F9/11 is a travesty. When it is obvious that the zionist state in palestine is the primary cause of virtually all the conflicts in the middle east over the last half century, a conflict which spilled onto america’s doorstep through the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings, then it is utterly odious to blame the victims for the conflict. Moore will remain a circus clown until he has the guts to point out, like nader that "the Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and meets with the puppet in (the) White House. He then goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress." Moore possesses none of the political courage or stature of ralph nader. The first rule of radical politics is that you blame the aggressors not the victims. The second rule is that you search out the root causes of problems not the sideshows. If I was moore I would be utterly ashamed of F9/11. To all the moslems suffering in the middle east because of zionist-american imperialism, the sight of moore indulging in cutesy, jocular, quips to blame saudi arabia must be sickening.

The following are the views of kurt nimmo on moore, "Here’s what Moore’s next film should be about: how multinational corporations, New World IMFers and World Bankers, Wall Street parasites, pro-Israel zealots and Zionists have hijacked a Congress that no longer represent the American people, who are in large numbers idiot tube zombies enthralled with their emasculation, a distracted and indolent herd more interested in Paris Hilton’s decadent antics with Olympic-swimming legends at Palazzo Versace than what their government is doing in their name to millions of people in Iraq and elsewhere in the Third World. Unfortunately, since the liberal Michael Moore is part of "infotainment" industry—albeit on what is considered the left—he will never make such a movie, not unless he wants to suffer the same fate as Paul Wellstone and, apparently, Bob Matsui (it is truly curious how those who actually demonstrate the ability to effectively oppose Bush’s draconian vision for America often end up dead). Better—and far more safe—for Moore to go after the Saudis and Bush’s shady business dealings, yet another distraction. Alluding to the fact Dubya hails from a crime family is certainly irritating for the Bush clan, but it in no way endangers the agenda the ruling elite have in mind for us. Fahrenheit 911 was simply a cul-de-sac that ignored what is really going on in this country. Now that Bush hijacked yet another "election," Moore’s last film is less than irrelevant. It is a footnote." (Kurt Nimmo ‘The Naivety of Michael Moore’ http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=482 January 05, 2005).

Moore preferred john kerry over ralph nader, "Michael Moore, who had been introducing Nader at rallies around the country, pointedly refused to accompany him to swing states, and launched a series of bromides on his widely visited website stressing the importance of defeating Bush." (Danny Goldberg ‘Nader and Gore in Retrospect’ Tikkun http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1548/is_1_16/ai_69240378 Jan, 2001).

One commentator pointed out the war-mongering bias in moore’s anti-bush propaganda, "By the way, did you notice how Michael Moore didn’t even mention the word "Israel"? Or "Zionism"? Or even "NeoConservatism" in his documentary? Not surprising. His agent is top Hollywood Jewish Zionist Ari Emmanuel whose brother is Rahm Emmanuel, who served in the Carter administration, and is currently a hyper pro-Israel senator in Illinois. Another interesting note about Moore’s documentary: he even pointed out how none of the Saudis could reap any financial benefits from the war on Iraq, unlike American companies such as Halliburton. So his whole Arab-bashing approach basically backfires. It shows how cowardly Moore is in the face of Zionist Hollywood, not to mention how greedy he obviously is to go for the big bucks, which toeing the Zionist line assures anyone in the worlds of US media and politics. It’s ever so convenient and "somehow" politically "acceptable" to scapegoat Arabs and Muslims in Zionist Hollywood and US media." (Wendy Campbell ‘The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil: What the US Media Hides’ Al-Jazeerah
http://www.aljazeerah.info
/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/October/6o/
The%20Secret%20Relationship%20Between%20Israel%20
and%20Oil%20What%20the%20US%20Media%20Hides%20By
%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm October 6, 2004).

