"... The minister’s only concern was that the invading force refrain from attacking Christian areas. Attacks on Shia Muslims was 'Hizbollah’s problem’ and Mr Murr - a Christian in a Sunni-led government - hoped that the offensive would allow the army to displace the radical Iranian-backed group that is Lebanon’s strongest force.... Almost as damaging, Murr’s testimony directly implicates the Lebanese president Michel Sleiman. In March 2008, at the time of the conversation, the Lebanese president was army chief of staff. And Murr told his American friends that he had already instructed Sleiman that the Lebanese army should not get involved 'when Israel comes.’
It has been commonly claimed that the Julian Assange’s Wikileaksrevelations have contained no dazzling revelations. But these revelations are bound to inflict long term damage on the already troubled government of Prime Minister Hariri. It is true that local reaction in Beirut has been measured, even from Hizbollah, and that Elias Murr himself has reacted with amazing insouciance.... But this muted reaction is only because the Lebanon is already facing what threatens to become the country’s greatest crisis since the end of the civil war twenty years ago...."
4 comments:
Implicates the President how? In 2008 Murr was the minister and Sleiman was the Army Chief of Staff. That would make Murr Sleiman's boss at the time. Would the Telegraph ever make the claim that the British Chief of Staff is implicated in war crimes because Tony Blair ordered the illegal invasion of Iraq?
Q- "Implicates the President how?"
A- "And Murr told his American friends that he had already instructed Sleiman that the Lebanese army should not get involved 'when Israel comes.’"
Anon,
Like I said, Murr was Sleimans boss. Thats how it works. Furthermore, we know nothing of Sleimans reaction or whether he would have actually implemented the order
Mo,
Lame response.
Post a Comment