One of the reasons mainline openings are "good" is that they are fundamentally strategically sound. You develop your pieces, fight for central control, secure your King, etc. All the things we are taught to do as beginners. Importantly, these are all the "prerequisites" for an attack (See The Art of Attack in Chess by Vukovic for more on this idea).
Is the English opening a better choice for attacking chess players than any other top tier opening? No. But is it fundamentally sound? Yes. Because of this, an aggressive player can choose variations that lead to more attacking chances.
Kasparov, who famously preferred active, aggressive play, played the English many times. Here's one fun example from him: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070502
If you are hoping for early tactics, sacrifices, etc. in wide open positions, the English isn't the best choice. But if you don't mind spending some time in the early stages of the game slowly building up the potential attack, it's a great opening.
Here are two more lesser-known examples of interesting attacks in the English:
It's worth noting that because the English usually doesn't lead to early clashes between the White and Black pieces, both sides can be flexible in choosing their setups. This means that if you're playing the English, you can opt for a line that tends to lead to more slow, strategic play, or you can go for a line that prepares for an eventual attack.