In a nutshell, Spaight admitted that thousands of British died because Churchill wanted Coventry . . . to look Kiev . . . in the face.
Again your Spaight quotes are quite selective.
JM Spaight's Bombing Vindicated."Today we can hold our heads high. Could we have done so if we had continued the policy which we adopted in September, 1939, and maintained until May, 1940? It was a selfish policy after all, an ungenerous one, an unworthy one. We were prepared to see our weaker neighbours' cities devastated by air attack—of the tactical order—to bear their misfortunes with equanimity, to do nothing to help them in the only way in which we could help at all. (We had no great army then to oppose to the German hosts, and the mills of sea power grind very slowly.) We were prepared, in fact, to leave them to their fate provided we could save our own skin. Our Great Decision As it was, we chose the better, because the harder, way. We refused to purchase immunity—immunity for a time at least—for our cities while those of our friends went up in flames. We offered London as a sacrifice in the cause of freedom and civilisation."
Britain began bombing Germany only after Germany had bombed Poland, and Norway, and Belgium, France and Holland. Even then Britain tried to bomb only precise military targets with small numbers of aircraft.
Spaight isn't saying what you want him to at all.
Britain was attacked and already well into a war with Germany. Where is the equivalent situation for Al Quada to attack us on 9/11 as you claim?
Actually, Britain was not attacked. Poland was attacked by Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain then declared war on Germany (but not the Soviets). IMO, Britain would have been well served to have allowed the Germans and Soviets to fight it out and then finish off the loser. Unfortunately for the British, Churchill was not the sharpest knife in the kitchen - though I believe he was honest and had more moral principles than Stalin or FDR. (Read ICEBREAKER by Suvorov for details on Stalin's planned attack on Europe and England.)
Second, the most authoritative source is Churchill himself from his memo of March 28:
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."
Churchill admitted that Dresden was essentially, a "mere act(s) of terror and wanton destruction." Spaight's book is a rationalization for terror attacks - "other pretexts", as Churchill puts it. I'm sure you and I can both agree that the WTC attack was also an act of terror and wanton destruction. Our difference is that I don't believe targeting civilians for terror attacks is OK. Is there a moral equivalence? The British started targeting civilians first for non-sensical reasons (Coventry to look Kiev in the face - WTF?) and Al Queda targeted U.S. civilians for ???. Absurd atrocities were committed at Dresden and the WTC, by people who believed in absurdities - as Voltaire said they would.