(Merriam-Webster dictionary) defines "cui bono" as "a principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain."
This is probably the first question people should ask themselves in any investigation. There's a motive behind every crime, even if the perpetrators are totally nuts and that motive only makes sense to them. In the case of straightforward terrorist groups like the PLO or the IRA that motive is pretty clear. They desire a specific goal: a free Palestine or a united Ireland.
We haven't seen such motives lately because the new terrorists aren't so straightforward. Oh, they're terrorists all right, but I think if you follow the money you'll find they are funded by some surprising sources (surprising to most people, that is). I think it's pretty clear what these terrorists want, but you have to think about it because they're not going to tell you and neither will the nightly news. They want Christians to hate Muslims. They want to incite war. That's what these guys want. Now the question to ask here is "why?"
War is very profitable for certain interests. If you follow the money you may find these certain interests have definite ties to the new terrorists. For some reason the nightly news never asks these questions. I think you'll find the reason behind this is that (at its highest level) the nightly news are themselves terrorists, funded and/or infiltrated by the same people. Don't believe me? Lets go back to Merriam-Webster, which defines terrorism as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal." Sure, it's the media's job to report the news, but when you play the same 5 second clip over and over and cover an event in a way that can only be considered "panic inducing," that's not news, that's propaganda.
Something to think about whenever terrorist attacks are widely reported and given non-stop coverage. After all, You’re more likely to be fatally crushed by furniture than killed by a terrorist.