Why did Faisal Shahzad create a car-bomb to explode in Times Square, New York?
 
99.9999 percent of Muslims would not choose to create a potential bomb to blow up in Times Square out of their anger in U.S policies. The underlying message Faisal Shahzad demonstrates is that Muslims are far past the point of being angry, they are wholeheartedly upset at the vast number of injustices that Muslims are put through.
Shahzad forgot to mention that Muslims have also been tortured in great numbers- and regardless if actual terrorists were tortured, all criminal suspects have human and legal rights.

You have to look at the whole picture logically and from a moral standpoint.
Have the U.S, U.K and other allies created a safer world through their wars?  NO.
Most attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and on other countries have been retaliation for the invasion and occupation of Muslim countries, retaliation for torture, exploitation of resources, 'collateral damage' ,deaths of women and children - and even because of politicians who speak in strong anti-Islamic tones which just adds fuel to the fire.
Has creating 'democracy' by bombs and guns brought security or economic and political stability to those invaded countries?
Not really at all...

The wars are spreading to Pakistan and in the Yemen. More and more Muslims are being pushed into retaliation by the heavy-handed violence being dealt to them under the guise of 'democracy'. This is worse than Vietnam, because more countries are becoming embroiled in a seemingly unending war. The level of technology used in warfare today means that a much lesser number of soldiers die in war, and so the public concern is much less.
Computers are used instead of soldiers to carry out surveillance. Drones and communications are used to co-ordinate war, creating for the U.S and allies a non-stop list of targets.
Army Generals can use that data to persuade Washington that new threats are emerging, when the war itself eggs the retaliation on. Is it really necessary to kill 20 people when one potential target is identified by a drone or satellite?

The way warfare operates today is like running a business. You look for customers and then sell them your packages...and Defense industries continuously depend on war to maximize profits. Defense groups create more technology to sell the Government, and the Government has to look for targets to put the new technologies into use, or the money is wasted.  You can bet a large percentage of targets are not a specific threat to anyone but who just fit the picture of 'terrorist' . Hundreds of 'possible terrorist suspects' on the ground are taken out, which keeps the Army busy and pleases the Defense groups.
Is it moral to do this to some of the poorest people on Earth, to firstly bomb one target, killing many innocents which only creates retaliation and thus more potential targets?

The war grows and grows, expanding by itself as more innocents are killed.
Perhaps this is what Shahzad sees, as most people do, regardless of their race or religion.
The truth is, there are violent factions in Islam, but I don't think Western countries would ever have been invaded by a mega-Army of violent Islamic soldiers with a powerful Air-force of jet-fighters, war-ships and tanks...
It's not so much a war of necessity but a war created by technology, designed by Defense companies to maximize the potential from a war, and to maximize sales to Governments.

There's also the private security companies, oil and construction companies who profit from a never-ending, expanding war with momentum of a runaway train, but that's another story in itself.
I really cannot blame Shahzad, but I blame the war itself, and the way war is manufactured and run as a business. Shahzad's actions only created fear within the public mind, and gives pro-war groups more talking points.
We should really fear that this war business madness never ends.