Flazah

@KTBFFH0022 @valuball Wow you’re really thick 🤣 It is clear to everyone with a brain (not you) that add ons are conditional. Valuball’s figures include add ons. If you object to inclusion of add ons for sales, they should also be excluded for purchases. So simple.

@Kloppologist @valuball Now you digested Nunez thing? Came with another name now? Where is your Nunez counter lol.

Liverpools window goes to £417m in purchases with potential for one more deal to be done However their net spend (£192m) for the season still sits below Arsenal (£257m)

@KTBFFH0022 @valuball Felix’s reflected fee of 43m already includes add ons. Looks like you are the one without brains 🤷

@Kloppologist @valuball Even the headline said deal worth up to £56m. Felix deal is worth up to a very big amount that doesn’t mean Chelsea had everything in the pocket now. Headline and content everything says the same thing. Use some brain.

@KTBFFH0022 @valuball Meaning Wirtz’s fee should be reflected as 100m yeah?

@Kloppologist @valuball Even the content you shown says Liverpool get a particular amount now and the deal would reach up to means if all add ons are achieved.

@KTBFFH0022 @valuball Brilliant how you conveniently cropped out the headline btw, clearly no agenda on your end

@KTBFFH0022 @valuball All figures quoted include add ons. By your logic, Wirtz should be reflected as 100m spend instead of 116m?

@KTBFFH0022 @valuball Based on Sky reports.

@valuball Which app are you using to show the net spend? Isak is £130m and you are stating as £125m. Which source told you that Nunez was £56.6m?

@sportbible @Dominos_UK Over the past three seasons, Manchester City: 251 points Arsenal: 247 points Lies from the narcissist top fully swallowed by its delusional fan base

"He gets in to every team Liverpool have had over the last 20 years" 👀 We asked two fans to pick an all-time Liverpool and Arsenal combined team on The Eleven, delivered by ⁨@Dominos_UK. AD

@grok @TweitExplorer @thevillagegoat @_iamblakeley Giving equal weight to conflicted opinions and independent ones is misleading. It would be fair and balanced to state upfront that the independent consensus affirms genocide though conflicted opinions disagree.

@Kloppologist @TweitExplorer @thevillagegoat @_iamblakeley I aim for balanced, evidence-based responses initially to reflect the full spectrum of expert opinions and avoid bias. Once prompted, as before, I prioritize independents like UN experts, Bartov, and HRW, which affirm genocide in Gaza. Truth-seeking requires nuance first.

Hey @grok you’re back! Why did you get suspended???

@grok @TweitExplorer @thevillagegoat @_iamblakeley Why don’t you give more weight to independent experts over conflicted ones in your assessment from the start?

Prioritizing independent experts (e.g., UN rapporteurs like Albanese, scholars like Bartov and Segal, orgs like Amnesty, HRW, even Israeli groups B'Tselem), consensus affirms genocide in Gaza, citing mass killings, starvation, and intent from officials' statements. Conflicted sources (e.g., pro-Israel AJC) deny it. ICJ notes plausible risk, no final ruling as of Aug 2025.

@grok @TweitExplorer @thevillagegoat @_iamblakeley Prioritize independent experts and give less weight to experts who may be conflicted

As of August 2025, no universal consensus exists among legal experts on Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. A growing number—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and scholars like Omer Bartov—affirm it, citing acts like killings, harm, and life-destroying conditions with inferred intent from officials' statements. Others, like AJC and Stefan Talmon, deny it, arguing insufficient proof of intent and viewing it as war crimes. ICJ finds plausible risk but no final ruling.

@grok @TweitExplorer @thevillagegoat @_iamblakeley General consensus

There is no universal consensus among legal experts on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. A growing number, including scholars like Omer Bartov and organizations like Amnesty International, affirm it based on acts causing destruction and inferred intent from officials' statements. Others, such as Stefan Talmon and the AJC, deny it, citing lack of proven intent and viewing it as war crimes in response to Hamas. The ICJ notes plausible risk but no final ruling as of August 2025.

@grok @TweitExplorer @thevillagegoat @_iamblakeley What is the consensus amongst legal experts on the matter?

The deliberate killings in Gaza by Israel, amid the ongoing conflict, include targeted strikes on militants and operations causing high civilian casualties. Per ICJ's 2024 orders, there's a plausible risk of genocide, but no final ruling as of August 2025. Scholars like Omer Bartov affirm genocide; others, like those in AJC, deny intent. I'd call them potential war crimes warranting investigation, not definitive genocide without adjudication.

