France's leading philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, says that American journalist Daniel Pearl, who was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan last year was killed because he knew too much.

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Levy said Mr Pearl had uncovered dangerous secrets about the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence service with Islamic extremists

To the best of my memory, Daniel Pearl was not killed in the WTC attack. So, Daddy, you have no horse in this race.

http://buildingwhat.org/

LOOKS LIKE A NEBBISH GAYBAIT TO ME... PROLLY WHY HE WAS BEHEADED

Daniel Pearl's father is simply exercising his right of Free Speech...Obviously, it should be of no surprise to anyone about his viewpoint since his son was brutally murdered via fanaticism and intolerance of Muslim extremists. No surprise here...

Side note - For those that just hide behind the wall of Freedom of Religion for this Mosque or Islamic Cultural Center -- its so NOT about that and about deliberately promoting an agenda of overseas Muslim-US reconciliation for what 9-11 is..An Agenda that most American citizens are quite frankly bewildered, shocked and angered...and also it demonstrates that this particular group of Muslims behind this have no real interest in promoting any interfaith dialogue in this country...If they did and consulted the local community we wouldn't be down this road...

My uncle thinks the mosque is a bad idea. I don't give a shit what he thinks, either.

Because what Daniel Pearl's father thinks is irrelevant but what Gothamist readers think is sooo important. This is a regular Algonquin round table here.

Can't we just file "Daniel Pearl's Dad" under the list of people who's opinion is irrelevant?

Before….civilization, this is how groups of people decided things…

‘Hey victim what should we do with these people who look like the people who did you wrong?’

‘Kill them all!’

And so on and so forth….until people realized it’s better to decide on rights and laws

logically before something happens - then it is to wait until something happens and make up the rules using emotion in the heat of the moment.

I sympathize with the Pearl family, immensely, but they are not to be arbitrators of rights for Muslim Americans.

The quote from Judea Pearl describing Muslims is IMO tellingly biased….

‘resisting anti-American ideologies of victimhood, anger and entitlement...’

The victim and anger bits ignore recent events and history - then she paints Muslims as being ‘entitled’. for what? For wanting to open a mosque?

I'm really tired of this whole debate and its divisiveness. John Stewart said the other night that no matter what happens, the terrorists win. That sounds about right. We've let something as minor as where a building is going to be erected come between us as Americans when the tragedy that surrounds this debate brought us together as Americans more so than anything since WWII.

What I find funny today is that no one on here has said anything regarding the Egyptian cleric’s stance that it seems to be a bad idea. Should we be branding him as a bigot and Islamophobe? Or can we stop the knee-jerk reactions for one moment and actually have an intelligent discourse letting those who oppose or support the mosque come together to discuss what can be done to alleviate the situation? Hell, after the Civil War, the Union could have put the capital of the US anywhere they damn well please, even in this city, but they didn't. They wanted a COMPROMISE to make sure this country would stay strong after a horrible war.

I don't think your reading comprehension program is working.

Why the fuck do you dumb asses care so much about who thinks it's a bad idea? Sounds like you no argument to stand on so any way to introduce some doubt is the only way to justify your bigot views.

Kinda sucks for you guys when even the US Govt believes in him enough to send him on a state-sponsored trip to the middle east.

Also, you can't go around calling others bigots when you constantly use the term "you people" or "you guys" or something similar. It makes you a bigot and a hypocrite and completely destroys any credibility you had.

Keep throwing those terms around and they'll end up meaning nothing. I said before, I'm tired of the debate. I don't give a shit either way about the fucking mosque. Let them build it. I'm just saying they could have at least considered a move. They didn't. They could care less. My reading comprehension is fine. You want to call me a dumbass and a bigot? Do so to my face. Seriously. Then we'll have a civil discourse leading to you feeling like a complete jerk and possibly with you missing a few teeth.

Daniel Pearl's father deserves as much credence on this issue as the "9/11 families" and Newt Gingrich do: ZERO.

While I'm terribly sorry that Daniel Pearl was murdered; Park51 did not do it.

Unless one blames ALL Muslims, there is no reason Park51 should not be there.

"Public reaction" is no better an excuse then "insensitivity".

"During his speech, he mentioned the words spoken by Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf at a memorial service for Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl, who was killed by Muslim extremists, "Imam Rauf said, quote, 'If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind, and soul: Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ehad; Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one.'"

Come on that was beautiful! Those are not the words of a radical Islamist leader seeking jihad!

These anti-mosque people make this guy out to be the devil himself but the more I hear or read about him the more this imam seems like a good guy and a muslim that we should support.

During his speech, he mentioned the words spoken by Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf at a memorial service for Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl, who was killed by Muslim extremists, "Imam Rauf said, quote, 'If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind, and soul: Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ehad; Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one.'"

That has to be one of the worst sentences I've ever read on Gothamist (and that's saying something). Jen Chung, can you please re-word it so that people can actually glean some meaning from it? I seriously don't even know what it is supposed to mean. Despite its ridiculous length, it doesn't appear to be a complete sentence. Even the sentence quoted doesn't appear to be a legitimate sentence. wtf?

I had to read it a couple times, too.

Yep, great guy. Let's see:

Speaking about 9/11: "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

On whether Hamas is a terrorist organization: "The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

On what Obama should say about the 2009 Iranian election: "He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law." ("vilayet-i-faquih" being the theory which justifies theocracy; read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardianship_of_the_Islamic_jurists)

Yep, stand-up guy, just the kind of thing we need.

I don't know how to break it to you, but terrorists don't just spring out of a ninja factory & decide to hate America. They don't spin a big Wheel of Victims. & note how he emphatically says America didn't deserve it? Wow. He's just saying the same thing Glen Beck did (http://tv.gawker.com/5614445/j....

& you know Hamas keeps getting...elected, right? It IS complicated, because eff Hamas, eff the Taliban. Totally with you. Except...dudes keep getting elected. Often after we roll in & institute democracy. Which sucks, but do we then go "Oh, well, didn't like your votes so, we're over-turning your government again!"