Germany’s first official act of terrorism in the course of the migrant crisis and the ongoing War on Terror.
On the 18th July 2016, 17 years old Riaz Khan Ahmadzai (or Muhammad Riyadh, according to IS) – first believed Afghan, now assumed Pakistani – attacked several people on a train, armed with axe and knife. Four tourists from Hongkong were gravely wounded in the train itself, as well as a local resident on his espace route, before the police could apprehend and shoot him dead. A short time after, clear connections to radical Islam and IS were found. Two out of the five people wounded are still in mortal danger. 
It was just a question of time before these violence acts would hit Germany. The necessity of people to suffer and die before countermeasures are being taken is not only regrettable, but a pathetic display of everyone involved, who could’ve prevented it. Besides the rotating discussion about Islam, terrorism and security, i’d like to shed some more light on a few other points to make.
Because of a Pakistani passport found in his home and a linguistic analysis of a published video from the attacker, it is safe to assume that he lied about his country of origin. Even if there is clear proof this, for both cases of evidence can be explained by geographical and linguistical proximity. Pakistan is a safe country of origin – diminishing the chances of asylum seekers in Europe who originate from there, compared to the war zone Afghanistan.
The age, as well af the country of origin, has to be questioned under these circumstances. The minority is a big factor, granting special rights and a high propability of gaining asylum. With there being several known cases of blatant lying, faked, forged or stolen documents, it has to be paradigm to examin and verify consistently who applies for asylum – and to whom it was already granted. Otherwise, the damage this abuse will deal, financially and socially, will be staggering. For the country it concerns, for the people involved whose trust gets exploited and who should benefit rightfully from this system, and for the system of giving asylum in itself, which degenerates to an authority of social benefit fraud for all those, who are willing to exploit it.
This, as well, is an argument for a precise and thorough investigation of all asylum seekers; against uncontrolled immigration; and for a flow of people, that the concerned country can actually handle, without having to rely on shady deals with aspiring autocrats.
The second point to make, fueling the never-ending discussion, is, of course, integration – or the obvious failure of it in case of the attacker. The known facts are as follows:
On the 30th June 2015, he crossed the german border. Because of his age, he received special treatment, applied for asylum at the end of the year, and had it granted on the 31th March 2016. He was housed in a religious facility, later on in a foster family in a small, scenic village. Local residents describe him positively, he learns the german language, plays in the local football club and starts an apprenticeship in the local bakery. He continues to exercise his Sunni religion.
Through home sickness and the sudden death of a friend killed in action in Afghanistan, he seems to radicalize himself in a short amount of time and acts on behalf of his fallen bretheren and to enact vengeance on the infidels. A suicide note and farewell letter to his father was found in his home, speaking about religious themes, about revenge and the hope of reaching heaven and fellow muslims, who need to defend themselves against foreign powers. German soldiers in Afghanistan are mentioned as well. A self-made flag of the IS is found, which later claims responsibility for the attack.
Now, the question is: How does succesful integration look like? Considering the goals of the integration policy, which was reviewed here earlier, Riaz Khan Ahmadzai fulfilled all, if not every single condition. He lived in a empowering, positive environment without direct radical influences, learned the german language, had an apprenticeship and participated in local activities. According to the federal government, he should have been succesfully integrated – or would have been enroute to this goal. Until some day, he decides to end the lives of several foreign people and ultimately his own. The conclusion that the Sunni believe is responsible for these actions couldn’t be more obvious. It matters little if he entered Germany with the initial plan of exercising violence or only radicalized himself after certain events. The circumstance that such a sudden change of heart is possible and legitimated by the Sunni faith identifies the ideological foundation for what it is: The faith was the defining, if not the only reason for these actions, as well as the motivation. How can someone be looked at as succesfully integrated, when such a faith may negate and ruin all efforts and progress in an instant – and how can we detect and fight this menace?
Last point. Reactions, from public life and politicians as well. After Renate Künast initiated the public debate with a bizarre tweet, in which she questioned the necessity of shooting the attacker dead, and earned herself quite a blowback, i would like to present a small selection of additional comments – and comment them myself, if deemed necessary.
When dealing with those, that come to us parentless, we have to further contemplate on how we can accompany them, how we integrate them and how we help them to withstand their traumata. 
We can’t let this go on. 
Young refugees stand out ever so often with violence and criminal acts, cause police operations and insecurity in the population [..] Extremistic salafists are looking for those young people without social stability, to instrumentalize them for their cause.