I found this: https://persepolis.getty.edu/ Really fun way to see an artist depiction of Persepolis and explore what it might have looked liked in its glory.

Well I must say that television programming in Iran is definitely different than here in the United States so I watched 3 hours of it last night just to get a feel of what they presented on main IRIB networks. They mostly had what seemed to be religious programs but also was news and info on this military ceasefire being held so far. Even though the comments were in Persian language I got a sense of what they presented on presenters were saying on certain areas of conversation. One I thought was interesting showed video of protesters outside on streets of Tehran now to me Im not 100% certain but it did not seemed staged in a way that may have been acting just for the television cameras there. I think truthfully all 3 countries news coverage involved since the conflict has begun are biased. Israel’s I24 seems to only present there side of most stories I have seen broadcasted. Iranian news seems to go both way yes believe it or not there is some truth to small percentage of there news items. And here in United States both FOX and CNN have got the events completely incorrect. Hard to believe actually who is telling truth here but in my thinking on this situation I would have to say no side has truly won anything yet lets see how things will play out in days and weeks to come. Thank you.

Three ancient civilizations stuck in the area of the world where an ocean of the cult of death known as Islam unfortunately exists this is why Jewish ISRAEL, Zoroastrian IRAN and Hindu INDIA must unite together to fight the evil that is their common enemy that seeks to destroy anything that is Non-Islamic like these three great civilizations of history Jewish ISRAEL 🔵 יִשְׂרָאֵל • Zion Lion ✡︎ Zoroastrian IRAN 🟡 𐭠𐭩𐭥𐭠𐭭 • Aryan Lion 𔓙 Hindu INDIA 🔴 हिंदुस्तान • Bharat Lion ॐ

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As someone with a background in national security, counterterrorism, and military service, I've spent years studying these issues from both policy and practical perspectives. Keeping that focus in mind quite often the debate surround gun control comes up. Tragically debate often focuses on emotional responses to tragic events, but I believe we owe it to ourselves to examine the topic with facts, history, and constitutional principles rather than slogans. Key Observations from the Data: - The AR-15 platform has been available to civilians since 1964.  Gun control advocates pointing to its use in a recent tragedy as proof it is the "source" of mass violence ignores both its long history and the broader reality that technology alone does not cause human action. - Small arms lethality has not dramatically increased in ways that fundamentally change the debate; meanwhile, alternative methods of mass harm (bioterrorism, chemical agents and improvised explosives) continue to evolve and are not addressed by firearm restrictions. - CDC research has noted that armed citizens are less likely to be injured by attackers, defensive gun uses are common, and many proposed "interventions" (assault weapon bans, gun-free zones, buybacks) show mixed or ineffective results in reducing crime. Utility of Civilian Firearms: Firearms serve purposes beyond personal self-defense. Philosophically, the Second Amendment embodies the idea that citizens are not subjects of the government, but the ultimate check on potential tyranny. George Washington emphasized that a free people should remain armed to maintain independence—even from their own government. However, modern realities (advanced surveillance, drones, cyber capabilities, and soft power/lawfare) mean the practical defensive utility against a tyrannical state has declined. Constitutional Interpretation: The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, independent of militia service. This 5-4 ruling rejected a purely collective interpretation.