Wow, MBFC, it really surprises me, you making bogus accusations that you haven't even researched and then building straw men when you are refuted. What is "torchering"? If it's anything like "torturing", then maybe you should check this out. A documentary film, "Massacre in Mazar", by Irish director Jamie Doran, was shown to selected audiences in Europe last week, provoking demands for an international inquiry into US war crimes in Afghanistan. The film alleges that American troops collaborated in the torture of POWs and the killing of thousands of captured Taliban soldiers near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif. It documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of Konduz, the Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan. Doran, an award-winning independent filmmaker, whose documentaries have been seen in over 35 countries, said he decided to release a rough cut of his account of war crimes because he feared Afghan forces were about to cover up the evidence of mass killings. Of course, all mention of the documentary "Massacre In Mazar" has been almmost totally blacked out by US news media. Oddly enough, I did find a story on the Pentagon's denial of US torture in the Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/13062002-045203-1541r.htm I also seem to recall stories of the US sending terror suspects to Egypt so that the Egyptians could use "interrogation" methods that are formally banned in the US and could not be hidden in the base at Cuba. So I don't think reports of possible US involvement in such things can be simply dismissed out of hand. In fact, given the atmosphere immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T the use of torture to gain information. You can debate whether such a thing would be justified given the surrounding circumstances but to think that "it can't happen here (or by our boys over there)" is just as naive as the people who initially refused to believe the reports of the My Lai massacre because "our guys just wouldn't do such a thing". Your accusation of Chomsky's supposed anti-semitism is typical of you - third-hand and laughable in light of refuting evidence that you ignore because you do not wish it to be true. You do know that Chomsky himself is Jewish. Right? Of course, he doesn't let his Jewishness blind him to the fact that the state of Israel isn't perfect and that the Israeli government sometimes does bad things. But then anyone who thinks that must be a raging "anti-semite" in your world, I guess. And of course, Dershowitz is omniscient and can never be wrong. I'm sure many Jews think that anyone who criticizes Israel is an "anti-semite". And while I really can't blame them for being extremely sensitive to possible anti-semitism, I do think their outrage is misplaced in this case. As for Holocaust denial itself, sure the deniers are spectacuarly self-deluded and just plain wrong. The major proponents of Holocaust denial are probably anti-semites in the perjorative sense of that term although I am not a mind-reader. And, of course, real anti-semites have made use of the Holocaust denial nonsense to further their own sick agenda. Of course, they also make use of the Bible for similar purposes and I don't see anyone claiming the Bible is anti-semitic. Chomsky is nevertheless correct that it is not necessarily so that the belief that the Holocaust did not happen, however mistaken it is, is in itself sufficient proof positive of Jew-hating. Historical revisionists and spectacularly self-deluded people come in all stripes without being racist. For example, people try to deny that the Israeli government has never done anything wrong and the apologists sometimes go to ridiculous lengths to avoid such a painful admission. Does that mean such people are all of necessity rabid Arab-haters? American apologists try to deny that the US government has had anything do with mass murders, torture and political repression in Latin America (and other places around the world) with similar ridiculous results. Does that automatically make such people "anti-Latinites" who fanaticaly hate all Spanish-speakers? There is often a difference between a belief and the other beliefs of the people who hold it. For example, is a belief in God, as wrong as it may or may not be, "good" or "bad"? People say it is good because it makes some people do charitable deeds and otherwise behave themselves. But others say it bad because it makes some people kill each other and fly airplanes into office buildings. Is everyone who truly believes in God (as opposed to merely giving lip service to such a belief) a potential fanatical murderer or David Koresh? I'd say "no" because it depends on what else they believe. Chomsky and others can cut through the emotional aspect of the belief and see that "guilt by association" is still hella weak. That is why they are clearer thinkers than you. You'd be more credible if you could research your arguments beyond listening to Rush Limbaugh. You've never read anything by Chomsky let alone read most of his works to be able to weigh the evidence and Chomsky's sources for yourself, have you? I bet not. If not then you don't know what you're talking about. I know you don't want to hear that but it's true. You're like some pretentious literary geek trying to criticize, say, Faulkner without ever having read his works and relying solely on third and fourth hand hitpieces. It sounds good until one goes to the acutal source. This apparent self-interested onesidedness and lazy lack of research on your part, not the mere fact that you disagree with Chomsky, is why I say that you don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, have fun waving your spoonful of dirt around while proclaiming that you've levelled Mt. Everest.