I might have to choose between disaster for me and a course so morally horrible that the only decent thing I can do is to choose disaster for me. How can you in particular condemn me if I refuse to choose disaster for me, when it was you who deprived me of all acceptable alternatives, unless your having done so? If someone has no acceptable alternative there is a case to answer against whoever made that true. If the sad moral truth is that, although all of my alternatives to terrorism are unacceptable, my terrorism is nevertheless unjustified, then how, even so, can the person who deprived me of unacceptable alternatives, and so drove me to admittedly unjustified terrorism, condemn that resort, without justifying the action that thus disabled me?
% ^9 i1 \4 E. g' F# L' I( s7 i6 X( dTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。