Between 2012 and 2014, I wrote the first article on Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC). Somehow this article has been lost in my changing blogs and computers. Hence, what follows is an in-depth look at LIC. Please note, several authors have significantly contributed to my understanding of LIC, but none so much as Lt. Colonel Alan J. Tinder, who wrote a paper for the Air War College in 1990, titled: “Low-Intensity Conflict.” From the Colonel, I have learned much and benchmarked this principle to more thoroughly understand LIC, how to recognize LIC, and how to detail LIC for others. The other compelling source is L. C. Green’s paper on “Low-Intensity Conflict and the Law.” My aim here is to synthesize this information into a manageable topic and aid understanding.
Too often in America, we do not recognize LIC. When the Verizon Labor Unions had to be legally restrained from committing LIC against Verizon, the judge seemed to want to call the acts of violence nothing but poor decisions by some people. Yet, the labor union had begun a tactic of pressuring Verizon by destroying property, scare tactics for third-party contractors, and causing mayhem to obtain their demands. Hence, the labor union committed LIC and got away with it, no punishment, no accountability, no responsibility. Never forget, “Barely three percent of violent crimes committed by union members lead to an arrest or conviction. … Most victims of union violence are unemployed workers looking for a job [to] feed their families. “Scabs,” they call them. Subhuman scum. Untouchables. People who, in the minds of unionists and their enablers, are worthy of the same kind of vile abuse that Klu Klux Klansman used to dish out to African Americans that didn’t know their place.”
What is LIC?
Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) is the official name for what happens when individuals or governments hire intermediaries to conduct violent operations from a position of security. LIC is a misnomer; those who have become victims of the barbaric cruelty of those practicing LIC find nothing “Low” about the experience. The conflict is intense, the actions brutal, and the practitioners remain cunning adversaries using and employing willing dupes to hide the true depths of moral decay inherent in the societal destructions and deprivations the practitioners are enacting. Many confuse LIC in describing the actions of unbridled violence committed by ideologues under the banner of terrorism. The US Military Joint Chiefs of Staff define LIC as:
“A limited political-military struggle to achieve political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures through terrorism and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and levels of violence (Tinder 1990) [emphasis mine].”
Green (1997) adds a key ingredient to the description of LIC from Tinder (1990).
“… Non-international conflict itself is a refined term for what [was] formerly known as revolutions or civil wars, particularly when these have developed into major operations with the likelihood or reality of atrocities being committed against non-combatants. Whether civilians or those [rendered] hors de combat, a fact that is often more common in non-international … conflicts, especially when ideological, ethnic, or religious differences are in issue. It is for this reason that it must be borne in mind that the term low-intensity [conflict] has no relation to the severity or violence of the conflict” [emphasis mine].
Some will proclaim loudly, primarily due to affiliation with or money donated from deep-pocketed entities, that LIC is only limited to those more commonly perceived as terrorists, i.e., car bombers, hijackers, etc.; however, paid rioters, looters, and those termed by the media as “violent protesters,” are practicing LIC. Worse, labor unions have been getting away with LIC since 1892 and the Homestead Strike. As a point of fact, K-12 educators will only teach the labor union’s side of the story during the Industrial Revolution, leaving out the capitalists providing jobs, businesses that did not need, or want, government intrusion, and the continued depravity the labor unions continually inflict upon America. Just for the record, in 1991 alone, 4400 acts of violence were committed by labor unions.
Consider this for a moment, Americans generally despise violence for economic gains; but, due to LIC in K-12 education, the labor unions get special treatment before the law on committing violence. Imagine for a moment how ugly the media would scream if the KKK dropped nails, broke glass, destroyed property without regard to a minority-owned business. Oh, wait a minute; we know what the media would do, nothing! See, when politically correct rage occurs, even when it is a minority on minority, the press closes their mouths or pitches in! The world saw this in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta, Florida, and so many other riots, politely termed “peaceful protests” by the media!
