<snip excellent treatment> <applauds> Impressive. I personally think the biggest problem with almost any label of universal disgust (and "Holocaust denier" is almost as good as "pedophile" for this purpose) is that it gets abused as a method to suppress unrelated or marginally related discussion. Holocaust denier is a bad label for someone who (for example) doubts the "skin lampshades" story - they aren't denying the holocaust, they are arguing for the untruth of a selected fact; only by questioning the validity of individual elements of an accepted theory can you maintain the truth of that theory, or find a greater truth that extends human knowledge. saying "$FOO is provably true so you must accept unquestioningly everything I ever say as being equally true, regardless of proof" is as unreasonable a position as denying $FOO without any counterproof to the original assertion. Doubting the validity (or legallity) of Israeli policy in the occupied territories isn't anti-semitic or even anti-Israeli - it is opposed to current israeli policy, possibly specific current israeli political figures, but not groups of people described by religious or geographical location. Ditto Saddam (not Iraqis), Bush (not christians or americans) or Kim Il Sung (not buddists or North Koreans) - individual people may be ultimately responsible for acts I can despise, but on the whole their people are just getting on with their lives as best they can.