New York Times Story on Angry Muslims

There is a link to this story on many blogs. I would like to comment on the following from one of the Muslims interviewed:

"We know that the killing of innocents is forbidden," Dr. Waheed said. "But we don't see two classes of blood; the blood of Iraqis is just as important to us as English blood." He emphasized that they in no way condoned the bombings. "But when you understand things from that perspective, why should we condemn the bombing?"

Is this really the voice of someone angered about the spilling of "the blood of Iraqis"? Who exactly has been doing the most spilling of Iraqi blood lately and by what means? That wouldn't be Islamic radicals carrying out suicide attacks, would it? So isn't that an odd rationale for one to become an Islamic radical carrying out suicide attacks? I think we are dealing here with Muslims who have become adept at whining to liberal reporters. They are at least honest in admitting that they are angry, but they are reluctant to reveal the true nature of their anger. I would guess that they cannot stand the thought of an Infidel country invading a Moslem one.