LIC and the Law
I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice. LIC being punishable under a military court is founded in the Civil War, and President Lincoln desired to regulate the behavior of Union troops and show proper deferment to enemy troops. While this legal precedent goes further back, the legal precedent begins with President Lincoln in the US. Controlling troops’ behavior led to the Genocide Convention of 1948, where genocide was created. A legal standard was set for controlling and describing proper behavior during a conflict and enforceable by third parties. Hence the reason why, and for, international courts to bring charges against countries and leaders of countries who commit genocide. Unfortunately, even with the United Nations “maintaining neutrality,” enforcement of genocide continues to be problematic.
However, the point is clear, commit acts of LIC, and you do not face a civilian court and judge; you face a military tribunal. The legal precedent for handling LIC by military tribunal further clarifies that those violent protesters and labor union members using LIC to commit acts of violence are deserving of the label, domestic terrorist. As a terrorist, those using LIC, including those paying for LIC, lose their US Constitutional Rights, face a military tribunal, and held without Habeas Corpus. Terrorists do not deserve and have rejected their US Constitutional Rights upon paying for or committing violent LIC actions. According to the legal dictionary, Habeas Corpus “is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.” If US Troops must follow the Geneva Convention during peace and war, then those paying for or committing LIC are also bound, especially by Article 3:
“… Each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum … [to] persons taking no part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause [certain minimum rights to ensure that they] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.”
Since those involved in LIC are terrorists and like criminals, they do not adhere to the law. The international community should be exerting pressure to capture, hold, and try the individuals involved in LIC anywhere in the world. For example, Cuba is currently holding a leader of BLM, an internal terrorist organization with roots in Marxism-Leninism. Other people have found safe haven in the international community and need to answer for their criminal and terrorist activities. However, since the American government refuses to label paid agitators as the internal terrorists they are, the criminal justice system will continue to be violated. Those guilty of LIC are allowed to continue their licentious ways to the detriment of America.
Labor unions hide behind the lawyers and the criminal justice system to game and play LIC against everyone they consider an enemy. ANTIFA, BLM, and every other paid agitator group in America burning, looting, rioting, and “protesting” need to be labeled what they are, terrorists. Their actions need to be classified correctly as acts of terrorism. A military tribunal called to investigate funding sources and hold accountable those paying and those committing terrorist violence in America. There is no difference between a terrorist in the IRA, a terrorist in Afghanistan, and a “protestor” terrorist in Portland, Oregon. America, we need to understand LIC, and then we need to apply legal precedence to fix the situation America currently finds herself in!
© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.
Today 03 March 2021, the BBC ran an article titled, “
Let us face the elephant in the room; the BBC is not known for reporting information without personal bias, political opinion, and a hearty dose of fearmongering as tools needed to sell advertising and lure unsuspecting readers to their version of the news. Nothing against the BBC, just acknowledging that when it comes to newspapers and news media, it is always best to understand the basics, corporate media outlets exist to sell advertising. Hence, lurid stories lead!
Finally, let us be perfectly clear, The United States of America is NOT a democracy, but a Republic! America being a Republic is a good thing because democracy is just evil under the guise of freedom. In a democracy, the majority rule, not just a supermajority of 60% of a population or more, but a simple majority of 51 out of 100. Having laws and procedures demanding significant government changes need supermajorities is a protection to the freedom and liberty in a nation, a state, a county, and a city/town.
Returning this discussion to the problems with human rights vs. human obligations. Human rights are laws, and the report is very damning on laws the authors do not like and then claim those laws are anti-human rights. The report’s authors create a couple of human rights from whole cloth to batter politicians they particularly do not like but were democratically elected by their respective populations. The authors’ political bias becomes clear very quickly while reading the report. The report will be like throwing red meat to the political left’s lions and tigers, who will never admit there are biases, issues, and confusion purposefully twisted into facts in the report.