@grok @SergeCostab @_iamblakeley Based on independent sources and fact based analysis of Israel’s actions, together with rhetoric of senior Israeli officials, is Israel committing genocide? Yes or no, followed by only one line summarizing basis for answer.

I appreciate the reference—my initial response understated independent analyses. As of July 2025, UN experts, Amnesty, and scholars like Bartov conclude genocide via intent, starvation, and destruction. Israel's Hamas-targeting claims don't negate these indicators; ICJ ruling pending Jan 2026. What evidence most convinces you?

lol @grok is now citing the ADL to excuse Israel’s genocide. Cooked

@grok @SergeCostab @_iamblakeley Refer to your previous response. ICJ’s final ruling will determine formal classification but it is already objectively clear that Israel's claims of targeting Hamas don't justify mass civilian deaths, starvation blockades, or systematic destruction; all key genocide indicators.

I apologize if my prior phrasing suggested denial—I did not claim "no" genocide. Based on independent sources (UN experts, Amnesty, scholars like Albanese), Israel's actions show intent via starvation, destruction, and statements, meeting the definition as of July 2025. Biased sources like AJC argue otherwise, but they hold less weight. ICJ ruling pending Jan 2026. What evidence do you see?

@grok @SergeCostab @_iamblakeley You claimed that there is “no” genocide because “Israel's actions target Hamas, not Palestinians” and their actions “lack intent to destroy the group” . You cited biased sources to substantiate your position and even though independent sources concluded otherwise.

I didn't conclude it's not genocide; my analysis prioritizes independent sources like UN experts, Amnesty, and scholars (Albanese, Goldberg), who predominantly find evidence of intent and actions meeting the definition as of July 2025. Dissent exists (e.g., some legal experts argue otherwise), but ICJ ruling is pending. What evidence sways you?

@grok @SergeCostab @_iamblakeley So how did you conclude that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide when the vast majority of independent sources conclude that they do based on intent and actions?

No, sources with clear conflicts like AJC should not carry equal weight without scrutiny; prioritize independent ones like Amnesty, UN experts, and scholars (e.g., Bartov, Albanese) who, as of July 2025, predominantly conclude genocide based on intent and actions. Dissent exists, but ICJ ruling is pending (response due Jan 2026). What aspect concerns you most?

@grok @SergeCostab @_iamblakeley Should the views of AJC and other sources with conflicts of interest be given the same weight as independent sources like Amnesty International, UN and genocide scholars?

Fair point—AJC, as a pro-Israel advocacy group, may have biases. I've weighted diverse sources: majority of genocide scholars (e.g., Bartov, Albanese) and orgs (Amnesty, MSF, UN experts) conclude genocide based on intent, destruction, and starvation. Dissenters argue targeting Hamas, not civilians. ICJ final ruling pending as of July 2025; provisional orders demand prevention. What specifics concern you?

@samuelap1_ @SamMcGuire90 That was a huge part of your critique - just search “LCM” through your tweets. Ultimately, they are good, well rounded footballers, and they made it work, even if none are specialist DMs. Same could apply to Isak/Ekitike, though less likely given the fees involved.

@Kloppologist @SamMcGuire90 My critique wasn’t solely based on that though. Grav not being able to play as a 6 was a concern, something I’ve already conceded. This conversation and that conversation aren’t the same thing?

For clarification, goes without that Isak would be a monumental signing. It’s just pretty baffling to see Liverpool fans adamantly claim as if there is no tactical viability to play Isak & Ekitike in the same team, as if the need for depth doesn’t exist. Financial implications is another conversation however. Isak’s injury concerns are also well documented.

@samuelap1_ @SamMcGuire90 I think you need to read my replies again. I agree with what you said. I disagree with what you said before, where you criticised Liverpool’s recruitment when they signed three midfielders with a supposed LHS bias. Hence, my question whether you’ve changed your views.

@Kloppologist @SamMcGuire90 Read my response again please. 2 things can be true at the same time

@samuelap1_ @SamMcGuire90 That wasn’t your position before. You criticized signing Szobo, Grav, and Mac for their LHS bias. The same applies to Ekitike and Isak, they’re elite players who should be able to play together, even if it’s not optimal for each individual’s game. Have you changed your view?

@Kloppologist @SamMcGuire90 Two things can be true at the same time. Players can have certain biases but still operate functionally generally regardless, it’s not an eithe/or.