In july 2000, parsons was also truthful about a common phenomena which very few people are willing to talk about at all i.e. the way that brutish people are often maligned in films produced by the zionist dominated, hollywood film industry, “Truly, what a docile bunch we british must be to allow hollywood to spoon-feed us a piece of glossy garbage like mel gibson’s ‘The Patriot’. Heaven knows we are accustomed to seeing tinseltown portray the brits as a bunch of sadists, rapists, bullies, braggarts and mincing woofters.”[51] However, he’s never been brave enough to talk about the zionists’ latest social strategy, ‘The Black and White Minstrel roadshow.’

At the beginning of august 2001 he exposed the residues of punk honest pumping through his veins, “In recent times, our endlessly tolerant country has played happy host to ariel sharon, george bush, vladimir putin, jiang zemin and any number of former terrorists from both sides of the belfast barricades. What a shower! How much blood do that little lot have on their hands? Yet this motley crew are invited for tea and crumpets in downing street .. ”[52]

About a week before the p*ny bombings the bbc announced it would turn parson’s novel into a film which, for some unknown reason, would need a brutish actor to appeal to an american audience, “Mirror writer tony parsons’ novel ‘Man and Boy’ is to be made into a £2 million bbc film. Talks over who will star as the 30 year old loser in love have begun, with producers seeking a british actor who will appeal to a u.s. audience.”[53]

It is typical of tribal bigots that they are concerned solely about the life and death of people on “their side” and make no effort to understand people on the “other side”. This applies to parsons whose sole concern in his mirror supplement was with the people who lost their lives in the bombings. He made no comment about the million or more other people around the world who died needlessly on the same day because of poverty induced by american imperialism and twin tower capitalism.

As a result of the p*ny bombings parsons realized, “Now his (mcbush’s) star wars defence system didn’t look quite so stupid.”[61]

Parsons reveals his love affair with those monumental, geophysiologically cancerous, obelisks and his feelings of sadness now they have gone “.. that beautiful building ...”[63] A few paragraphs later he returns to the same subject, “The symbolic importance of the world trade centre is impossible to overstate. The highest point on the new york skyline, these were the soaring spires of the american dream. When you left or entered new york, they demanded your attention, like the most beautiful women in the world. And now that beauty was scarred .. ”[64] A few days later, after the deaths of more palestinians under the terrorist onslaught of crypto-nazi zionists, he could still hardly contain his sorrow about the loss of ..... those buildings, “The world trade centre was what it claimed to be - in those beautiful twin towers, in those soaring spires of the american dream .. etc etc”[65] He repeats, just in case readers might have missed the point .. “the building, that beautiful building ...”[66] Parsons love for these ooman erections (which psychologically remind him of ‘beautiful women’) seems to verge on the positively unhealthy but doubtlessly it would put him in good stead whenever he troops off to new york to talk to jews in the media who might be interested in publishing his books. Sentimentalizing about these monstrous Earth rapist towers of babel whilst palestinians are being murdered by a war criminal running an apartheid state should make him very popular in new york. What is this cement brained moron going to say when life starts disappearing over large parts of the planet?

On a personal level i was never able to take working class punks any more seriously than their predecessors, middle class hippies. Both of them wreaked of youthful self-indulgence and insincerity because they had a greater desire for publicity than changing the world. Parsons was a true believer in punk self centredness, “During the silver jubilee, i was a true believer in the sex pistols. And even now, from a distance of 25 years, i still feel that there was much to be proud of in our callow rebellion.”[71] Basically parsons hasn’t changed a jot since he was a punk. He used to be a poor punk, now he’s a conservative punk. I can’t wait for a sequel to his first novel when he’ll talk about how global burning has damaged his child’s future and how he did absolutely nothing to stop this disaster except abuse those warning about it. And, even more shockingly, he believes he’s a responsible parent!

In the first part of the article he states that in britain, some journalists "consider it bad form to engage in public debate about anything to do with ethics or standards." Perhaps he really needs to start telling us about his moral reasons for refusing to talk about the zionist ownership and control of the media. If he refuses to talk about the facts then at least he might have the decency to tell us what his moral reasons are for his silence.