Britain - Terrorists: Why Britain?

Because after al Qaeda's victory in Spain, they have been losing consistently elsewhere.

Back in March of 2004, al Qaida took out one ally of Washington: Prime Minister Aznar’s Government. In the aftermath of the “Jihadi victory” then, the Salafist and Wahabis rhetoric–on al Jazeera and many chat rooms—focused on what they then called the next chapter, which is attempting to unsettle the Blair government. The main argument at the time was the ineluctable offensive on Britain. But since “Jihadi interests” were high inside the city, the Jihadist planners relied on a growing domestic opposition to the War. Al Qaida projected a possible defeat of Blair in his elections after a defeat of Bush in his own elections: A sort of a domino effect across the Atlantic. But this didn’t happen: Instead, Bush, Blair and even Howard of Australia were reelected. Even worse, a Western realignment (including Washington and Paris) occurred against Syria’s occupation of Lebanon and the weapons of Hizbollah, let alone Iran. Besides, Britain moved against its own Islamists just as Iraq secured successful elections last January.

Hence, a strategic decision was taken at the highest levels of international Jihadism: full offensive in Britain until the Blair government is out. But for the Jihadists, it is not an issue of being successful each time. That isn’t the logic of the Jihadists. It is a matter of ideological persistence. A suicide bomber doesn’t survive to see the result. And the decision makers behind the attacks aren’t hanging their credibility in the balance. They want to break the British security system whatever it will cost them. In their minds, some operations will be successful, other won’t.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------