[domo247]

Ultimately if it is necessary and does save lives then I think it can be justified. In the context of what happens in the War on Terror - and I am talking about acts from both 'sides', it is not that bad.

The root of the problem though has been the West’s response to 9/11 – it was the response Osama Bin Laden wanted. We were manipulated.

Osama bin Laden knew on the eve of the 9/11 attacks that his recreation of a Muslim State would only succeed if he could build-up ‘mass participation’ in his project. The violent attacks on the World Trade Centre’s were of course not supported by the majority of Muslims. The attacks did not directly encourage more bombings or create more terrorists.

But America’s response has aligned Muslims with Bin Laden’s ideas. Many ‘Al Qaeda’ attacks since 9/11 have been aimed at the West’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The occupation of these states has caused many Muslims to the belief that the West is not simply targeting the small lunatic fringe of Islam but actual Islamic states.

So Bin Laden did not attack the World Trade Towers to simply cause mass destruction but to provoke a crusade merciless style response from Bush and Blair. This is what has mobilised and radicalised so many against us.

(Al Qaeda is an ideology Blair et al used it as name for all fundamental Muslim groups none of which now are likely to be under the direct control of mentioned big timers such as Bin Laden)

We are now in a situation where we have to gather intelligence on a determined and sophisticated enemy.