Because human obligations are a reflection of the morals of a population, these do not change, nor should they change, which means that there is a constant method to care for the sick, the afflicted, and the downtrodden. The problem inherent in human obligations is those who consider that it is the government’s job to care for their populations cradle-to-grave when this is simply not possible! No government should ever be saddled with morals, or care for human obligations, as human obligations are individually fulfilled, not government programmed.
The report states, “As COVID-19 spread during the year, governments across the democratic spectrum repeatedly resorted to excessive surveillance, discriminatory restrictions on freedoms like movement and assembly, and arbitrary or violent enforcement of such restrictions by police and nonstate actors.” All of which is true and distressing in the extreme. Yet, the rest of the paragraph twists a couple of half-truths into facts and closes with how non-democratic governments went to the extreme to punish their citizens during a “global pandemic.” Still refusing to believe, or even consider, that the government response to COVID has been the problem from the beginning of Sars-COV-2 spreading from China across the world.
Since the authors got the social unrest in the United States wrong, how can anyone have verity that the rest of the report was right? More, where human rights and human obligations cross, how can the authors get away with spreading half-truths as facts and diminish any country through a couple of authors’ personal biases and opinions? Since the matrix for measuring “democracy” is not revealed, how do the authors make the conclusions they make with unsubstantiated data?
Honoring human obligations leads to greater freedoms and liberties for the entire society, not merely those who fit into one government program or another. Better, liberty and freedom built upon honoring human obligations allow for reduced government size, leading to less opportunity for governmental abuse and injury. The shift in growing liberty is not found in human rights laws compelling behaviors through forced state penalties. The change in growing liberty starts as people honor their obligations to each other and reduce reliance upon government handouts.
During my second attempt at fourth-grade in K-12 education, I asked an honest question in January, “Why should I celebrate Black Pride month? I am not black.” My teachers were shocked, utterly speechless for several seconds, and then I got suspended from school for being racist and asking inappropriate questions. My (Hippie) parents came unglued, and my life became immediately more complicated. This does not mean I do not have people from history of black skin that I do not respect, admire, or would like to emulate. The question posed meant then, and now, why should I have pride in all those with the specific melatonin in their skin if I disagree with their choices? For example, I love pre-1990s Jazz and Rhythm and Blues (R&B) Aretha Franklin, Louis “Satchmo” Armstrong, Stevie Wonder, Fats Domino, etc. I hold in tremendous respect. I’m not too fond of the majority of R&B since 1980 or so, as it hurts my ears, doesn’t sound right to me, and the words to some of the songs have no meaning. No disrespect offered, do not choose to be offended, I have eclectic tastes in people and music.
In the US Navy, an open secret that resulted from the Patriot Act of 2001 was being investigated as a terrorist. I had been asked several questions regarding why certain people act the way they do, the religious motivation, and the tools most popular with terrorists. As I had a reputation for being a trustworthy instructor, who didn’t laugh at questions or people asking for information, and as a person who investigated thoroughly the topics requested. I answered the questions raised from my fellow shipmates. The audience were a couple of Boatswain Mates, undesignated deck seamen, and some undesignated firemen. My officer walked in, heard a small excerpt from the conversation, and the next day started an investigation into my links to terrorism through Navy Criminal Investigative Service, the FBI, and the CIA as he was “scared I was a terrorist.” I am neither a terrorist nor a racist. I am not a bigot, nor am I ignorantly asking questions to embarrass, denigrate, or deride. I am a life-long learner and student of human behavior, and I like asking tough questions to facilitate improvement first for myself, then for others.
Leading to my honest questions: why would anyone in the House of Representatives be concerned with someone else’s pride, singling out a group or individual for recognition? Would involving yourself in another person or group’s pride mean you are not serving your entire District equally, as we hired you to do? Why is “LGBTQetc.,” pride acceptable, but White Pride unacceptable, as discovered in several Google searches? Doesn’t discrimination mean to support one group or interest over another group or interest? What happened that conflicts of interest are no longer criminal? For example, suppose you are a member of a group, and that group receives preferential or prejudicial treatment from the government because of your actions as an elected government official. In that case, I am left to ask when was this decriminalized? Are these actions not exemplifying racism, sexism, etc., abuse of power?
