Since the dropping of the atomic bomb, there have been countless accounts by leaders, politicians, religious leaders, and academics to give opinions regarding whether or not it was the right decision to make. i want you to consider the process of having to make that decision (not just what decision you think you would make or what you think the decision should have been). 1. what do you think should be considered more heavily: the moral question of whether it is right or wrong or the pragmatic question of whether it would win the war? 2. morally, would you consider it to be acceptable to drop an atomic bomb? give at least one reson why it would or wouldn't be morally acceptable. 3. put yourself in the shoes of president truman. with the information given to him, do you think it was pragmatic (sensible and realistic) to drop the bombs to end the war?

a. "how old man winter was driven back” and “ormuzd and arimanes"

islamic religious leaders have traditionally been people who, as part of the clerisy, mosque, or government, performed a prominent role within their community or nation. however, in the modern contexts of muslims minorities in non-muslim countries as well as secularised muslim states like turkey, indonesia and bangladesh, religious leadership may take a variety of non-formal shapes.

compared to religious leaders/clerics of the other abrahamic faiths, islamic clergy are said to resemble rabbis and not priests. unlike catholic priests they do not "serve as intermediaries between mankind and god",[1] have "process of ordination",[2] or "sacramental functions",[1] but instead serve as "exemplars, teachers, judges, and community leaders," providing religious rules to the pious on "even the most minor and private" matters.[1]

i need more info to answer this and i can answer it for you