of the way you appear to condone the chopping up of quotes that The (low) Standard has engaged in.

                    It’s really very simple. EVERY act of organised terrorist is a reminder of what ou country takes its stand against terrorism. Therefore if this was such an act (and as far as people knew, it could have been), then it’s a reminder of what we oppose terrorism.

                    Somehow when you’re engaging in politically motivated bleating, these simple facts slip past your attention.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 July 2011 at 7:03 pm

                      Still buying into the whole “War on Terror” meme eh? That’s so 2004.

                      Still buying into the meme that having Kiwi soldiers fighting in Afghanistan somehow ‘makes the world safer’ are we?

                      Just explain that one for me eh?

                      Somehow when you’re engaging in politically motivated bleating,.

                      Takes one to know one 🙂

                    • Glenn …
                      24 July 2011 at 7:10 pm

                      War on Terror? It doesn’t matter whether you or I buy it or not. If people just think we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, fine, they can say so. But there’s no need for this dishonest smearing and half quoting to bolster those views.

                      THAT is what makes it political bleating.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 July 2011 at 7:20 pm

                      Hey did you know that John Key believes that having our soldiers in Afghanistan ‘makes the world a safer place’?

                      I wonder where that belief came from.

                • Ianupnorth …
                  24 July 2011 at 6:23 pm

                  FFS – just agree to disagree.
                   
                  Key was being opportune, unstatesmanlike and hoping for media coverage. As has been said elsewhere in this thread if he had offered condolences and support rather than attempting to offer his view on who he thought was to blame he would have come out looking far better.

                  • Glenn …
                    24 July 2011 at 6:30 pm

                    “if he had offered condolences and support”

                    You realise that he did, right?

                    More dishonesty it seems, chopping out the inconvenient bits. Here is what Mr key said:

                    “I echo your sympathies and concern for that situation in Norway,” Prime Minister John Key added moments later when it was his turn to speak. “If it is an act of global terrorism, I think what it shows is no country, large or small, is immune from that risk. And that’s why New Zealand plays its part in Afghanistan as we try and join others like the United States in making the world a safer place.”

                    Try to be honest, people.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      24 July 2011 at 6:59 pm

                      Key had to try and point score with some irrelevancy on how having our soldiers in Afghanistan made the world a safer place.

                      Maybe Faux News was giving him his lines?

                    • Campbell Larsen …
                      24 July 2011 at 7:12 pm

                      Honestly Glenn if you think the war in Afghanistan is about the US making the world a safer place there really is no helping you.

        • Puddleglum 41.1.1.3
          24 July 2011 at 8:56 pm

          Glenn, I don’t know if I can be considered a ‘fair person’ but, to be honest, when I read the quote in the post I was disturbed by Key pushing the connection with his government’s policy in Afghanistan. Then, when I heard that he had prefaced it with the conditional ‘if’ clause, I just couldn’t believe how opportunist he was being. That is, my judgment of his comment went from bad to worse once I found out about the ‘if’ part of it.

          Here’s why – and I think it’s ‘fair’ reasoning and pretty obvious.

          The ‘if’ not only shows that Key was taking the opportunity to link the event with his government’s policy on Afghanistan deployment but also that he obviously knew he was on doubtful and uncertain ground in making the comment. That makes it worse, in my book and, I would have thought, it would make it worse in any reasonable and fair person’s book.

          In a curious way, if he hadn’t said ‘if’ he would have simply been jumping to a conclusion. It’s not good but at least it has the excuse of ignorance. What the ‘if’ shows, however, is that the ‘jumping’ was considered – he knew there might be no connection.

          You also claim that “As such, bombings and shootings were quite naturally associated with terrorism (whou’da though?)”

          Hang on Glenn. I don’t know about other ‘fair’ people, but when I hear about a mass shooting, my thoughts immediately go to the kinds of shooting sprees common in America and, unfortunately, increasingly common elsewhere. Now, of course, that definitely is a form of terrorism but we both know that if Key had meant that form of terrorism it would make absolutely no sense of his main claim (re: the validity of the Afghanistan deployment). Whatever the SAS are doing in Afghanistan it’s not about stopping people with guns running amok in mid-Western US towns or, now, just about everywhere.

          Personally, I think Key is providing an example here of what politicians do, almost reflexively, a lot of the time – trying to make political capital out of whatever event comes their way. The problem is that this was an horrendous event and Key showed he could not resist continuing to act opportunistically in relation to it. He acted like a politician not a statesman (which is what the occasion required – a show of sensitivity, compassion, concern and a cautious calm).

          A statesman would have said “None of us know the details yet and it is vital they be established before any conclusions are drawn. For now, all we can do is express our profound sadness and let those affected and the Norwegian people in general know that they have our moral and practical support and our deepest sympathies.”

          Why didn’t something like that occur to Key? Why wasn’t that the kind of ‘natural association’ he would make? I think the answer speaks to judgment, character and – that old-fashioned word – wisdom.

          • mik e 41.1.1.3.1
            24 July 2011 at 9:24 pm

            I just jumped to the conclusion it was a far right wing nazi nut job when I first heard the news with Norways connections of the distant past.

  42. Zetetic 42
    24 July 2011 at 9:33 pm

    A depressingly large number of people don’t realise that it’s not about whether Key might be excused for jumping to the conclusion that it was an islamist plot. It’s about the fact that his response is designed to deal with an domestic political problem. I didn’t see any other leaders exhibiting that kind of opportunism.

Links to post