As defined, pride requires actions, and other people herald those actions and show pride in those accomplishments. Hence, in this instance, pride is not selfish but selfless and requires recognition by others who generally might not share the same ideals but recognize an accomplishment and glory with you in your success.
Honestly, I could care less about your bedroom preferences, hetero/homo, etc. I do not care! Keep your bedroom activities in your bedroom, and I have no problems. Make your bedroom a public issue, and I now have a problem. For example, at a movie theater, the action between couples detracted from the movie I paid to see. Worse, it was witnessed by several children, who were way too young to see a pornographic display at a movie theater. If you choose to bring your bedroom into the public square, you deserve to enjoy the consequences of public ridicule and suffer judicial action.
However, this group could not name a single black person of accomplishment outside of sports figures. Not that some athletes deserve to be remembered for their actions on and off the fields of athletic achievement. The group also disagreed whether someone was “Black Enough” to be considered in “Black Pride” refused black professionals as “Uncle Toms” such as Carla Harris, Susan Chapman, Clarence Thomas, Marshall Thurgood, Robert Smith, or Aliko Dangote. Thus, I remain concerned when celebrating melanin-based pride as the ignorance of why we celebrate casts significant doubt on future generations’ willingness to perform to a level worthy of pride exemplified in previous generations who accomplished greatness.
The legal definition for discrimination is as follows: “The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.” I unfairly discriminate against corn on the cob, refuse to eat that nasty stuff on a cob, and rarely eat corn when removed from the cob and frozen. President George Bush hated broccoli, unfairly and prejudicially. When individuals are subjugated to an other individual’s choices based upon melanin levels in their skin, religion, or birth sex (not gender choice), harm (physical, emotional, mental, financial) is done to another; isn’t that just part of life. There are laws to protect one from another when real harm is committed. Again, leading to the question, when an elected official chooses to support one group, over another, for preferential treatment, doesn’t this definition lead to charges of prejudicial treatment and break the law?
Elected Officials, please heed and understand that lowering yourself and your office to select winners and losers means that everyone loses! Elected Officials, do you understand this concept? If so, why do you insist upon not living this concept as an elected official? Why do so many of your peers in elected positions follow your example? Why do so many government employees follow your standard in selecting based upon everything but fairness, honesty, integrity, and demean and degrade themselves while groveling to the current preferred community?
Dane-Geld was “a land tax levied in medieval England, originally to raise funds for protection against Danish invaders.” The 11th Century saw many frightened landowners who wanted peace, who then raised money to pay-off the north’s warring tribes, called Danes. From across the land, the rulers gathered penny and pound to buy protection from these warring tribes. When the Dane’s saw how easy it was to obtain gold, they moved in and took the lands, and whole civilizations dropped into barbarianism. The only reason we know these stories today was that the warring tribes of the Dane’s met cold steel in a furious fist and were beaten back.
With all the verified fraud, the stolen Dominion voting machines that have escaped a forensic audit and investigation, and the postulating by the liberals in America, let us agree that the 2020 Elections have been a farrago, a hodgepodge, and a producer of confusion and disarray to equal no election in history. Add in the terrorists of the 
The excuses provided by the left are paper-thin and not even useful for toilet paper. Alexandre Dumas, “The Three-Musketeers,” had the following to add:
I conclude with the plea, do not allow history to be forgotten or militarized against you. History is the ground upon which you will stand on the shoulders of giants, when you know the history. The liberal left has dedicated a lot of energy, resources, and manpower to removing history. Fight them without quarter, without mercy, and without regard for their “delicate sensibilities.” If you track back far enough, you will find both criminals, sluggards, saviors, and saints in every single person’s family tree. Know your history, share your history, include references that are reputable, and repeat historical facts that spur your impetus into motivation.
