Lawrence Ankutse

His alter ego is referred to as Lawrence the Semi-philosopher. This persona is a lay philosopher, a content writer, a poet, and a pan-Africanist.

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@proffabiam @code_micky Like 20 red cards 😂

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@qualitymayhem @laurayrayy Prom is a 'foreign' thing

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@Hayfordcubes1 @Manasseh_Azure Go home and celebrate

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@Manasseh_Azure That's a good move

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@espioj @Serwaa_Amihere Framing bro. I like your perspective

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@AyekpleYao @50 A belated one Doc

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@Ezmalay1z 😆

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@MOSSADil Didn't you guys say you have total air superiority? How come Iran is gunning aircrafts down?🤔

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@prinagya25 It makes sense

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@fanti_boy Stop being emotional and follow the logic

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@BBCNews Finally, common sense is coming home. I don't mind if they create categories for trans though.

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@MaameEsiGold @Manasseh_Azure The argument is not about abolishing slave trade but whether it is right to demand reparation. Get the difference.

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

I know what I am going to say is very controversial, but I will say it anyway. I don't think this reparation agenda being championed by our President and other African leaders is the right course of action. I admit the slave trade was horrible and had very scarring consequences on the African soul, no doubt about it.

However, the moral standards we're trying to hold colonizers to equally apply to our rulers and people who lead the charge locally, and who profit financially or politically. This is undisputable, unless we want to pretend our people were saints, and the colonizers used only pure force to raid and capture slaves. Our own people were raiding villages and acting as middlemen thereby aiding the moral failure.

Besides, slavery was part of the local system and wasn't entirely new which had to be introduced by the colonizers. This, of course, leads us to the argument of the scale of the slave trade. My question is whether the slave trade is wrong because it is intrinsically wrong, and wrong for every culture that practiced it, or it is wrong because of how the colonizers went about theirs?

Also, we seem to be very selective in our 'call for justice' when an equally barbaric slave trade called the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade occurred for about 1300 years with more than 10 million slaves taken from sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa and the Middle East. Why are sub-Saharan Africans not asking people in North Africa and the Middle East for reparations? Or are Europeans and Americans 'soft targets' because they have values we can easily manipulate to guilt-trip them? If we don't hold children responsible for crimes committed by their parents, why do we want to hold today's European and Americans responsible for crimes committed by their great-great-grandparents?

As of today, more than 8 million people, with a significant portion being African, are modern-day slaves in the Middle East. In fact, some people are even selling unfortunate migrants as slaves in open markets in Libya. Why are we not seeing African leaders and other coalitions lead the charge to stop this modern-day slavery and the inhumane and exploitative kafala system prevalent in the Middle East, for instance? Do we just love dwelling on the past more than solving present problems?

I condemn slavery in any shape or form. It is wrong because it is wrong, not wrong because of who practices it or the scale. We can indeed name slavery as a crime against humanity and even demand the stolen artifacts from that era. I will support this 100%. However, selectively demanding reparation from Western colonizers while playing ostrich to the same atrocities committed by Northern Africans and Middle Easterners is not justice. We can't hold anyone responsible for a crime not committed by them while blatantly ignoring those committed today.

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

The gridlock between the US and Iran, Russia and Ukraine is actually a good thing for humanity in the long run because gradually, some powerful nations are beginning to realize that brute force doesn't work like it used to. The Europeans, for instance, seem to have learned from previous military interventions around the globe and are hesitant about joining the war in Iran. If we learn this lesson as a species, we may evolve to cooperate more than our current winner-takes-all mentality.

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@Shirinsmit Very interesting ideas in the cs

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@simon_carpio @YoungGun8140 The script is always to lie and deny it and hope the person making the accusations doesn't know the source to prove you're lying. 😂 Very typical

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

@BRICSinfo Are the 0.07% dead already? 😂

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

Trump, over the years, has been thinking of leaving NATO because he feels it is a liability. Recently, he has been asking some countries like the UK, France, and Japan to help in the war against Iran, but most are hesitant. He can use that as an excuse to pull out of NATO, leaving Europe and Ukraine vulnerable to Russia. He then lifts the sanctions imposed on Russia which could easily fill the war chest of Russia to win the war against Ukraine. As a thank you, Russia stops providing intelligence to Iran and then pumps millions of barrels of oil and gas into the world market, dropping the price, and then takes away Iran's economic leverage by controlling oil and gas flow through the Strait of Hormuz. It becomes a win-win for both superpowers.

[Lawrence Ankutse @RoughCutThinker]

It's high time that so-called superpowers rethink their notion of military invincibility. You may have the best military but that doesn't necessarily mean you can win every war. Underdogs sometimes do win wars. This is not a mere conjecture. One needs to only pick a history book on various battles that have been fought in the past to see a trend. Even modern times have many examples like the Vietnam War, the Korean War, Afghanistan, and the Ukraine War. A lot of factors come into play to win.

When the Iran-US-Israel conflict started, I mentioned that it's a big gamble for the US and Israel to base their strategy on the Iranians rising up to topple the Regime once the air raid begins. You can't easily predict how people will behave given certain conditions. Besides, they just went to protest a few months ago, and more than 30,000 people were killed. The memory is so fresh that it can either make them coil back into their shell or come back stronger against the regime. Three weeks into the war, it seems Iranians have opted for the former, a huge miscalculation on the part of the US and Israel.

Another surprising move by the regime is the brazen attack on American assets and interests in the Gulf countries. Iran has been quite successful at inflicting some serious damage over the weeks. One would expect retaliation from the Gulf countries, but as predicted, they are too spineless to confront Iran because that would ensure their mutual destruction. Hit each other's energy infrastructure, and desalination plants, and it's game over for the countries involved. Those countries under Iranian attack will continue to defend against the missiles but I don't see them striking back.

As mentioned earlier, you don't necessarily win wars because of having the best military. You can lose if your enemy has other strategic advantages such as geographic, economic, and even other allies who share similar interests. In the case of Iran, it has both geographic and economic leverage which it can use against the US and Israel. Iran is a vast mountainous country which means invading it with 'boots on the ground' will come with significant logistical challenges. This is perfect for Iran, for guerrilla warfare tactics that will bleed America financially and politically. Regarding the economic advantage, Iran has started strangling the world's economy by artificially restricting oil and gas coming through the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for India, China, Europe, and Japan. These countries can pressure the US to withdraw which is a symbolic victory for the Iranian regime.

While this economic advantage is huge leverage for Iran, it can easily become its weakest point because America can sacrifice the Iranian people by destroying the Kharg Island, the heartbeat of the Iranian economy. About 90% of all Iranian oil is exported from this island. Destroy it, and you've destroyed all of Iran's source of income and essentially its economy. The US can also sacrifice the Gulf countries if attacking Kharg Island would mean assured retaliatory strikes on the energy infrastructure in those countries. We shouldn't even be surprised if the US sacrifices the whole world on the table of runaway energy prices and inflation because after all, President Trump's mantra has been America First.

While it is possible that the US under Trump can easily ensure this global catastrophe, I see an alternative game plan, an uncomfortable alliance between Russia and the United States. This might sound insane, but it's very likely because both countries have a common interest, which is winning a war. Russia has been in a gridlock with Ukraine for 3 years now because of Western support for Ukraine and economic sanctions imposed on Russia.