Diversionary tactic in Würzburg

To start, a few words of condolence to the Hong Kong family that was vacationing in Bavaria and became the victims of a hateful young Islamic radical on Monday:

"I am endlessly saddened by what happened to you in that train. You sought a German idyll and instead experienced the worst nightmare imaginable. I hope from the bottom of my heart that you will once again awaken from this horror, even if your lives can never be the same again. My thoughts are with you and your relatives in Hong Kong. You must not take personally the fact that most of my colleagues have barely taken notice of you. They have to deal with a number of other very important questions."

Questions such as: "Was the lethal force of police against the perpetrator justified?" "Was the attacker given enough of an opportunity to integrate into German society?" "Was he a terrorist that snuck into Germany among refugees, or was he radicalized after he got here?"

That last question is of the utmost political importance. If the young Afghan were already a terrorist when he came to Germany, it would shine a very negative light on the government's refugee policy. For politicians it is therefore important to determine whether the minor was acting on orders from Islamic State (IS), or if he should be thought of as an individual perpetrator.

After the attack, Federal Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere announced that the attacker had not received orders from IS. Media outlets have thus determined that what we are dealing with is a personal rampage and not an act of terror in the strictest sense. For that reason, the media have gone to great lengths to avoid using the term "terror" in their reporting. In doing so, they seem to be saying that the public at large is unable to tell the difference between peaceful Muslims and Islamic terrorists.

Ridiculing the victims

Let's be honest: Does it really make a difference whether the young man brutally attacked people with an axe on orders from IS or was just "inspired by IS propaganda" as de Maiziere put it? Does the situation become more bearable for the victims if journalists choose to describe the bloodbath as an assault rather than a terror attack?

Quite the opposite: By going to such lengths to find an explanation, even a kind of excuse for the deed, victims are being abused, even ridiculed. For me, Würzburg not only clearly takes its place alongside Paris, Orlando and Nice - the attack also represents a turning point. Now we know that it is not only gay bars and rock concerts that are a thorn in the side of Islamic radicals. They are willing and capable of striking anywhere. Even in the middle of nowhere.

I know that there is no way to guarantee one-hundred-percent security. But as a German citizen I expect the government to know exactly who it is affording entry and who it has to protect. That has not been the case for the last several months. During that time, practically anyone could declare oneself Syrian, register with authorities multiple times, disappear and then re-register.

The fact that IS also published a video from the attacker claiming responsibility for the incident also gives me cause for concern: If the video could make it to the public relations department of IS why couldn't our security services intercept it? Did he send it via carrier pigeon, one with an unknown destination?

The real question

Is all of the bluster over assault or terror, lone wolf or underling, contract killer or copycat simply being used to divert attention from the failures of the state and to brush aside the truly important questions? Questions such as: Was last year's uncontrolled immigration a mistake? If so, how can we mitigate the negative effects thereof? In the first six months of this year alone some 220,000 refugees have already been let in - despite the supposed closing of the Balkan route. Who are these people? Where are they actually coming from? Should we really continue to let human traffickers decide who comes to Germany?

German television moderator Marietta Slomka indirectly addressed the first question to Angela Merkel's chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, in the wake of the attack: Can those opposed to the chancellor's refugee policy feel a sense of vindication?

"If we allow terrorists, whether al-Qaeda or IS, to put an end to students being able to study in other countries, then the terrorists have won," Altmaier answered. "That is why we are not going to let them take away our Western lifestyle. That is why we are fighting terrorism."

I have to admit, I really didn't understand that flood of words. Why can't German students study abroad, or foreign students study here, if the state protects its borders - one of its primary responsibilities? So was the assault in Würzburg an act of terror in the end? And when did taking the train become part of Western lifestyle?

Zhang Danhong was born in Beijing and has been living in Germany for more than 20 years.