Javid shah, javid shah, javid shah https://youtube.com/shorts/txb3Ogl-H78?si=GV36OZkAcBpWjoAq

Body-count asymmetry is morally indeterminate. Higher civilian deaths on one side do not, by themselves, establish: - unjust intent, - disproportionate force, - or moral equivalence / non-equivalence. They often reflect variables like population density, defensive strategy, evacuation capacity, media access, or who is fighting from among civilians. Outcome-based morality doesn’t map onto causation. Moral responsibility in war—if it’s to mean anything—has to track choices under constraint, not raw outcomes abstracted from context. “More dead civilians” does not equal “more immoral” unless you smuggle in assumptions you haven’t defended: - that both sides had comparable alternatives, - that harm-minimization costs were symmetrical, - or that intent and foreseeability are irrelevant. Most public discourse quietly assumes all three and then treats the conclusion as self-evident. Structural inevitability forces a shift in moral vocabulary. If civilian harm cannot be reduced below a certain floor without abandoning the war aim entirely, then: - either the war itself is judged illegitimate as such, - or civilian harm must be assessed relative to necessity, alternatives, and responsibility for the structure of the battlefield—not as an absolute metric. What makes Gaza so morally destabilizing for modern observers is that it exposes a contradiction we’d rather not face: we want wars of annihilation against enemies we define as existential, while also wanting zero civilian blood guilt. History suggests you don’t get both. Ancient societies were brutally honest about this; early modern ones could occasionally finesse it; modern humanitarian language tries to deny it altogether. That denial produces moral claims that feel profound but dissolve under scrutiny—because they rely on numbers standing in for judgment. So it's not that civilian deaths “don’t matter.” It’s that they don’t mean what people insist they mean, absent a serious accounting of structure, strategy, and constraint. And once you take those seriously, a lot of confident moral posturing turns out to be empty.

There was a homeless woman who showed up every morning.Quiet. Harmless. Just trying to survive. One day she was gone.Arrested—for sleeping in a church. If someone isn’t harming anyone,and clearly needs help,our response shouldn’t be punishment. Compassion isn’t radical.It’s necessary. 🎙️ From Libertarian Leadership Academy. 👉 Learn how to run for office:http://www.libertarianleadership.org/ Leadership starts with understanding—and action.

❤️ Liberty Without Compassion Isn’t Leadership In this clip from the Libertarian Leadership Academy, Scott Jewett shares a moment that stuck with him: a homeless woman he saw every morning at Starbucks—until one day she was gone. He later learned she had been arrested for sleeping in a church. She wasn’t hurting anyone. She was older, mentally disabled, and clearly in need of help—not handcuffs. Scott explains why leadership rooted in liberty must also include human dignity, compassion, and real solutions for those who truly need help. This is what principled leadership looks like when it’s paired with heart. 🎙️ LLA Interview with Scott JewettHosted by C. Michael Pickens 🎯 Take the next step:👉 Join the Libertarian Leadership Academy and learn how to run for office:http://www.libertarianleadership.org/ 👉 Join a supportive community of libertarian leaders and activists:📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Libertarianleadershipacademy📺 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LibertarianLeadershipAcademy 🔎 Learn more about Scott Jewett: https://scottjewett.com #LibertarianLeadership #CompassionatePolicy #HumanDignity #LibertyWithHeart #RunForOffice #LLA