(Contrary to PhoenixRising's comment below, I don't think it's asking too much to have people NOT send anti-semitic emails to the SWC. Please don't. Leave that up to the COINTELPRO types who no doubt will. -rep.)

I don't know whether this is more offensive, silly, stupid, and/or just sad. (sometimes mixing and matching is called for)

Now, before I get into the meat of the matter, if you will, I would like to encourage people to respond to this information maturely, intellectually, and with decency. That is, try to keep the negative, derogatory, hurtful, attacking, anti-semitic, etc., e-mails to the SWC and Mark Weitzman down to a minimum. Zero would be nice, but I know that's probably asking too much. Be that as it may, it never hurts to ask.

I should also point out that I am a "supporter" of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, though not a card-carrying member, if you will, and I have visited their Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles several years ago and enjoyed it. I encourage everyone to go. I am not Jewish (heritage / ethnicity / nationality), nor Judaic (religion), not that that should matter one way or another.

I decided to do a little research after the brouhaha over the presentation Mark Weitzman, Director of the Task Force Against Hate and Terrorism for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, made before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security on the topic of "Using the Web as a Weapon: the Internet as a Tool for Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism". (November 6, 2007)

Cleansed Transcript: http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=3577145
Clip: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12699

I tended to give Mr. Weitzman and the SWC some slack, and the benefit of the doubt, in their apparent labeling of some 9/11 Truth and Justice Movement websites (AE911Truth.org, 911Truth.org, and others) and their members and supporters as "terrorists", "hate-oriented", "radical", etc. (which I think requires a certain amount of interpretation and interpolation), or even "conspiracy mongers" and "disinformation spreaders", since they appeared in Mr. Weitzman's (quickly run through) slide show presentation under a section labeled "Internet: Incubator of 9/11 Conspiracies and Disinformation". I thought they were merely misguided and/or mistaken and/or, at the least, there was an absence of malice. (regarding the former — the latter would be a matter of opinion and is not surprising – many people thing "we" are "conspiracy nuts" and, I suppose, are "spreading disinfo")

I was concerned, however, and decided to do some research to make sure I was either correct, or mistaken. (one instance does not, necessarily, a situation make) Whereupon I have come across some information which makes me less inclined, actually not inclined, to cut them slack on this issue anymore, or give them the benefit of the doubt. As you will see, there is little room for doubt about their agenda.

I visited the MOT online store and purchased their CD, titled "Digital Terrorism & Hate 2007", which on the cover has a pre-title of "Hate On Demand:" and a kind of sub-title of "Simon Wiesenthal Center Snider Social Action Institute". The price was $20 plus tax plus shipping and handling, so less than $30. Here is the information about the product from their online store: (emphases mine)

Product Code: AL28
Description: Item Number: AL28
Product Detail: Digital Terrorism and Hate 2007 is the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s newly released ninth annual, interactive report exposing terrorism and hate on the Internet. Compiled by Center researchers, the 2007 edition is culled from close to 7,000 problematic websites, blogs, newsgroups, youtubeTM and other on-demand video sites. Key sections of Digital Terrorism are available in English, French and Spanish.

Highlights include powerful terrorist videos that recruit young people into the horrific culture of death and Hate on Demand -- two flash movies tracing the evolution of how hate and terror groups have manipulated and leveraged the web to promote their agendas.

The Wiesenthal Center is distributing this unique, timely and impactful interactive report to government leaders, elected officials, law enforcement anti-terrorist agencies, community and web activists and the media.

After reviewing the CD, I found that the website 911Truth.org was listed among other websites on this CD under the category of:

GEOGRAPHIC > U.S. / Canada > Conspiracy > 911Truth.org —— (Slide #8 of 15)

Now, they did put the website under the "Conspiracy" label, again, but surrounded it with some pretty awful, nasty, distasteful, and atrocious websites, some of which are without a doubt anti-semitic, and easily fall under the label of "hate", although "digital terrorism" is more than a stretch for most of them.

However, to include 911Truth.org among them, or even on this CD, with its theme of "terrorism" and "hate", that is what is truly awful, nasty, distasteful, and atrocious, and is an insult and an offensive action on the SWC's part. (if I had a website and it was on there, I would be HIGHLY pissed off)

What were they thinking? Or were they thinking at all?