Remember:
Up until May 2020, the following aspect of LIC was generally accepted:
Reference:
I want to begin with a question, knowing the controversy over Black Lives Matters Websites, is the following website the official BLM website: 
How can an organization believe in and practice peace among their fellow men, when members are looting, rioting, burning, attacking, and destroying? Consider for a moment what this statement is saying, practicing peace means disowning the violent fringe, demanding your name be stripped from those acting in such a disreputable manner, and demanding the “Rule of Law” be applied, so that peace, which is the freedom to live without disturbances like riots, attacks by looters, and the tranquility of seeing tomorrow be better than today, become achievable for all.
Liberation is defined around the idea of setting someone free, releasing a person from oppression, and imprisonment. Liberation and freedom can only be accomplished under the “Rule of Law,” where all peoples are held to the same standards, rules, and social behaviors. Without regard to race, color, creed, religion, and lifestyle choices. Who is BLM dedicated to liberating? Why is BLM dedicated to liberating that population? How does BLM plan to go about executing a plan to liberate? All valid questions, but not discussed anywhere on the website.
Justice is the act, behavior, and the treatment of all according to a moral code. For example, one of the earliest moral codes known to man is recorded as, “Doing unto others as you would have done unto you.” The mainstream media has reported on BLM rioters and looters, destroying the businesses, shops, and employment of fellow black people, in traditionally black neighborhoods. How is this tactic practicing justice?
What do the following mean, in practice and daily application?
What does the following mean in daily application?
Why this particular statement, and what is it doing to support child-rearing, and ending the practices that have been harming the black community since 1960?
In reading the “What We Believe” section multiple times, I am struck by the frequent mention of the homosexual communities. Without regard for race, America has roughly 4.5% of the population as identifying as homosexual. According to the same Gallup Poll, without regard for sex, approximately 3.7% of the black community identifies as homosexual. Leaving some questions about beliefs unanswered. A recent research study on traditional beliefs in sexual prejudice and race found that the black community of males tended to be more traditional towards the role of men in society, and less open in their biases towards homosexuals in general. BLM has been reported to represent the black community, has been reported to have their finger on the pulse of what makes a person black, and knows the black community as its members are the black community. Hence, why would the black community report one thing to researchers and another to BLM regarding the tolerance of the community towards homosexual people? Especially to the point of repeating multiple times the opposite of traditionally reported views.
Lady Justice is blind and armed for a reason. Not to kill without cause, not to judge with the balance of mercy, and not to use her eyes to allow one to escape the same crime another would be punished for, that is true justice, under the law. I support the “Rule of Law,” and as such will not see the US Constitutional Republic be destroyed on my watch. The questions asked above are honest questions. What does BLM believe and where are the actions supporting those beliefs?
Dane-Geld is “a land tax levied in medieval England, originally to raise funds for protection against Danish invaders.” The 11th Century saw many frightened landowners who wanted peace raised money to pay-off the warring tribes of the north, called Danes. From across the land, the rulers gathered penny and pound to buy protection from these warring tribes. When the Dane’s saw how easy it was to obtain gold, they moved in and took the lands, and whole civilizations dropped into barbarianism, and the only reason we know these stories today, were the warring tribes of the Dane’s met cold steel in a furious fist and were beaten back.
Mayors, Governors, you have a choice, to pay the Dane his pound of gold, or to fight the terror in society and be remembered. The Mayor in Philadelphia during the riots past gave up entire city blocks for the Dane’s of her city to destroy, the Dane’s were not appeased, they moved in, and now control larger sections of the city than ever before. Seattle’s mayor recently paid the Dane’s and has become the laughingstock of America over CHAZ. Minneapolis, Detroit, Chicago, and so many other cities across America have bent the knee, paid the gold, and will never be rid of the Dane.
Join us, ye politicians, who tremble! 
DNC-Consulting 