I stormed on this article on Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi
I want you to read it, it's another angle entirely
I picked this part from it
"When Messi lost finals, and he lost several, badly, in ways that seemed to break him, he didn’t disappear quietly. He threw tantrums. He cried in front of the cameras.
"He threatened to quit. And the people around him came to him every time. What do you need? Come back. We’re still here
"That’s a man who grew up knowing that love doesn’t leave when you fail. He could fall apart because he had always been caught."
"Ronaldo, when he loses, goes inward. He blames himself when it goes wrong. He credits himself when it goes right.
"He expects everyone else to run the same internal economy.
And that expectation, formed in a household where a child had to be the engine of his own family’s survival, is both the source of everything he achieved and the wall he keeps running into"
Some hundred years ago, Prince Faisal rode to Damascus as a general, and then sailed to Paris as a diplomat, carrying in both Arab aspirations and little else.
He was intellectual romanticism made flesh: eloquent, dignified, and dependent on other people's good intentions. He staked sovereignty on backing Western interests and manipulating imperial contradictions. After Allied London and Paris helped defeat the Turks and Germans, Wilson's America talked self-determination. Only talked. Its King-Crane Commission heard the Syrians out, recommended honoring their wishes, and then... resigned. Washington took no mandate, and a secret British-French agreement in 1916 started drawing the new borders. In July 1920, France ended Faisal's Syrian Arab Kingdom in a few hours. The charming Arabian hero eyeing Damascus was handed a strictly managed Baghdad as a consolation.
That is the trap Arab liberal politics has been falling into ever since: ask the West, await the signature, keep trying. No serious Arab liberal politician reached the glory Faisal reached in 1919, yet none learned from his disappointments.
Following WWI, the state founders who lasted did the opposite of this. Atatürk refused the partition of Anatolia, fought for a unified nation, and forced a new agreement and an ethnically cleansed republic into being. Ben-Gurion declared a Jewish state and built the army to protect it from Jewish terrorists and Muslim and Christian insurgents. King Abdulaziz united the warring Arabian tribes with monotheistic zeal, captured the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and secured his rule through shrewd deals. None petitioned. All seized and built, then negotiated from strength. On the record of the century, sovereignty is taken and constructed, never granted by another sovereign.
Ahmad al-Sharaa is the first Levantine leader cut from that Machiavellian cloth, and one the region has rarely managed to produce since the Mamluks. He's not the type that 20th-century socialism produced. Not Western-educated, and not a graduate of the officer corps, the security apparatus, or the rural intelligentsia. Not a party man drilled in idealism and hagiography. His authority is of an older kind: religious, traditionalist, sheikh-like; tuff the local culture recognizes instantly. And unlike the romantics, he holds stakes and leverage out of a not-so-clean past. Just like Turkiye's and Israel's and Saudi Arabia's founders. In 11 days at the end of 2024, he took Damascus and ended 54 years of Assad rule without waiting for a Geneva meeting or a UNSC resolution. He made himself Syria's top general by January 2025. What he is assembling is unfinished and predictably corrupt, but it's built from inside the country, not handed in from outside. That's why, of all Syrian revolutionaries, he's the one who matters the most.
Then there is Tom Barrack, and here's the twist. Read quickly, Barrack is a colonial agent redrawing the Sykes-Picot map, or just another Trump crony in charge of dirty regional business. Read more closely, he's something no recent Western envoy has been: a man operating inside a real cultural memory of Greater Syria. He's a Syrian Christian by origin, and his grandparents emigrated to America on Ottoman passports. When he calls Sykes-Picot a hundred-year mistake and declares the era of Western interference over, he's being Levantine in a way legible to Christian and Sunni traditions. This theologically acute laissez-faire Americanism is something secular romantics, nationalists, socialists, and progressive liberals worked very hard to bury. Bilad al-Sham is not an abstraction to Tom Barrack. It's an inheritance of his. Flawed, twisted, premodern, unprogressive, but an inheritance nonetheless.
What 1920 dismembered was a reformable system of nationhood: a contiguous Levant, strong at the center, and governed at the edges by communal jurisdictions. The millet system of religious pluralism let confessions and localities run their own affairs under one roof, knit by trade across open ground. Romanticize it and you lie, and let's face it, it failed. But the neighboring statelets that replaced it (Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen...) were much worse. For most of the century since, the only consolidated states in the neighborhood - real institutions, real monopoly of force - were Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and, to an extent, Jordan. Everything around them had been reengineered into fragments.
The West hasn't found truth or virtue. But it's losing interest in drawing maps. Barrack says so plainly. The vacuum will be filled not by justice but by competence, and the only question is whose, and on what terms. Faisal asked London, Washington, and Paris for a nation-state and was refused. Atatürk and Ben-Gurion and Abdulaziz took theirs and kept them.
Levantine Arabs have tried every borrowed ideology, and are now forced onto their fate: not granted a state, but made to build one with a combination of Wahhabism zeal and Ottomanism. Whether their state turns out to be worth having is a separate question. But it will be theirs, and it will be real.
I was maybe too optimistic. Called 2 days ago and no answer. I tried the next morning and they answered but folks having a casual conversation in the background while I was on the line.I said "hello" for more than 2 mins before finally hanging up...I hope others have good stories
Yes the Persian are known for bravery and sophistication but I'm sorry this is inaccurate:
*Khalid Ibn al-Walid is a Qurayshi Arab not Persian.
*Today's Iranian leadership will be livid if you associate them with him as they do not view him favorably [their extremists curse him]
Institutional env't in Ghana can be confusing but this is the thing: Transport planning&regulation is a function of local gov't-by law overseen by local gov't ministry.GAPTE is there to coordinate G/A Districts in public transport.Transport ministry does overall transport policy.
How is it that we have an entire ministry dedicated to overseeing transport, yet local government is involved in this policy? I still don’t understand why. The overlap and duplication between ministries and their agencies must be addressed. The mandates of transport and local government are entirely unrelated.