It is almost as if 911Truth.org was added as some sort of an afterthought. And not only that, but the website snapshot they show on the slide is not from 911Truth.org, but the old (I think) Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, so they didn't even get that right. (someone mentioned that that was probably done on purpose, as some form of method to their madness, but I try to not be too paranoid about these things — plus, the content presentation of some of this info isn't the greatest, and leaves something to be desired, so that is information that can lead one to a more benign reasoning, so to speak — the design of the interface is pretty and nice, however, so that is an enigma)

My suspicion is that the SWC people are "acting out" in response to all of the anti-Zionism, anti-semitic, and the "Israel/Jews/Mossad were part of 9/11" aspects of the 9/11 Truth and Justice Movement. Which is typical of them, and understandable to a degree, but, also as they tend to do, they are seriously overreacting. (and/or are clueless — never underestimate the cluelessness (or stupidity) of people) Of course, there is also the political aspects of their stance and viewpoint, as well. I don't think grouping "anti-semitic" and "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Israeli Government actions (the bad ones)" is a truth-based scenario, but it can be used as a political tool, and has been, and is, and will probably always continue to be used as such. Whether it is fallacious, or not. And by "all sides".

Here is the transcribed text for the 911truth.org slide. In their typical manner, they are referring to us as "9/11 Denial" websites, and I suppose we are "9/11 Deniers". Notice their usage of quoting "academics", "journalists", and "activists", as well as their comment of "veiled behind so-called scholarship". "Historicity" is a good word, meaning "historical authenticity."

As years pass since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the US, 9/11 conspiracy sites have become far more sophisticated and relentless. 911Truth.org is the most prolific 9/11 denial website on the Internet. The group is highly organized, taking direction from a steering committee of 'academics' 'journalists' and 'activists'. [sic] Many of the conspiracy theories published on 911Truth.org are veiled behind so-called scholarship. Also available on this website are videos challenging the historicity of the 9/11 terror attacks as well as conferences, petitions, and links to other like-minded organizations.

Personally, I think the SWC has embarrassed itself in doing what they have done, and made themselves lesser than what they should be and claim to be. As a supporter of them and their otherwise and usually fine work, I don't like that.

The question is, are they going to correct their error, or are they going to make it worse? The 2008 edition might be in production right now and erroneously contain not only 911Truth.org, but perhaps AE911Truth.org, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, 911Blogger.com, and a host of other websites that don't deserve to be there.

We can always hope they see the errors of their ways, but I'm not holding my breath.

For the record, 911Truth.org is seemingly, and also erroneously, listed on the Anti-Defamation League website under the section "Anti-Israel Protest Groups". I don't know where or how they are getting that, because as far as I know, 911Truth.org has never even made reference to anti-Zionist issues. Although, it is doubly erroneous in the sense that they are listed as "911 Truth" without the .org, so maybe the ADL website is referring to some other group, which does not even go by that name, since it's a generic term for "9/11 Truth", so maybe the ADL is clueless, as well.

http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_protest_calendar_groups.asp#22

Can't these people get anything right??? What is their problem?? And if they are making such egregious errors in this regard, can any of their other information be trusted, and/or to what degree? It really makes them look bad to anyone with a lick of common sense and interest in truth and accuracy and reality.

I help out a few 9/11 Truth-based websites, and some others, and we take GREAT pains to be accurate, and truthful, and reality-based, and factual, and ethical, etc., and I can guarantee you that no website (or project) I have anything to do with would be allowed to make errors like the two I have pointed out above. Not on my watch. And if someone pointed out any found errors, they would be corrected quickly. (and possibly apologies and/or retractions made; public if needs be and warranted)

I have extracted the section of the SWC CD slide show in question, and made a slide show of it, as well as links to the individual images.

Full size slide #8

Slide 1
Slide 2
Slide 3
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Slide 11
Slide 12
Slide 13
Slide 14
Slide 15

Note: The imagery used in this blog post is used legally under the doctrine and concept of "Fair Use" for the purposes of product review, public benefit and edification, and education. All copyrights are retained by their original assignees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

FYI: I used to post as "doughnut", and will be posting under this nick from now on.