Shortly before three German state elections, a terrorist attack on Berlin’s Christopher
Street Day (CSD) shook the entire country.
On July 25, around 10:00 p.m., a small van plowed into a crowd of people; the perpetrator initially fled the scene.
A day later, on July 26 at around 6 p.m., the suspected perpetrator was shot and killed by
police at an allotment garden complex in Berlin.
Anyone who has been following the terrorist attacks of recent years will notice that they
follow a recurring pattern in certain respects.
Example 1: The perpetrator's identity is established surprisingly quickly.
Passports or cell phones are found either directly at the crime scene or in the vehicle used in the crime.
During the 2016 terrorist attack at the Berlin Christmas market, Anis Amri’s phone was stuck in the radiator grille.
Abdul Ballout, the perpetrator of the recent attack in Berlin, apparently also left his cell phone in the car.
It has now come to light that he is said to have left a second cell phone in the car, on which a video
claiming responsibility is said to have been found.
Perpetrators who leave identification documents or cell phones at the scene of the crime—and this has happened in nearly all
of the attacks in recent years—how likely and credible is that?
Example 2: The perpetrators are identified to the public as terrorist threats and as individuals known to the police.
The attacker Anis Amri in Berlin in 2016 was known to the authorities as a threat, just as, for
example, Chérif Chekatt was in Strasbourg in 2018.
The current perpetrator was also known to the authorities and was under surveillance by
intelligence agencies and the police at times.
However, if we compare the incident at the 2016 Berlin Christmas market with the comments made by former
police officer, journalist, and security expert Stefan Schubert, this is open to question.
“And I received 20,000 documents from all the authorities, and I was also able to speak with a counterterrorism investigator
directly involved in the case, who drew my attention to exactly that point and said: ‘We’ve been trying to arrest Anis Amri
for a year and a half, but we can’t get an arrest warrant.’”
"We’ve had one-on-one conversations with supervisors who said, ‘Leave the man alone!’—despite serious crimes,
despite stabbings in the drug scene, despite direct ties to ISIS, which was very, very active at the time."
It is precisely the cell that Anis Amri…—Anis Amri did not act alone; rather, he had a large ISIS network in Germany,
which included, for example, Abu Wallah—who is currently on trial and is trying to prevent his deportation.
And that was the reason—my theory—that the intelligence agencies, from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution
all the way up to the CIA, did everything in their power to prevent the police from doing their job: arresting this dangerous
man—whom everyone knew it wasn’t a question of if, but only when he would carry out a terrorist attack—in order to track
down the masterminds behind him, since his phone had also been bugged and satellite tracking led to ISIS camps in Libya.
"And that's exactly what the Americans did without batting an eye. That's how the attack on
Breitscheidplatz came about in the first place."
Pattern 3: The perpetrators usually act alone and are shot by the police, as happened in Berlin in 2016, in Munich in
2016, and in Strasbourg in 2018, to name just a few examples.
The same thing happened again in 2026: Abdul Ballout is said to have been apprehended by the Berlin Police’s Special Operations
Unit (SEK) at the Berlin-Spandau allotment garden complex.
After he allegedly ran toward the officers with a stabbing weapon, the officers opened fire.
It remains unclear why the police did not shoot the attacker in the leg.
The Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office is remaining tight-lipped, in part because of unclear witness statements
regarding the number of shots fired. It is said to be "the subject of an investigation."
Pattern 4: Governments typically use terrorist attacks as a pretext to expand general surveillance
powers and thereby further restrict citizens' rights.
Given the public's state of shock, acceptance seems to be many times higher.
Less than 12 hours after the rampage in Berlin on July 25, 2026, Burkard Dregger, the CDU Berlin’s spokesperson on domestic policy,
was already calling for the creation of a new oversight agency that would “actively combat propaganda, hate, and incitement.”
Let’s recall: Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the so-called “USA PATRIOT Act” drastically
curtailed the fundamental rights of the American people.
Following the bombings on the London Underground on July 7, 2005, the United Kingdom immediately
pushed for the expansion of surveillance technology.
In France, following the attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015, cash purchases were strictly
regulated and a state of emergency was declared.
Following the shooting rampage in Munich on July 22, 2016, Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a nine-point plan
that includes preparations for domestic military operations as well as further tightening of gun laws.
Following the 2026 attack in Berlin, German Federal Minister of the Interior Alexander Dobrindt is calling for ankle
monitors and preventive detention for “potential threats.”
“...that we make a political decision to impose restrictions here and ensure that identified
dangerous individuals are not released on probation.”
I also find it doubtful that juvenile criminal law applies in this case. We need to significantly increase protection.
This means that the ankle monitor should be used.
"Electronic monitoring as a means of restricting the freedom of movement of individuals who pose a threat must be a
mandatory measure, and there must be the option to use preventive detention in Germany and throughout Germany."
“In police terminology, ‘persons of concern’ are individuals who may commit a crime.”
"Because there is no evidence that would hold up in court, they are, so to speak,
'almost suspects,'" the Rheinpfalz wrote in 2018.
The law does not define who or what constitutes a “threat,” and the matter remains largely open to
interpretation. This carries a high risk of abuse.
So-called “potential threats” should therefore be subject to detention if there is reason to believe they may
commit serious politically motivated crimes in the future.
Could people who behave in a politically incorrect manner or who refuse to get vaccinated during a potential new “pandemic” be
classified as “threats” in the future and, for example, be monitored with ankle
monitors or even placed in preventive detention?
The call for greater security from politicians once again appears to be an announcement of new restrictive
measures for the public rather than an effort to protect people.
If you would like to learn more about the patterns in the terrorist attacks of recent years, we recommend the thoroughly
researched brochure “Terrorist Attacks Under the Microscope.”
In it, you'll see the alarming parallels between the terrorist attacks of recent years
and their actual causes, explained in detail.