Nice Lie by Frontpage To Try To Undermine Karl Pendhall's Credibiltiy on Being Rammed By Israeli Navy On Board Mercy Boat

As has been reported here on this blog and in the media, this morning the Israeli navy committed it's latest war crime by ramming the Dignity, a yacht sailing to Gaza on it's fifth mercy mission which was clearly in international waters. Fortunately for those on board, though very badly damaged and taking on water, all on board were able to reach Lebanon after this war crime on the high seas was committed. (Read HERE)

How does the Zionist propaganda machine attempt to divert attention away from it's crimes?

By attacking the messenger always.

In this attempt, Frontpage Magazine is tying desperately to make us believe that all onboard the Dignity have some kind of tinge of incredibility about them. In this case, that Karl Pemhaul's vivid account of the Israeli navy ramming the Dignity is somehow not to be believed because they write:

Karl Penhaul, "a video correspondent for CNN, based out of Bogotá, Colombia" who was formerly with Reuters. In July, after Colombian soldiers staged a bloodless rescue of 15 hostages, including a former presidential candidate, held by the Marxist narcoterrorist revolutionary group FARC for more than six years. Pennhaul reported the event - as a Colombian war crime. One of the soliders wore a Red Cross insignia, he wrote; "Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and could endanger humanitarian workers in the future."

What was ACTUALLY written in Karl Penhaul's report at that time?

Such a use of the Red Cross emblem could constitute a "war crime" under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and could endanger humanitarian workers in the future, according to international legal expert Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar.

Note how Frontpage Magazine left out the part attributing this statement to MARK ELLIS?

Let's see what else CNN reported on this case:

Red Cross concerned over use of emblem in Colombian rescue

(CNN) -- The International Committee of the Red Cross expressed its concern Wednesday over what may have been the improper use of its emblem in the daring rescue last month of 15 hostages in Colombia.

What seems to be part of a red cross is seen on a man involved in the rescue in this official image.

"We are in contact with the Colombian authorities to ask for further clarifications as to exactly what happened," ICRC Deputy Director of Operations Dominik Stillhart said in a written statement.

Video and photographs originally shown to CNN appeared to show one of the hostage rescuers wearing a bib with a red cross on it, and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe admitted July 16 that Colombian military intelligence used a single Red Cross symbol in the rescue mission.

The ICRC statement said video aired on Colombian television earlier this week "reveals that a member of the army team involved was wearing a tabard marked with the Red Cross emblem before the operation had even begun, suggesting intentional misuse."

Further>>>>>>>>>>


What else did Karl Penhaul have to write about this incident in this report being used by Frontpage Magazine trying to discredit him, suggesting he has pulled this notion out of a rabid rabbit's hat, that he is some kind of radical fruitcake for even suggesting there may have been some rules broken in the "bloodless rescue of 15 hostages"? Note WHY this international law is in affect, as Karl Penhaul wrote:

Misuse of the Red Cross emblem is governed by articles 37, 38 and 85 of Additional Protocol One to the Geneva Conventions, the international rules of war. The articles prohibit "feigning of protected status by the use of ... emblems" of neutral parties and say that such misuses are considered breaches of international humanitarian law that qualify as a "war crime."

Colombia signed the Geneva Conventions in 1949.

That prohibition was put in place to protect the neutrality of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations in an armed conflict and to guarantee their access to all sides. Use of those emblems by one side of a conflict, for example, could endanger aid workers because those on another side might no longer trust that symbols they see really represent those humanitarian organizations.

In a LATER report, Karl Penhaul wrote:

BOGOTA, Colombia (CNN) -- Colombian President Alvaro Uribe admitted Wednesday that the symbol of the neutral Red Cross organization was used in a hostage rescue mission that freed 15 people from leftist rebels two weeks ago.

Uribe made the admission after CNN reported on unpublished photographs and videos that clearly showed a man wearing a Red Cross bib. Wrongly using the Red Cross logo is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

The man was a member of the Colombian military intelligence team involved in the daring rescue, Uribe said in an address carried on national TV and radio.

The president said that as the constitutional head of the armed forces, he takes full political responsibility for what he described as a slip-up.

"This officer, upon confessing his mistake to his superiors, said when the [rescue] helicopter was about to land ... he saw so many guerrillas that he went into a state of angst," Uribe said.

"He feared for his life and put on the Red Cross bib over his jacket."

However, the confidential military source who showed CNN the photographs that included the man wearing the bib said they were taken moments before the mission took off.

Uribe said he was sorry for the mistake and has apologized to ICRC officials. There will be no official sanction against the man wearing the bib, he indicated.

Furthermore, NUMEROUS media outlets reported on this incident after it was Karl Penhaul who wrote the original story about the misuse of the Red Cross symbol because it IS against the law. The Red Cross has a MAJOR stake in protecting it's symbol from abuse due to the safety of it's aid workers in all circumstances, the RED CROSS filed the complaint. Is this somehow not newsworthy? Better tell that to all the other media outlets who covered this story also.

That is the story that Frontpage Magazine is now trying to suggest Karl Penhaul is somehow a questionable source by attributing a statement to HIM that was made by Mark Ellis an international law expert. (Of course little things like this shouldn't matter I suppose which should also be told to the Red Cross!)

I happened to be awakened this morning by the very first live report on CNN showing the badly damaged Dignity LIVE sailing into the harbor in southern Lebanon. Unfortunately CNN has not seen fit so far to re-air that footage which showed at 4:30 am Pacific Standard Time. Since Karl Penhaul most certainly had a camera on board when the Dignity was rammed, I am hoping there is clear footage of this that CNN WILL AIR.