UK moves to the top of Al Qaeda's hit list

And the US is to blame.

From The BBC

At some time during the last year Britain moved right to the top of the hitlist for al-Qaeda and some of its networks.

London, long a sanctuary for certain extremist political dissidents from the Arab world, is now considered in jihadi (militant Islamist) circles to be a favoured target for attack, despite the enormous damage this would do to Muslims in Britain as well as others.

Al-Qaeda's statements in recent months, including those made by Osama Bin Laden, make it clear that Britain is ripe for retaliation for its role in supporting the US-led War on Terror.

British counter-terrorism officials admit that this country has come close to being attacked several times since 9/11 but are reluctant to disclose details.

[...]

In al-Qaeda's eyes, British troops have formed part of a neo-Crusader army of occupation.

As you continue to read notice how the article is peppered with references to blaming the US for the UK moving to the top spot. Here are a couple so far - "supporting the US-led" and "army of occupation."

The continuing violence and strategic errors that have plagued Iraq since last April have also made Britain's role there extremely unpopular with British Muslims, making some of them more prone to radicalisation by extremists.

Which "strategic errors" would that be then? Mr. Gardner doesn't tell us. But it is clear he blames the US for them and therefore it is the US's fault that British Muslims are "more prone to radicalisation " despite that fact that he just said "London, long a sanctuary for certain extremist political dissidents from the Arab world".

Gardner is trying to build a picture that the UK is number one on the hit list due to the US led war in Iraq. He goes on to quote Jason Burke, author of al-Qaeda, Shadow of Terror.

"There's very little mention of Britain in Islamist militant literature prior to 2002/2003," says Jason Burke, author of al-Qaeda, Shadow of Terror.

What has changed since then? Mr. Burke tells us in an interview

BUZZFLASH: One would assume then, based on what you’ve just said and the contents of your book, that you don’t necessarily believe that the Bush administration’s attack into Iraq did much in terms of the war on terrorism.

BURKE: I think it did a lot -- just most of it was negative.

[...]

They have now had to adapt to the possibility of attack from a tiny minority of radicalised young Britons whose parents and grandparents emigrated from Pakistan and Bangladesh to Britain some years ago.

[...]

Many told me they felt more isolated here than ever because of the Iraq conflict.

[...]

But the wider global effort to catch and interrogate al-Qaeda suspects - led by the US - does raise concerns over human rights.

Notice how he cleverly words this to indicate that rising concerns over human rights are due to the US led war on terror. What about the human rights of those being terrorized Mr. Gardner?

Professor Richard Aldridge mentioned in particular the technique of "rendition", whereby "high-value" suspects are handed over to Arab security forces for more rigorous interrogation (read torture) than US agents are allowed to administer.

One example is a suspected al-Qaeda recruiter of Syrian origin, captured in Morocco in 2002 and handed over by the Americans to Syrian intelligence.

He is reported to be yielding a lot of information on al-Qaeda's past operations in Europe.

How can one only be a "suspected" al-Qaeda recruiter and yield a lot of information about al-Qaeda?

And why is "2002/2003" , "April" and "sometime last year" important to Mr. Gardner? Because April 2003 last year is when President Bush announced the fighting in Iraq was over and Saddam's regime ended. This was a tremendous blow to Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorist around the world.

While problems continue in Iraq, progress is being made and in just over a month Iraq will have a new democratic government.