Don’t be over enthusiastic Mustapha.
There is something fishy about that story. Three weeks ago, Murr was accusing Muslim fundamentalists of the attempt on his life. Today mysteriously, he accuses Rustom. And ten days ago, he said he didn’t have any info about the Hariri murder and that otherwise he would have given it to Mehlis.
+ Elias Murr was not put by mistake on the banking secrecy list. It was an intentional mistake by Mehlis aimed at pressuring him.
So we should wait a little before we take our hats off to this guy. He’s involved in the Bank al Medina scandal. He sold them a house dfor $ 10 million while it was worth only 3 million. In exchange he truned a blind eye on their money laundering activities.
He would have deserved your chapeau bas had he spoken out before while the Syrians were still there. It’s too late now.

True. Let’s not take it candidly. Last week Charles Rizk was insinuating through his talks that the poor president was helpless during the syrian presence and he could not have done otherwise.
I have no doubt that Murr confessed to his father-in-law previously on this incident, and of course his father-in-law calmed him down.

Lahoud’s reply to his son-in-law yesterday, somehow makes us feel that the communique was dictated, or at least he wants us to believe so. (for god’s sake “3alaka namouzajiah” !!!). Hence, Elias Murr is providing a proof to save 3ammo’s ass.

Until Murr files for divorce, it’s too early to tell…

if u read what Murr said, he still said that it was fundimantalists that tried to assasinate him.. he shed more light when added “Syrian controlled” fundementalists..

He never flip flopped

Yeah, I am not buying this. So he has ‘moral issues’ with Syria now? There’s something we don’t know.

Anton effendi has a better explanation: they are searching for a scapegoat. Note that he accused Ghazalé not Syria. Maybe that Bashar is trying to save himself by giving somebody less important like Ghazalé to the international-community. It’s the ‘rogue’ theory : Ghazale has acted alone.

It’s also possible that Murr doesn’t want to end up in the losing team. The Murrs have a famous history of changing sides.

I still remeber at the time of the attempt on Murr’s life General Aoun Said “who are they going to blame now? syria? and he went on defending el ajhiza el amnie…

Today in al-safir Aoun cofessed that he knew about Murr’s story while he was in Paris….

So was he lying when he asked the rhetorical question at the time of assasination?

Or was he fulfilling his deal with Lahoud and Syria?

PS: here is his quote from assafir today:

وتعليقا على حديث الوزير السابق الياس المر لفت عون الى ان هذا الحديث اعرفه منذ كنت في فرنسا.
نحن تحملنا مسؤولية المجابهة بينما هم لم يستطيعوا تحمل المجابهة الدائمة فكانت مقاومتهم محدودة والآن كل يفرغ ما حدث معه

Lahoud: «Tu quoque, mi fili»