> Bin laden (at least) has been pretty explicit:
>
> 1. U. S. military out of the Middle East
>
> 2. No military support for Israel
>
> 3. Creation of Islamic theocratic regimes
>
> Whether or not you agree with these political goals, they are "exact
> ends".
You seem to have forgotten that I said it's pretty easy to come up with a comprehensive list of candidate ends. The real question is determining the relative weightings. For example, some have suggested that the London bombing wouldn't have occurred if the Brits hadn't participated in Gulf War II. In my opinion, we don't know enough to confidently assert that that claim is true, or that it's false. We probably never will.
> If senseless means irrational activity without goal or purpose,
Stop attacking that poor strawman! Again, when someone claims that a given act of terrorism is "senseless," they're not denying that the terrorists responsible have ends which they believe terror promotes. They deny either a) that the goal is actually worthwhile or b) that terror actually promotes the goal or c) both.
"Of course serial killing isn't 'senseless.' The killer enjoys murdering, so he does it--again and again."
-- Luke