Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The past weekend in Berlin, Germany, did not go as expected for all involved in the events around the Christopher Street Day parade – not for the organisers, not for the spectators, not for the police, not for the German intelligence agencies, and not for the Justice Department. Most certainly not for the innocent victims, and also not for the perpetrator.
It was a totally despicable and cowardly act of violence, or whatever it was supposed to be: a religious or political statement, or something else. We will never know for sure, as the person was shot by police and not wounded and taken for questioning.
There is nothing that can justify such an act: driving into a crowd of people – men, women, and children – with a definite aim to maim or kill as many as possible. No excuse whatsoever. No “difficult childhood,” no religion, no moral stand – simply nothing. The decision to carry out such an attack is definite, purposely taken, and with malicious intent. The decision is a consciously taken one. You get the vehicle and get in. You drive to a chosen destination and put it in gear. You take aim and put your foot down, trying to hit as many people as possible, regardless. You hit something – a tree in this case – because you are getting out of the vehicle, moving at low speed, and you don’t have control over the thing, jumping out to get away from the crime scene as fast as possible. The damage shows it was not a high‑speed crash. The fact that the man could run away meant no damage to the driver occurred.
The police apparently did a good job catching him. Inside the first twenty‑four hours. Amazing in a city the size and layout of Berlin. Normal missing persons take longer to find, if found at all. After 72 hours the chances diminish dramatically. So 24 hours is exceptional, to say the least. The fastest time for the German police to find a criminal on the run was four days, as seen in the case of the police murder in Holzminden in 1991, where two officers were shot and the perpetrators were arrested shortly after.
The case last weekend was therefore solved in record‑breaking time. The vehicle, a van, was a rental, so a name and a description were available inside the first half hour. Whether that person was identical with the driver is not clear – just an obvious suspect. Whether the man cornered in an allotment garden was the perpetrator is to be determined, as he was shot. Everything points to this, however, as he ran towards and attacked the police officers wanting to arrest him.
As always, a multitude of questions are being asked and the standard answers are being given. The usual finger‑pointing is forthcoming as usual. And the same shortcomings in the judicial system come to the surface once more.
Other questions are not being asked. Let’s look at the usual things first. The fact that the suspect – which he still is, as not having been put on trial and convicted – was on probation and had taken a mandatory de‑escalation course put the judicial process in the limelight. The question of having the suspect tried at the time under youth law and not under adult law implies the system needs changing. The question of how valid a judgement can be in the case of radicalised individuals will always be raised in such a case.
The next subject broached was how to deal with radical Muslim immigrants in Germany. The old method of radicalisation in the mosques is not the main cause anymore. The internet seems to be the main source of indoctrination nowadays.
One of the ambitions of the German governments over the last years has been, in cooperation with the EU, to find ways of controlling the internet and censoring the sites on offer. Such an act as this one in Berlin brings this ambition forward by several steps.
The aim of doing away with juvenile law in special cases, lying dormant for some time, picks up steam again too. The fact that this person is of immigrant pedigree and a radical Islamist is helpful in the anti‑immigrant debate and a boost to the AfD’s anti‑foreigner policy.
Now the thing is, this person was put into a certain category from the start. The fact that he was known to the police and the intelligence services allows for one or two more uncomfortable questions.
Why, if this person was known to be as such, was he not under tighter control? What does being known to police mean in practical terms? Does it mean this person is on file or under observation? Why was someone with a known record of violence put on probation? Who can tell?
Being on probation implies the judge expects a positive result with regard to a good outcome for society. The convicted has to go and see his probation officer regularly. How can this be expected of someone who is put into a de‑radicalisation programme, as that implies the judge knew he was a radical in the first place?
The police, to be able to find the suspect so quickly, had to have help from the intelligence agencies, who will have known the places frequented and helped ask the pertinent questions. In addition to that, getting any amount of police in place in the fairly confined area of a garden colony takes time too.
The fact that the suspect was armed with a sharp instrument – some said it was a machete – was in the news from the start, so the police should have been prepared for what was to come in that garden.
The police have American‑style batons they are trained to use and do use when confronting demonstrators. They have tasers, and CS‑ or pepper spray. They also are armed with pistols, and in cases such as these there are special forces involved armed with automatic weapons and machine guns.
The police are trained and supposed to shoot suspects if attacked in such a way that their lives are in danger. Then they are supposed to shoot to disable and not to kill – shooting in the leg, for example.
Sadly, over the last few years, shooting anyway whatever and killing the suspect has become the norm. In this case in Berlin, several police officers took shots. It is strange that not one was able to incapacitate the suspect and no coordination in the use of firearms happened. Did they all panic, as a single person deemed liable for juvenile jurisdiction ran at them with a knife in his hand, and just blasted away? Who knows? Will we ever know?
That this is primarily a case of murder and attempted murder is beside the point. At the end of the day, Germany is once again confronted with an enemy. The old picture of a potent opponent, hidden from view but lurking around every corner waiting for an opportunity to maim, kill, and destroy the free and tolerant society, springs to life once more.
Whether this is true or not plays no part in the narrative. That the enemy cannot be as potent as presented is to be seen every weekend. No Islamist plots disturb the football games or sports events; political events and music performances and things of such nature take place all the time unhindered. Christopher Street Day in Cologne has not been targeted in such a way. It would seem that under the present circumstances there is the need for a “Necessary Enemy”.
The Western nations, with Germany in the forefront, are more or less alone in their position towards Iran, and the fact that the rest of the world has turned their backs on their hypocrisy and double standards could call for Germany to become a victim of Islamist terrorists. After all, Chancellor Merz did state Israel was doing “our dirty work” vis‑à‑vis Iran, an Islamist regime out to destroy the freedom‑loving Western countries.
It will be interesting to see what will be presented to the public in this matter. The usual demands for a change in the way Muslims are regarded and the way migrant integration is handled will doubtlessly be forthcoming. Solutions that will function and be balanced and acceptable to all concerned, if things proceed as in previous cases, are not to be expected. Sadly so.
