SO, discounting the possibility that the French did it in retaliation for London winning the Olympic bid (“Psst, Jacques, let’s give a job to a few of our Muslim malheureuses’‘) why bomb London?
British commentator Christopher Hitchens (hitchensweb.com) believes the bombings had nothing to do with a jihad against the “infidel’‘.

He says it’s a war between Muslims, waged by the Wahabi-spawned and financed groups like al-Qaeda against Muslims with less brutishly patriarchal and misogynist ways of living.
“We know very well what the ‘grievances’ of the jihadists are,’’ Hitchens wrote in the hours after the attacks:

“The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence,  not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the
heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won’t abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals.  The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor’s liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.”
“They demand the impossible —  the cessation of all life in favour of prostration before a totalitarian vision.’’

(Hitchens 7/7)
Hitchens’ view might be hard to stomach for people who abhor the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

But is it really possible to justify the jihadis’ attacks that are killing scores of their co-religionists a day in Iraq as a form of justifiable revenge on US collaborators?

This process of trying to wrest control of Iraq out of the hands of the Americans and the Iraqi Shi’ites and the Iranians is a bit like destroying the country to save it.
Gabfest is a Tasmanian media professional.
Opinions are like assholes—everyone has one
Read: Christopher Hitchens